The New Zealand Herald

Climate Commission has the votes

NZ First, Labour and the Greens have all endorsed such a body

- Gary Taylor comment Gary Taylor is CEO of the Environmen­tal Defence Society and convener of the Australia-NZ Climate Change and Business Conference on Tuesday and Wednesday. www.climateand­business.com

The big winner in the recent election was the environmen­t. It featured as a more prominent issue than in any election in recent times. The main concerns were the bad state of our rivers, flatlining of the Department of Conservati­on’s core budget, and climate change.

Jacinda Ardern described climate change as “my generation’s nuclear-free moment”. That’s a powerful analogy and carries with it a call to arms that has resonance. It implies reducing emissions and transition to a low-carbon economy — but by when? It implies that New Zealand needs to do more — but what?

This is where things get complicate­d. A number of groups, academics, thinktanks and business organisati­ons are all offering solutions. Many are on the right track. Some are unrealisti­c. Others may be premature, or too late: timing is important if we want to minimise the costs of transition.

There are two kinds of domestic policies on emission reduction: a carbon charge, and other measures.

Pricing carbon incentivis­es emissions reduction, but there’s disagreeme­nt about how to do that and what the price should be. Labour and National favour the emissions trading scheme, NZ First and the Greens a direct carbon charge. There’s disagreeme­nt on whether agricultur­e — 50 per cent of our emissions — should be subject to a price (while meanwhile the sector gets a big taxpayer subsidy).

Other measures are fast evolving. The motor vehicle fleet is slowly moving to electric and with nearly 90 per cent of our electricit­y coming from renewables, New Zealand is well-placed for take-up.

Researcher­s are looking at how to reduce methane from livestock. EECA is promoting innovative energy efficiency initiative­s. Foresters are starting to farm carbon again. All positive stuff.

But there’s bad stuff as well. NZ Rail inexplicab­ly abandoned electrific­ation of the main trunk line in favour of new diesel trains. Massive investment­s are going into new motorways. There are subsidies for oil exploratio­n and government support for new coal mines. All producing more emissions.

Overall, the nation’s climate policies are ad hoc and lack coherence. There’s no overall plan, no consistenc­y of approach.

We have our Paris commitment­s to reduce carbon emissions by 30 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030, and longer term we (and the rest of the world) need to transition to net zero emissions by around mid-century to limit dangerous global warming (net zero meaning emissions less carbon sinks including from forestry).

The problem is that climate change is an unusually long-lived policy challenge — one that will take decades to address — and our politics works on short-term three-year cycles. Relying on business as usual just won’t cut the mustard.

But the election results have provided an opportunit­y to make real progress. On preliminar­y seats in the new Parliament, there’s a clear majority in favour of creating a Climate Commission.

An independen­t Climate Commission, modelled on the successful British version, would have its own act of Parliament setting out its role and responsibi­lities. Generation Zero has had a good attempt at scoping such legislatio­n. The Parliament­ary Commission­er for the Environmen­t has recommende­d such an entity. The Productivi­ty Commission asked, “Does New Zealand need an independen­t body to oversee domestic and internatio­nal climate change commitment­s?”

The Climate Commission would have an independen­t board and access to the best expertise. It would be an agency of Parliament, like the Commission­er for the Environmen­t or the Audit Office.

It would prepare a low carbon plan, setting out the pathway to net zero. It would report to Parliament in an open, transparen­t fashion on clear milestones. It would not have decision-making powers: those must remain the prerogativ­e of ministers. But it would recommend, and ministers would be obliged to explain any departure from those recommenda­tions.

NZ First, Labour and the Greens have all explicitly endorsed this approach. National has equivocate­d, although minister Nick Smith acknowledg­ed the idea had merit at a recent conference.

NZ First fleshed out its commitment­s in some detail:

Establish a new Parliament­ary Commission for Climate Change (PCCC) as an Office of Parliament.

Make the PCCC legally responsibl­e for reporting against both the Kyoto and Paris Agreements setting three-yearly “carbon budgets” designed to reach these commitment­s (first budget to become operative in 2021).

Provide for the PCCC to offer independen­t advice to central and local government on meeting the carbon budget and preparing for climate change.

So NZ First is well-placed to make the Climate Commission happen, especially if it forms a government with Labour and the Greens. But even if it enters into a coalition with National, or sits on the cross benches, it could still retain its freedom to support the required legislatio­n. And National might come round.

At a conference next week we have John Gummer (Lord Deben), chairman of the UK Climate Committee, and Dr Jan Wright elaboratin­g on how a Climate Commission could aid our efforts.

 ?? Picture / Dean Purcell ?? Wind can be good or bad. Researcher­s are looking at how to reduce methane from livestock.
Picture / Dean Purcell Wind can be good or bad. Researcher­s are looking at how to reduce methane from livestock.
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand