Consultation: Ināia tonu nei – Climate action for Aotearoa

Our Starting Assumptions/One big thing;
We understand that the science overwhelmingly supplies evidence that climate change is occurring, is measurable in many ways, is driven by carbon emissions created by humans and will have serious effects on both our society/ies and the biosphere in general despite kua ngaro nga tangata e tu tonu te whenua. (although people may go the earth remains)
We also assume that as time passes the ICPP Reports and Cop Agreements will continue to progress and demand greater reductions in the developed countries. The targets will not be static, and we need to look to doing better than last year’s targets, while taking the people along with the reality that we are facing.
In order for people to accept the changes need, equity both in the present and for future generations, domestic and foreign must be seen to be a major focus of actions. However, fairness does not mean that some people still go homeless, and kids go hungry to school while the more comfortably off continue to consume outside the global boundaries that nature sets. Small changes in the conditions of the least well off would have much greater marginal benefits than a quite large reductions in consumption by the better off. (The Triumph of Pareto Gary Flomenhoft Real-world Economics review issue no.80)
Many of the problems faced by the people of Aotearoa are intertwined. It is not possible to consider climate change without a cultural change in how we deal with population, jobs, consumption, and trade (whether we rely on continuing with the global model of export/import led markets and long and complex supply chains).
The questions of how we deal with the problems are best seen in a large picture context. For example, transport problems and grid lock on Auckland roads which drive carbon emissions can be also seen as employment and housing problems. People, at present, need to travel to insecure jobs from insecure homes It is not a question of making it easier and quicker to move around our cities, business as usual, but designing life and culture that does not require as much travel.
We have seen plenty of claims that capitalism with its need for constant growth is incapable of addressing the Climate Change Challenge. (Climate Change and Capitalism - Academic Commons https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8Z610WT/download). Any actions driven by the recommendations need to avoid relying on market signals over legislation and regulation and/or fiscal policy. It is hard to see how the cultural change required can be driven by the market. Reliance on the market to drive behaviour is basically undemocratic. When facing a threat, an attitude of collective effort is needed, not reliance on individual homo economicus.
The economic changes needed are fundamental. A focus on continual GDP growth conflicts with climate action. GDP is not a useful measure and economic measures focused on real human welfare within global boundaries must be considered. (Rathworthy Doughnut economics, Dirk Philipsen Little Big number, Bank of England/OECC Haldane 2015 pg 28) For instance, modifying consumer law to make products longer lasting and repairable would reduce carbon emissions in transport, manufacturing and waste, it is not possible for NZ manufacturer to compete with Vietnam on throw away products, especially with the present ‘’free trade’’ agreements. Recognising that tensions between trade commitments and carbon reduction commitments, means a renegotiation of those trade commitments.
Population numbers in Aotearoa/migration, reliance on tourism and migrant workers both short and long term/ need to be reconsidered in light of climate change, a population policy is required. (Human Population Reduction is not a Quick Fix for Environmental Problems Corey JA Bradshaw and Barry W. Brock 2014 National Academy of Science.) The total fertility rate in Aotearoa has dropped below replacement but population growth still occurring in Aotearoa as a consequence of migration and the extension of life in the elderly. Although the vast amount of fossil fuel use is by the richest 500 billion, population numbers generally need to drop especially if the very poorest are to achieve a reasonable lifestyle while controlling carbon emissions.

1. The goals set by the Paris Agreement are conservative and the result of political compromise. We need stronger goals, aligning with presently agreed 2050 targets is short sighted and assumes that those agreed targets are fixed. The 2050 targets are likely to be negotiated down and we should plan to deal with stiffer targets. Aotearoa is a large carbon emitter per capita; our agriculture exports are traded with other large emitters. Increasing pressure will fall on Aotearoa to be a responsible global citizen and reduce both domestic and exported carbon. Stern, years after publishing his famous report, in 2016 was reported as sayings things were much worse than his initial report concluded.

the vast amount of emissions have been in the 20th century and future generations are unlikely to have the ability to enjoy the easy life this has given he people of the rich world. The emissions reduction goals and the range of pathways suggested to achieve these at a global scale (IPCC SR1.5, 2018) are stated as having a 50 - 66% chance of keeping global average increase in temperature below +1.5oC. This leaves too high a chance of this increase being exceeded, a situation of high risk and serious consequences. We should be aiming for at least a 90% chance of keeping the increase below +1.5oC which, in itself, would have considerable impacts on humanity and natural ecosystems.

