Is it possible to achieve zero emissions, zero waste or zero road deaths and serious injuries within a roading system?
There are a wide range of views about climate change and the role that New Zealand might play in the international scene.
Many people deny the issue of global warming itself, and also consider that a small island nation at the bottom end of the South Pacific can have very little influence on the world climate, as compared with the large carbon-emitting land masses of the Northern Hemisphere.
So, it was an ambitious move when our parliament passed into legislation the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019.
I say ambitious, because this sets a zero target for greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
The legislation provides for a strategic approach through the creation of a vision, a set of goals, action plans, targets, progress monitoring as well as getting a wider public commitment.
No matter what you might think about climate change, the legislation says that," We must take this seriously, and this is how we are going to achieve that goal".
It's against this context that we could consider Road to Zero, New Zealand's Road Safety Strategy 2020-2030.
This strategy is partnered in its delivery by the Ministry of Transport, NZTA and police.
It takes its inspiration from Vision Zero, the Swedish model that was enshrined in that country's legislation in 1997.
This stated that "No one should be killed or seriously injured within the Swedish transport system and the structure and function of the road transport system needs to be brought into line with the demands that this goal entails".
New Zealand has no such legislation, the strategy has not been subject to the select committee process, public consultation, parliamentary debate and the implied accountability with the same legislative teeth, that the zero-emissions strategy has.
It is left to the partners to develop and implement the strategy and a recent report from consultants Martin Jenkins indicates it has a long way to go, in respect of public buy-in, investment, leadership, accountability and performance to achieve a significant reduction in deaths and serious injuries.
The key difference between Vision Zero of Sweden and Road to Zero of New Zealand is the type of rigour articulated in the Zero Carbon strategy - legislative sanction, public understanding of the issues, targets, an action plan, measurable monitoring and public ownership.
If a strategy is driven by only the police and NZTA without significant ownership by other government departments, local authorities, vehicle manufacturers, tyre manufacturers, road contractors, road users and road user advocates such as NZAA, then it will only limp along.
Sunday Star-Times editor Tracy Watkins this week articulated the issue like this.
"The Government has announced a lofty goal to slash New Zealand's road toll to zero. But you have to wade through a lot of glossy brochures to find out when and how they hope to achieve that. I gave up at page 68.
"There is also a costly TV campaign where a cast of dozens suddenly appear on a roadside for no apparent reason. I am no closer to understanding how the ad will have any effect whatsoever on lowering the road toll or encouraging safer driving."
We are told that such ads are an investment in behaviour change, but if intelligent people don't get the message then, how do we change behaviour if we haven't bought into the notion of what needs to change.
We have a long way to go and we will need to own the notion that this strategy is about us and our need to change.
Zero means nothing unless we own the why and what of we need to do, to achieve something.
