Editorial: Seize chance to lead way on climate change

Over the years, there has been much debate over where this country should position itself in its response to climate change. Should it place itself in the vanguard of countries by setting ambitious greenhouse gas emissions targets? Should it play it safe and become what the New Zealand Institute once described as a fast follower? Or should we be timid in the belief that self-sacrifice would be futile, especially when our economic base provides grounds for special pleading? The question is again relevant as the Government prepares to name the emissions target for 2020 that it will take later this year to Copenhagen, where a climate treaty to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol is set to be negotiated.

Much has changed since an agreement favourable to this country was hammered out in Japan. Most notably, fears about the impact of climate change have intensified. These have gained popular acceptance to such a degree that the United States and Australia, which declined to ratify the protocol, are now firmly on board. That, in turn, removes a key rationale for a shuffling of the feet or gathering at the back of the queue. Indeed, this week Geoff Ross, the founder of 42 Below Vodka, wrote persuasively in this newspaper of the advantage of being acknowledged as a leader in environmental protection.

New Zealand's biggest earners - tourism, agriculture, seafood, sustainable forestry, food and beverage - all benefited from the credentials provided by our environment, he wrote. This gave us a point of difference, a reason for consumers to pay more for our products and, most importantly, a way to grow in a competitive world. Copenhagen, said Mr Ross, was a great opportunity for New Zealand to make a big global statement and to sell more for more money because of it.

The Greens, unsurprisingly, want a similar strategy. They say that this country could, at low or zero cost, reduce emissions to 40 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020, thereby halving current levels. The Government maintains this is unrealistic. It has been steering discussion towards a 15 per cent cut from 1990 levels, which would also be 15 per cent below the present commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. Its case for placing New Zealand at the back of the field is predicated on several factors, perhaps most notably the fact that nearly half its emissions come from farming. This has become even more of a problem because research has yet to find an easy solution for the methane and nitrous oxide emissions arising from the bodily functions of livestock.

It appears much of this country's effort in Copenhagen will, therefore, be directed towards achieving changes to rules relating to land use and forestry. The strategy is reasonable because success could reduce New Zealand's emissions significantly. Expanding the area in forest is one obvious way to set about meeting this country's targets. At the moment, new planting is minimal. A change in the rules for counting forest emissions, particularly when trees are harvested, would go a long way towards changing that.

The public has not been well served by the renewed debate on what approach New Zealand should adopt. Major emitters have spread unnecessary alarm over the cost to the average wage-earner of an ambitious target. The Greens, for their part, make light of the obstacles to the likes of aggressive tree planting, pest eradication and lower stocking rates. On balance, however, an enterprising approach appeals more than caution. It would not be inimical to a push for rule changes.

The world has become far more environmentally conscious. We cannot afford to be seen as a laggard. There is a chance to seize the initiative. It should not be missed.