1. New Zealand's net emissions rose by 57% between 1990 and 2018, placing it among the poorest performers in the OECD and the Kyoto agreement was asking for reductions of 5% on the 1990 levels (https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol).
Since the Paris Agreement of 2015 there has been a range of science articles that show we need to make deeper and quicker cuts to emissions. A few examples of many are:
a. The acceleration in melting of the Antarctic (Rignot et al. 2019 PNAS 116:1095) and Greenland (Bevis et al. 2019 PNAS 116:1934) ice sheets.
b. Ongoing decline in the structurally intact tropical forest carbon sink (Hubau et al. 2020 Nature 579:80).
c. Increasing global methane emissions that track concentrations most consistent with the warmest IPCC scenario that yields an estimated global warming of +4.3oC by 2100 (Jackson et al. 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15:071002)

native forests are good but not good enough. the first step needs to be to cut carbon emissions to 5% less than 1990 figures. It is unpredictable whether one or more positive feedbacks that might be triggered in the Earth System are going to rapidly accelerate climate warming. These include:
a. The acceleration in the decomposition of organic carbon in soils,
b. The acceleration in release of methane from arctic and sub-arctic tundra and Arctic Ocean continental shelf,
c. The reversion of southern Amazonian rainforest to savannah woodland.
The precautionary principle should be prominent in our actions
We should be prioritising reductions in emissions as well as mitigation measures.
Alongside native forests, we should also consider encouraging planting on smaller blocks, urban gardens and streets, with strong protections for urban tree. A cultural change in urban landscapes with narrowing streets, allow for more shrubbery and tussock grasses on berms. Increased housing density with less hard surface for storing carbon emitting vehicles increases the social commitment and awareness as well as creating urban carbon sinks. Reliance on Pinus radiata plantations is unacceptable, and an increased recognition of the role of swamps and tussock lands as carbon sinks is required.
Farming practices that increase carbon retention in soils should also be a priority.

The most important thing is to reduce the emissions which cannot be achieved using market forces or focusing on GDP growth. The changes needed should be revolutionary. Reliance on GDP to measure how well the economy is meeting the needs of the people, has led to consistent drop in Labour share of income (Bank of England/OECC Haldane 2015 pg 28), alongside increasing resource downdraw and increased carbon emissions. A better measure should be developed as soon as possible.
The IPCC report on the physical science basis of climate change (AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis) is expected to be finalised in 2021 and be released possibly by early August. As noted in 3 above, it seems likely that this will be reporting on an acceleration in the rates of change in natural systems. The findings of this report should be taken fully into account in deciding on the final advice to be given to government later this year.
• Budget responsibility laws will see us locked into the old austerity models which will be helpless in the face of the changes necessary
• Consumer law to make products longer lasting and repairable, with longer warrantees, not possible for NZ manufacturer to compete with foreign manufacturers on throw away products, realise that are trade implications, tension between trade commitments and co2 commitments
• Agriculture. Yes, while farming has a large role to play in reductions, the real change can only come from Aotearoa as a whole moving beyond farming as a major export, balance of trade, balance of payments sector. While much is made of NZ being an extremely efficient farmer, we export luxury goods great distances to the wealthy with high carbon emissions.
• Transport jobs and housing are all connected, if jobs and housing are secure than less transport will be needed and mass transit by rail more easily planned.

