Two children on their way to school by bicycle. Is it bad for a state agency to encourage this?
Two children on their way to school by bicycle. Is it bad for a state agency to encourage this?
Simon Wilson is an award-winning senior writer covering politics, the climate crisis, transport, housing, urban design and social issues, with a focus on Auckland. He joined the Herald in 2018.
Transport, housing and oil and gas exploration policies will create a surge in carbon emissions.
OPINION
Kāinga Ora, the housing ministry, has made 15 bicycles availableto tenants at a housing project in Rotorua and everyone is losing their defecatory matter.
It “seems wholly inappropriate”, says local MP and Cabinet minister Todd McClay, a remark that makes him seem wholly uninformed, although not afraid to speak out anyway.
Some of those bikes are used by kids to get to school, so their attendance is up. One was used by a woman to get to a job interview, which she aced. Now she uses the bike to get to work, because it’s shift work and the buses don’t run at the right time for her.
Little things like that build community and can make a big difference to people’s lives. Having kids in school and adults in work isn’t a drain on taxpayers, it reduces the burden on them.
And reducing car dependence is an important societal goal with lots of benefits. Not least, it’s essential if we’re to come anywhere close to meeting our climate goals.
This is a pilot scheme. Maybe it won’t work, maybe it will. But the goal is terrific: they’re working out how to make it possible for tenants not to need a car. However well it works, there will be valuable lessons.
But when initiatives like this get into the public domain, the climate framing is often completely absent. Why?
Climate Minister Simon Watts. Photo / RNZ, Samuel Rillstone
There are no targets and few specifics. There’s more to come, but the significance of such a bland and generalised announcement lies in the message it quietly delivers. The Government is telling us: “Don’t worry, we’ve got this, you don’t have to do anything.”
But that isn’t true. While carbon markets are important and technologies of many kinds will be vital, none of it will work if we don’t also change the way we live.
The changes won’t have to hurt, if we do them well. In fact, they will have enormous potential to improve our lives. But that’s not a message you hear often, and as with Kāinga Ora’s bikes pilot, it easily gets drowned out.
An average of 150,000 people are dying in heat waves and Europe is on track for its worst yet. Another study from ESSD gives the world an even chance of breaching the 1.5C warming threshold as soon as 2029.
We can still prevent that, but we’re nowhere near doing it yet. And in this country, the urgency isn’t there.
Despite being sneered at, those HomeStar 6 Kāinga Ora homes are important, because in the climate scheme of things buildings are important. The energy to run them accounts for at least 20% of our total emissions.
Research at the University of Otago has shown that if we adopted OECD best practices, which the Green Building Council says are common in the OECD, we could reduce the winter peak demand for energy by 75% by 2050.
During the election campaign last year, 170 organisations involved in construction pushed for this. Calling themselves the Homes We Deserve alliance, they called on political parties to commit to a renovation programme that would make at least 200,000 homes warmer, healthier and more energy-efficient. Over nine years.
Nobody seemed to notice. But it’s not a big ask and the potential benefits are enormous. As well as reducing emissions, the Homes We Deserve plan would slash household power bills, create thousands of jobs and improve public health, especially among children and the elderly.
Just this week energy-efficiency company Ecobulb reported it had helped 11,000 homes achieve these goals. If those gains were rolled out to 1.5 million homes nationwide, Ecobulb said, we’d save $1 billion a year in power bills, reduce carbon emissions equal to taking all cars off the road for a year, and cut the peak electricity load by as much power as Hamilton uses.
It beggars belief we don’t take the energy efficiency of homes and other buildings more seriously.
It’s clear enough we will need more electricity in this country. Because of that, you might think, the drive for efficiency would be all-encompassing. But no. We’ll just ramp up our production of greenhouse gas emissions and claim there’s no choice if the economy is to survive.
A Greenpeace protest against oil drilling off the Taranaki coast, 2013.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has told Brown that new oil and gas exploration will “add 14.2 million tonnes of CO2 emissions”.
The only winners in this disingenuous nonsense are the fossil-fuel companies and their carbon-addicted clients in various parts of the economy. And, I guess, the Government that looks after them.
In his capacity as Minister of Transport, Brown has also scrapped the Clean Car Discount, which has collapsed the electric vehicle (EV) market. He’s also weakened vehicle emissions standards, which will add an estimated 11 million tonnes of CO2 to our transport emissions.
Business journalist Bernard Hickey calculates that with these measures the Government has “destroyed at least $20 billion in net present value of the Crown’s equity”. If New Zealand doesn’t meet its emissions-reduction commitments by 2030, we will have to pay for it.
It boils down to this: “Economic necessity” trumps environmental reality, even though energy efficiency would allow us to integrate the goals of both and improve people’s lives along the way.
It’s not just buildings and transport. In housing, where Bishop’s new density rules for cities are very welcome, the elimination of rural-urban boundaries will create more sprawl, more under-resourced communities, more congestion on the roads, more energy use. More emissions, less efficiency.
Again, why don’t we frame policies in terms of their climate impact? Because if we did, it would be obvious they were bad policies.
And now Act MP Mark Cameron has a bill before Parliament to ban councils from using the climate crisis to frame their decision-making.
Herald cartoonist Rod Emmerson's take on Act MP Mark Cameron's bill to prevent local councils from considering climate change during the consent process for development. Illustration / Rod Emmerson
At least he’s being honest. There’s no “economic necessity” fig leaf for this guy. He’s against climate action and he’s happy to say it. His party is fully backing him and so is Federated Farmers.
“It has never made sense for local councils to individually regulate greenhouse gas emissions,” says the Feds’ RMA reform spokesman Mark Hooper.
This would be the country’s leading farming organisation, which constantly complains that city people don’t believe farmers are pulling their weight on climate action.
Can’t really have it both ways, can you?
From bicycles to buildings to farming to oil and gas, “economic necessity” should not be the enemy of climate action. Efficiency, long-term resilience and prosperity are the real goals, and if we treated them as such, climate targets would trump everything.
We don’t even have a choice, because every other scenario leads to catastrophe.
