Three years to prove progress
Just over eight months ago, a feelgood story swept like awhirlwind through a global population adjusting to the rapidly altering reality of living with a global pandemic. It was the kind of story peoplewanted to believe at the time, an upside to the downturn. Apparently, dolphins had returned to the canals of Venice, clearer in the absence of powered craft. The romantically inclined imagined the pandemicwas providing some unforeseen mitigation of the climate crisis.
Of course, the story was revealed within days to be fake news. The climate crisis was still with us, and if anything, the battle to arrest it had been set back by the global focus necessarily shifting squarely to the immediate priority of Covid-19. Climate change, the biggest issue of the age, was put on the backburner.
But if the coronavirus was a handbrake, there are also some parallels to be desired between the situation that confronted us in March and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s declaration of a climate emergency, in Parliament yesterday.
Before she even made it, the declaration was decried as a ‘‘marketing stunt that won’t stop one tonne of emissions’’. That was ACT leader David Seymour, arguably this Government’s most vocal critic in opposition, who added: ‘‘If you’ve got a policy, you don’t need to declare an emergency.’’
Declaring a situation an emergency, however, is an indication to the wider public of the seriousness with which it is viewed. ‘‘Emergency’’ was aword that was front and centre early this year. On March 25, hours before New Zealand went into level 4 lockdown, a state of national emergency was declared, eventually running until May 13.
That was significant. It said the threat was real, and serious. A state of emergency confers on authorities powers not normally available to them, including the possibility of military patrols. It never came to that, but there is little doubt the declaration, updated weekly, helped focus New Zealanders’ minds on responding appropriately. Along, of course, with essential financial measures, like the wage subsidy that supported many through aworrying winter.
Declaring a climate emergency is nowhere near the same thing, but it signals an intention to act decisively, and the fact that this one includes a commitment to going carbon-neutral within just five years indicates it has high-priority status. Arguably, it also indicates that the political will exists to devote significant resources to addressing the issue. Small-business owners, and those who own homes set to be rendered uninsurable in the next 15 years, as Stuff reported yesterday, will hope that extends to financial support to help them face the coming challenges.
The Government has been criticised in some quarters for focusing too heavily on the Covid crisis, which delivered Labour its election landslide in October. So it is significant, and to its credit, that this step has been taken so early in the current term.
However, the measure of this declaration will be in the action that follows. Five years is a desperately tight timeframe for an issue of this magnitude. It represents a serious commitment that, should it not be followed through, will rightly lead to heavy criticism, and likely lost votes.
By the time we hit the run-in to the 2023 general election, carbon neutrality will need to be within reach. Otherwise yesterday’s declaration will be a rod for this Government’s back.
However, the measure of this [climate] declaration will be in the action that follows.