1. The propose budgets are not ambitious enough.

Principle 1: Align with the 2050 targets Partially, aligning with presently agreed 2050 targets is short sighted and assumes that those agreed targets are fixed. The 2050 targets are likely to be negotiated down and we should plan to deal with stiffer targets. Aotearoa is a large carbon emitter per capita; our agriculture exports are traded with other large emitters. Increasing pressure will fall on Aotearoa to be a responsible global citizen and reduce both domestic and exported carbon.
Principle 2: Focus on decarbonising the economy. Yes Aotearoa should commit to bringing as much necessary production on shore so that carbon use is transparent. We are breaching planetary boundaries at present GDP and we need to relinquish our growth fetish, we need to act against the constant pressure, commercial and social to consume. Respecting material objects, valuing them, and reducing turn over/planned obsolesce would reduce consumption but maintain welfare. (Curing Affluenza Richard Denniss)
Principle 3: Create options, yes, the lack of low-risk investment drives asset price bubble We need to invest in sustainable production and discourage investment in speculative bubbles which do nothing to reduce consumption or emissions.
Principle 4: Avoid unnecessary cost. Yes and no We need to accept that there will be many stranded assets. Intergenerational justice fails if only costs to the present are considered. Costs which some of the present generation see as unnecessary will be seen by future generations as both necessary and small (Stern) Eg We need to accept that motorways are a stranded asset, there will be costs in repurposing them and the sooner we move on change the smaller the costs will be and the larger the gains.
Principle 5: Transition in an equitable and inclusive way. In considering who will be most impacted, we need to consider that basic needs are met first. eg if someone presently owns six Ferrari sport cars and races them, and to meet our target he/she must forego 88% of his/her cars, his/her lost will be great but no threat to a good life, while if a person on the minimum wage with a $5000 car were to lose 88% of his/her car without that loss being mitigated by increased public transport, more secure housing and work his/her loss would be complete. Any concept of fairness should studiously avoid using Pareto efficiency in any way.
Principle 6: Increase resilience to climate impacts. Yes
Principle 7: Leverage co-benefits Yes especially social and environmental

The sooner emissions drop the more likely we are to meet targets later, international science, which international agreements lag, seem to be trending toward worst case scenarios eg Stern has stated that several years after his eponymous report that the problems and costs of not achieving reductions could be many times worse than the Stern report hypothesised. So, the sooner we cut emission the better. This will impact GDP but will also help to bring the economy into Rathway’s global boundaries.

There are too many uncertainties in tipping points to be sure, note multiplier on MT ch4 by 25 to get Mt CO2e and an increase in Mt CO2e (driven by methane??)

We oppose both borrowings which is putting pressure on future (intergenerational injustice) and/or from the very poorest of countries

We don’t expect to get complete support from parties which are still in denial of the problem or who are wedded to the idea that the market can solve every problem. This problem needs government leadership and an realisation that there are still and will still be sectors who would put short term profit for individual before any actions. Lack of cross-party support should not prevent action.

It may be a good model for all interaction between government and people, not just rangatira but with morehu also. Not just with business but with NGOs and community groups

Yes and consider how local government is funded to achieve change. Simply loading more costs onto local government is not acceptable. With MMT the central government has a privilege local government doesn’t in regard to funding. Central government can create the finance needed and use fiscal spending through local government to achieve the ends.

Yes to citizens assembly but somehow we need to deal with conflicting demands, eg the need to reduce trips while tourism is still promoted. Presently the ability to advertise is much greater for companies, the huge commercial advertising push is a real threat to climate change action.

We should have a strategy of decarbonising but should not put mitigation before reduction. We need to understand that reduction in consumption of short-lived consumer goods, requires a reassessment of neoliberal imperatives. And many of the required actions may multiply effects eg decreasing car use and ownership may lead to decreasing the use of concrete to create hard surfaces for car parking and well as industrial uses.

Yes and we should be reassessing the urban landscape so that there is a reduction in hard surfaces and an increase in planting deeply root plants. More carbon can be sunk in tussock planted berms for instance than in manicured short exotic grass berms.

