Climate reaction ‘urgent’
Robust, emergency action is needed in response to the ‘‘deepening ecological crisis’’ of climate change, says a letter to the Government signed by 150 academics and researchers.
It does not say what that action should be but climate scientist and key signatory Professor James Renwick said yesterday the Government needed to ‘‘produce the deep and lasting emissions reductions required, especially in the transport, industry and agriculture sectors’’.
Cordelia Lockett, a senior lecturer in bridging education at Unitec, said she started the letter because of her concerns following a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report published in October on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
The report said there was about 12 years to make the dramatic reductions needed in global net carbon emissions to get climate change under control.
‘‘In order to reduce emissions drastically in 12 years is going to take radical action,’’ Lockett said.
‘‘I’m not getting that sense or urgency from our Government.’’
The economic impact of the necessary changes would be ‘‘huge’’ but the consequences of not taking action were ‘‘enormous’’. ‘‘I’m not an economist. I just know that not doing it is not an option.’’
Many of those who signed the letter do not appear to be working directly in the area of climate science. Those who are include Renwick from the school of geography, environment and earth sciences at Victoria University; Prof Martin Manning from the Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria; Canterbury University environmental physics lecturer Dr Laura Revell; Emeritus Professor Andrew Sturman from the geography department at Canterbury; Prof Cliff Law from the chemistry department at Otago University; and Associate Professor Anita Wreford from the Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit at Massey University.
Renwick said a list of suggestions wasn’t being made to the Government but the aim was policy settings consistent with rapid de-carbonisation of the economy. ‘‘Whether that means a big carbon tax, with the money made from that re-distributed into public transport and renewables – that’s a possibility.’’
Another idea being talked about was to adopt wartime thinking that there was some immediate existential threat. The Zero Carbon Bill was great. ‘‘What we’re really wanting is quite a lot more of the same,’’ Renwick said. He was not an economist and did not know how much the changes would cost.
‘‘If you leave climate change unchecked, the potential cost to the economy and society all over the world are almost infinite. We’re talking about the breakdown of the rule of law, social cohesion, of economic activity,’’ Renwick said.
Mobilising the economy in the desired direction should be good for employment. ‘‘We’re not talking about shutting things down. There will be costs certainly, but there will also be opportunities.’’