NZ’s climate credentials fall short

Climate Change Minister James Shaw and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern speak during a press...
Climate Change Minister James Shaw and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern speak during a press conference at Parliament after last year’s passing of the Zero Carbon Act. PHOTO: THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD
Despite having a zero-
carbon law, New Zealand is in danger of being seen as a follower rather than a leader in the area of climate policy, David Hall writes.
 
 

Back in pre-Covid times last year, when New Zealand passed the Zero Carbon Act, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern insisted “New Zealand will not be a slow follower” on climate change.

It struck a clear contrast with the previous National government’s approach, which the then prime minister, John Key, often described as being “a fast follower, not a leader”.

He had lifted this language from the New Zealand Institute’s 2007 report, which argued against “lofty rhetoric about saving the planet or being a world leader”. Instead, it counselled New Zealand to respond without “investing unnecessarily in leading the way”.

Mr Key was eventually accused of failing to live up to even this unambitious ideal — New Zealand came to be known as a climate laggard.

With her hand on the nation’s tiller since 2017, has Ms Ardern done any better? Is New Zealand a climate leader, and not merely a symbolic leader on the international speaking circuit but a substantive leader that sets examples for other countries to follow?

Finally a fast follower

On my analysis of Ms Ardern’s government, New Zealand is now, finally, a fast follower.

The Government’s climate policy is best evaluated from three perspectives: the domestic, international and moral.

From a domestic perspective, where a government is judged against the governments that preceded it, Ms Ardern is entitled to declare (as she did when the Zero Carbon Act was passed) that we have done more in 24 months than any government in New Zealand has ever done on climate action.

But at the international level, where New Zealand is judged against the actions of other countries and its international commitments, it is more a fast follower than a leader, defined by policy uptake and international advocacy rather than innovation.

At the moral level, where New Zealand is judged against objectives such as the 1.5degC carbon budget, its actions remain inadequate. A recent report by Oxfam notes New Zealand is off-track for its international obligations.

The nation’s record looks even worse when we factor in historical responsibilities. From this perspective, New Zealand, like other countries in the global north, is acting with an immoral lack of haste. It is for the next government to go from being merely transitional to truly transformational.

Turning in the right direction

The formation of the Ardern Government in 2017 inaugurated a phase of rapid policy development, drawing especially from UK and EU examples. But the evidence of substantive climate leadership is much less clear.

The Government’s most prominent achievement is the Zero Carbon Act, which passed through parliament with cross-party support in November. This establishes a regulatory architecture to support the low-emissions transition through five-yearly carbon budgets and a Climate Change Commission that provides independent advice.

Its other major achievement, less heralded and more disputed, was the suspension of offshore oil and gas permits. This supply-side intervention is surely Ms Ardern’s riskiest manoeuvre as prime minister, not only on climate but on any policy issue.

It stands as an exception to her careful, incremental style. It signalled that the Crown’s historical indulgence of the oil and gas sector was coming to an end.

But both policies involve followership. The Zero Carbon Act is closely modelled on the UK’s Climate Change Act 2008 and the leadership came from outside government. It was initially championed by the youth group Generation Zero. The independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment then picked it up.

Similarly, the offshore oil and gas ban builds upon long-standing activism from Maori organisations and activists. In 2012, Petrobras withdrew prematurely from a five-year exploration permit after resistance from East Cape iwi Te Whanau-a-Apanui. New Zealand was also only following in the footsteps of more comprehensive moratoriums elsewhere, such as Costa Rica in 2011 and France in 2017.

Towards climate leadership

There are many other climate-related policies, including:

• the One Billion Trees Programme

• the $100million Green Investment Finance fund

• the pledge to transition to 100% renewable electricity

• investment in the new clean energy centre Ara Ake

• a green hydrogen strategy that includes a nationwide hydrogen refuelling network

•completion of the first national climate change risk assessment

• budget boosts for rail and sustainable land use

• the ending of subsidies for irrigation schemes

• a regional fuel tax in Auckland to fund public transport

• $1.1 billion for nature-based jobs

• enhanced climate-aligned investment in the research and innovation sector

• the reincorporation of climate mitigation into resource consenting processes for local government

• the adoption of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework for mandatory reporting of climate-related risks.

