Shaw’s legacy is not yet a sure thing
There’s a story James Shaw loves telling people of late. Ports of Auckland needs a new tugboat. A brand new one will last about 25 years – but will run on emissions-spewing diesel. Since the port committed itself to going carbon neutral by 2040, that’s an issue. So instead of buying a diesel one it has commissioned the world’s first electric tugboat.
Like most feel-good climate change stories, it is more a PR anecdote than anything likely to save the world. Ports of Auckland facilitates about the same amount of emissions every single day with its car imports than it will save in a year from its tugboat.
But the point for Shaw is that the business looked ahead two decades and made sure the decisions it was making now wouldn’t ruin its chances of lowering emissions then.
With the Zero Carbon Bill that Shaw finally put into law on Thursday, he hopes the whole economy will start making choices like that.
The climate change minister and Green Party co-leader was rightly elated on Thursday. Not only had he got the bill passed after two years of battling for it, he had done it with 55 votes from the National Party to boot, after not making any of the changes National had asked for.
The bill itself is a complicated mess. It sets several climate change targets into law with an eye to keeping warming within 1.5 degrees Celsius (something no single country is mighty enough to achieve alone). To get the country to meet those targets, it creates an independent Climate Change Commission to set ‘‘emissions budgets’’ for governments to meet over five-year periods, and legally compels ministers to explain why they are not meeting those budgets if they don’t.
It’s based on a model that has worked quite well in the UK – reducing emissions by 40 per cent – but the UK had more lowerhanging fruit to get on to than we do.
Shaw is hopeful that, even as a mess, the bill can act as a structure for governments for decades to come, much like the Public Finance Act has for debt. It’s easy to forget, but there was a time when governments fixed seemingly intractable problems like inflation
– although climate change will likely be even harder.
But to get people to actually trust that this structure would remain in place, Shaw knew he would have to bring National along with him. Any new structure that National simply promised to tear down when it eventually won office would seem toothless, in his eyes.
The targets have been the main source of political tension. Early on, the Greens were very keen on a ‘‘net zero’’ target for 2050 across all emissions. Instead, we have ‘‘net zero’’ carbon emissions by 2050 and a different target for methane – 10 per cent reduction by 2030 and then between 24 and 47 per cent less by 2050. Shaw was also keen to give the commission a bit more actual power, a la the Reserve Bank. But Winston Peters quashed that, and made sure everyone knew about it.
Shaw made these compromises early on, when the draft bill was months overdue. These were the changes that got NZ First and National onboard, and they have kept them on ever since.
There is a good argument that Shaw should have made use of power instead of sharing it. National rarely obsesses about getting Labour and the Greens onboard with changes it makes when it is in power. Sometimes you just have to pass a bill, pray you win the election, and hope that, if you don’t, the other guys will find it too hard to undo your work.
Shaw is adamant that the bill was worth the wait and the compromises.
In the end, National was wedged into a very tricky space. As much as it might like to project itself as the party for rural New Zealand, the truth is there are not enough people in rural New Zealand to get it the kinds of vote totals it needs to win power. National is an urban party as much as it is a rural one, and it recognises that climate change is not going away as a topic.
Now it can look constructive on the big structural stuff like the Zero Carbon Bill while turning the actual day-to-day climate change issues into proxy culture wars – see the feebate proposal, or investment in public transport. National never wants to appear to be against climate change action in general, just against whatever climate action the Government is pushing at that time.
In a strange way, this is something of a victory for Simon Bridges’ leadership. He came into the role promising some compromise on climate change. Several in his caucus, eager to destroy NZ First’s brand in the regions, were keen on wrecking Shaw’s hopes for bipartisanship. But in the end, all 55 MPs – including Judith Collins, who had toyed with crossing the floor to vote against it – voted for the bill.
Ironically, one of the big changes Bridges promised to bring in if elected could make the law tougher on farmers. He’s pledged to take out the methane target, and ask the commission to set one instead. It could well set a stronger one, as it will be unrestrained by politics. But Bridges needed a way to oppose the methane target – hated by the farming lobby – without just saying he would get rid of it, so here we are.
Shaw will be celebrating this weekend. A bill that a bunch of environmental lobbyists dreamed up not that long ago is now the law of the land. But to set up a real structure for longevity, he will need to establish the commission and set down convention for how governments respond to its recommendations, instead of letting someone else set the standard.
Doing that will require winning another election. Without that, the Zero Carbon Bill could end up as just another feel-good piece of fluff.
OK boomers and millennials, it’s been a whole week at Parliament. Here’s who’s up, and who’s down.
UP James Shaw
successfully ushered in the Zero Carbon Bill with cross-party support, taking New Zealand a step forward in addressing climate change.
has provided some high-level political drama in the High Court this week, challenging both former National MPs and public sector chiefs over the leaking details of his superannuation overpayment.
Shaw is hopeful that, even as a mess, the bill can act as a structure for governments for decades to come.
Winston Peters Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern
disposed of a brewing immigration stoush being beaten up by coalition partner and NZ First MP Shane Jones. After Jones claimed to be speaking of ‘‘battalions’’ of Kiwis happy to see the end of Indian arranged marriages qualifying for partnership visas, Ardern directed Immigration NZ to reverse a decision to deny such visas.
DOWN Anne Tolley
admitted telling her sister of Peters’ superannuation overpayment in an ‘‘outburst’’, revealing the former minister’s handling of private information was porous.
Shane Jones
was unaware his populist pledge against arranged marriages was being cut off at the knees by Ardern on Thursday. As Jones justified his comments – labelled racist by Indian groups – to a media pack, Ardern made her own announcement to another crowd of reporters just metres away.
Tracey Martin
was open about the failings of Oranga Tamariki after the release of a highly critical report on the contentious uplift of a baby in Hastings. The review largely confirmed the events described in a Newsroom investigation, but Martin was unwilling to revise her earlier statements casting doubt on the reporting and the family’s story.
QUOTE OF THE WEEK:
‘‘OK boomer,’’ retorted Green MP Chlo¨e Swarbrick to heckling National MPs on Wednesday, sparking headlines across the globe. CNN and the Washington Post both picked up her use of the internet meme. The subject of the speech, the Zero Carbon Bill, did not earn as much international coverage.