Motorists deal with an unhappy reality linked to climate change during Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods. Photo / Dean Purcell
Motorists deal with an unhappy reality linked to climate change during Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods. Photo / Dean Purcell
Opinion by Steve Doole
OPINION:
Are you thinking a return to normal is possible after Cyclone Gabrielle? Maybe you already have. After all, what could possibly go wrong?
Our problem is, we are addicted to car travel.
So many people are addicted that almost no one is talking about it. Matthew Hooton (Herald, February23) recently didn’t mention it. Even those masters of slow action called the Climate Change Commission don’t mention it.
Yes, I have travelled where I want when I wanted - the great freedom that modern transport allows. Many people use this freedom every day to drive to work or study, or have lifestyles with car travel at their core.
Of course, there are consequences we ignore - consequences not immediate on us, or so we thought, and we liked to think mostly affecting someone else, sometime in the future. We kidded ourselves, didn’t we?
Illustration / Rod Emmerson
Our city, our country is no longer safe from the unintended consequences of this addiction.
Apparently, NZ is about the seventh highest country on the planet for the number of car miles travelled per person each year, only lower than the US and some tiny places, but above all other countries, including Australia.
Figures on the number of vehicles per person are high too. In 2000, NZ had two-thirds (0.65) of a car per person. By 2012, Auckland Transport estimated we had three-quarters (0.75) of a car per person. Something has to give, and it is - our climate is stressing.
Scientists are saying that events like Cyclone Gabrielle will become more frequent; more extreme.
Does the Government have the wits to reduce our addiction to cars? Or even start. Where is the plan to cut the number of car journeys in, say, half?
Turning off the supply of vehicles with petrol and diesel engines should be an easy step. Does Cabinet have enough bottle to face down the vested interests?
Ministers seldom say anything about subsidies for vehicle use, or anything else that could be adjusted, which is clueless and weak.
For instance, the subsidy that vehicle users take in terms of clean air made dirty seems missing from the agenda.
Transport advisers to the Government should be well aware of tactics to reduce tailpipe emissions. Perhaps advisers don’t tell the Government about the total costs of the way we transport ourselves, like the amount of money Kiwis as a whole spend on vehicles and fuel each week, or the cost of cleaning the air that is spoiled - is that too hard a problem to tackle? The Government and civil service are a long way from making a business case for dramatically reducing emissions.
I understand Australia has not copied New Zealand in allowing the import of large numbers of used vehicles. Few OECD countries seem to have followed New Zealand on this.
Yet, halting the import of used cars will give a shot in the arm to sales of new vehicles that emit less pollution, especially electric vehicles.
The Government could also double the number of buses in cities - yes, bus driver wages will probably need to double. Coaches and distance buses could also be revitalised too. Cars would also be less attractive with increased charges on vehicles, such as registration fees, change of ownership fees, and licensing fees.
How about empowering councils to charge for parking overnight in all public spaces, including any part of roads and reserves, that is, only vehicles parked on private property would be exempt.
I use the road in front of my house myself. Why is this free? It’s subsidised by you, the public, to me.
Steve Doole.
What if all government departments purchased only zero-emission vehicles? And how about funding councils to contract only zero-emission buses through city centres, and near schools and hospitals?
The most straightforward change could be this month enforcing emissions standards to the highest overseas. All vehicles should exceed the standard. This sounds fair to me - why should any vehicle pollute the air we breathe more than any other vehicle?
Yes, many vehicles would not comply, and can be scrapped or put in museums, not just old ones. Unfair some people might shout. I don’t buy that - our health and existence is a treasure for each of us.
The real issue is our addiction. Transport authorities seem similar to drug dealers, over decades encouraging us to increase overall pollution levels, so could health authorities take charge instead?
Reducing addiction is possible. Look how successful smoke-free efforts have been. Could similar, faster, efforts result in travel behaviour change en masse, and lower emissions?
Our lifestyles have to change pretty sharpish. Otherwise, our travel choices will continue to spoil lots of air, and contribute to future Gabrielles.
Steve Doole campaigns for shared transport and active travel.