Only the last policy is a world first. Even then, private companies throughout the world are already adopting this approach without a mandate from government.

In all likelihood, New Zealand’s greatest claim to pioneering policy is its decision to split targets for carbon dioxide and methane in the Zero Carbon Act, which means agricultural methane is treated separately. If the science behind this decision eventually informs the international accounting of greenhouse gases, it will have major ramifications for developing countries whose economies also rely heavily on agriculture.

Not all proposed policies made it through the political brambles of coalition government. Most conspicuously, commitments to an emissions-free government vehicle fleet, the introduction of fuel-efficiency standards, and feebates for light vehicles were all thwarted.

This is symptomatic of this government’s major weakness on climate. Its emphasis on institutional reforms rather than specific projects will yield long-term impacts, but not produce the immediate emissions reductions to achieve New Zealand’s 2030 international target under the Paris Agreement. This is where a future government can make the rhetoric of climate leadership a reality.

David Hall is a senior researcher in politics at the Auckland University of Technology. This article, originally published on The Conversation website, is adapted from upcoming book Pioneers, Leaders and Followers in Multilevel and Polycentric Climate Governance.

Comments

If JS & JA truly wanted NZ to be a world leader in the energy field, they would first have to reflect on the issue in depth.
Car dependency in our cities is a consequence of government planning that has mandated it that way, which is why we have supermarkets and not community shopping centres. Housing density is why we have long commute times to work and spend a fortune on transport. It's also a reason we are able to easily quarantine against Covid.
Unwinding a century of this type of planned development will take decades.
The immediate issue is where we get our energy from and the nett benefits.
The Tiwi debacle is a good example. Because the power is at one end of the country and the consumers at the other it will take 7 years to build transmission lines requiring massive amounts of metal and concrete. Pumped hydro will change river flows and flood land and all this is dependent on stopping low CO2 emitting Au production, which will be made elsewhere.
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors would meet all our needs without destroying our environment, in the name of saving it.
Let's not be hasty in proving our virtue.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

While I always enjoy your comments the idea of small nuclear reactors would appear to be a one of your more extreme ideas. The article is a good one and possibly a little too kind towards NZs progress on environmental issues. Costa Rica a country with a similar population puts us to shame.
In respect to the issues you raised I don't think the transition is as difficult as you suggest. Covid has already made people realise that they don't have to commute every day in order to work, on-line shopping proves we don't need to travel all over the place to get the best bargains. Even some kids might be better educated at home, while our local suburbs and shops can keep us connected with the community. The rush hour should be a thing of the past, low emission vehicles used for pleasure, no need for huge buses and trains.
Hydro power has been a huge asset for NZ but we have barely scratched the surface on the potential of other renewable energy sources. Ironically it is China who are paving the way for cheaper technology in eco energy and might even become carbon neutral before we do!

Pat, it's only office workers that don't need to be at their place of work every day. We are social beings and crave direct contact with others. Routines are also important, as is seeing and being part of more than a tiny bubble. Long term, it is not healthy.
Online shopping destroys our retail sector and all the jobs involved in that, which is a lot more than the shop assistant you interact with. Even then the transport of individual items to your door consumes a lot of energy.
Home-based education has too many disadvantages to mention - and not only for the children.
I know any mention of nuclear sends shivers down most peoples spines, but there is a completely new range of designs that not only run on the waste previous reactors have produced but also need to be managed to keep the reaction active, rather than stopping it running away. They can be factory built and don't produce bomb making material.
The last time we had an energy crunch, back in the '70s, govt reacted with a suite of projects that proved to be ill- conceived over the following decades. It seems to me that we are on the same path.
All I'm saying is NZ does NOT need to be a 'world leader' in this field.