This Reuters headline might be just such an example.
“New Zealand scraps clean, green policies to boost economy” could in my view be the result of a desire to boost clicking and internet traffic but the language has the potential to be divisive.
The effect could be yet more polarisation within society and will almost certainly result in negative perceptions from overseas.
The Reuters article suggested that New Zealand’s green credentials are at risk because the National-led Government is overturning some of the last government’s environmental reforms “in a bid to boost a flailing economy”.
Reuters is an international news agency and some context of New Zealand’s environmental performance in comparison with other developed nations would have helped to set the words in context.
The latest Legatum Prosperity Index (2023) ranks New Zealand 11th out of 167 countries for environment, defined as the aspects of the physical environment that have a direct effect on people’s daily lives and changes that might have an impact on the prosperity of future generations.
Yale’s 2024 Index ranks New Zealand 33rd of 180 countries, above the United States (34th) and Singapore (44th), both generally considered First World countries.
There are no countries above New Zealand that derive the bulk of their income from agriculture.
International tourists give another perspective – a mere 0.1% of them rated New Zealand’s “natural scenery and wilderness” as poor in the June quarterly Ministry for Business, Innovation, and Employment survey; 0.8% were neutral, 12.7% gave “good” and 86.4% gave “very good” — that’s an A+ rating.
Further, 94.4% of visitors are likely or highly likely (scored seven or higher out of 10) to recommend New Zealand to others.
International visitors contributed nearly $11 billion to the economy last year, and though not all of the profits stay in New Zealand (rental cars and hotels tend to be owned by overseas companies), employment is significant (6.7% of total employment), as is brand recognition (and purchases) when home.
Those billions sit alongside $54.6b which comes into the country from primary sector exports.
Listen to Jamie Mackay interview Dr Jacqueline Rowarth on The Country below:
Sometimes forgotten, is that tourists admiring New Zealand scenery are seeing what farmers and growers look after.
When on Department of Conservation land, they are seeing the results supported by the government through taxation of society, including farmers and growers.
The nub of the issue is that New Zealand needs income to support aspirations.
We need income to support health, education, science, environment, in fact, every government portfolio.
Budget cuts have been in the news all year, and people have been made redundant.
Media coverage of the increases in the cost of living has been considerable, the latest being KidsCan calling for donations because it cannot meet the need for food and clothing for children: “More than 10,000 children in 260 schools and ECEs qualify for KidsCan help but remain on the charity’s waiting list”.
In order to support society, business must be enabled and more income generated.
The Reuters article stated that the current “centre-right coalition announced it will reverse a ban on oil and gas exploration, push the pricing of agricultural emissions back five years, and encourage more mining”.
Never forgetting that internationally we rate highly, we need increased income, not only to support society but also to invest in new technologies to achieve a “greener” future.
Most people in New Zealand know that farming is important for the economy.
NZ Herald research at the end of 2022 showed that 30% of people strongly agree and 40% of people agree that “a farming-based economy is good for the future of this country”.
With 22% neutral, only 8% were negative. The 8% are the vocal minority.
Far more New Zealanders are concerned about the cost of living (59%) than climate change (19%), or environmental pollution/water (6%), perhaps recognising that New Zealand’s environmental performance is generally rather better than other countries are achieving.
The Reuters article stated, “The farmers who helped [Prime Minister Christopher] Luxon’s Government come to power had said the environmental policies that the coalition Government [is] reversing would have made dairy and meat too costly to produce.”
This has been supported repeatedly by farmers, Federated Farmers of NZ, and various budget calculations by levy bodies such as DairyNZ and Beef+Lamb.
If farmers can’t cover costs, what then for the economy and the landscape?
An alternative headline to the Reuters article could have been “New Zealand ensures clean, green policies are fit for purpose to boost economy”.
Not negative, not divisive, and maybe people would click through to the article to see what was being done.
And maybe some more balance in understanding could be achieved.
Your finger has power. Every click creates more of the same. Think before pressing the link.