Ecars have much carbon embed during the production, we need to reduce the need for transport/travel by encouraging a reduction of consumption, a local production for local consumption approach, and secure jobs close to secure housing and community facilities (eg a https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/07/paris-mayor-unveils-15-minute-city-plan-in-re-election-campaign) and encouraging a cultural change in attitude to not travel abroad. Coastal shipping and rail for bulk transport should be vigorously encouraged
A reduction in consumer durables by increasing warrentee/guarantee times and increasing repairability would reduce both consumption and materials to waste.
Secure jobs close to secure housing in communities with decent facilities would reduce the need to travel (15 minute city concept)

In many sectors the capitalist period has seen not only an increase in output but also a replacement of labour in some areas with machinery built and driven by fossil fuels. For instance sitting with a farmer who in the time I worked for him had moved from blade shearing to machine shearing he reminisced about only buying his first tractor of 46 hp in the 1960s. When I quit the shearing sector, he was using very large and very sophisticated tractors, had drained all the bottom land swamps which had sequestered carbon, and was employing fewer people but was not making any more profit.
Alongside a reduction in fossil fuel as energy source, we could expect to see an increased demand for labour. This pattern could be repeated throughout the rural sector.
Transport using fossil fuels has also destroyed those village butchers and bakeries whose abandoned business dot rural areas. A reduction in transport would/should stimulate an increase in those local producers.
It’s important to consider that some agri/horticultural products in the fibre production sector have been replaced by plastics. A reduction in forest removal and fossil fuel extraction will reduce the supply of these and increase costs. Hemp, linen, leather, lumber, and wool production should all be investigated as replacements for plastics.

The greatest priority must be first and foremost to reduce the need for and encouragement to travel. Electric and non-fossil fuel options for transport may be important for absolutely necessary transport and travel but should not distract from the need to reduce travel. That means policy needs to be developed to deliver secure jobs close to secure homes, with all necessary community facilities nearby. An example could be the 15-minute city idea.
The lack of decent state homes and the concentration of privately owned rental home leads to the inefficiently designed homes, vast amounts of off-street parking and higher use of energy to warm homes. The cultural change needed is the acceptance of rental homes, but rental homes, not houses to be turned over every year for speculative profits.
Investigating further cultural change is necessary. EG the just in time stock keeping mentality needs reassessing.
Tourism will not be an acceptable method of driving the economy.

The first priority should be to seek to reduce energy use.
We absolutely support all actions to reduce fossil fuel used in boilers, especially coal. A move away from reliance on a national grid for electricity should be considered, there is a large energy loss from the movement of power to urban centres. Distributed sources and consumption of power should be a priority.
We strongly agree with a reassessment of both the increasing concentration of industry and people in Auckland and urban centres and the sprawl of suburbs surrounding those centres. An appropriate dispersion and concentration to ensure that we avoid car based cities with high infrastructure demands is imperative.

Serious consideration should be made of the use of urban land in production for local consumption It would achieve benefits in a reduction of the need for transport and with an increase in medium density homes and a discouragement of private cars there will be an increase in available land in urban centres.
Serious consideration should be made to move away from the country’s reliance on agriculture/ horticulture as major export products. New Zealand’s products don’t ‘’feed the world’’ In the main produce luxury goods to the rich, often with high air flight emissions.

We agree with the growing of new native forests. All forests should be accountable. Consideration of exotic tree crops other than for timber production should be considered, and research into the amount of carbon held in urban vegetation should be a priority. Small blocks especially suburban and urban surrounds may be of considerable value.
We consistently state that we think that market signals are sufficient, reliance on the ETS should not be the mainstay of actions to reduce emissions, although it may encourage more planting to mitigate.

One aspect not covered is extending the life of consumer durables by increasing warrantee period lengths, legal support of reparability and researching methods for reducing planned obsolescence. This would not only reduce product waste but transport and packaging emissions.

Rather than focusing on a right to trade more research, effort and focus should be made on reducing emissions. And strong efforts should be made to ensure auditing and enforcement. Recent revelations about Tiwai point waste and continuing reports of regional councils failing to enforce resource consents illustrate this need. We note that ECAN is proposing to increase spending on auditing and enforcement. Increased funding from central government should be considered to fund this.

We should not be afraid to overshoot targets, as these targets are likely to change and the cost of failing to deliver are much higher than the cost of overdelivering.

We certainly consider our NDC to be on the less rigorous side. And consider that our reductions should be more ambitious, with more dependence on reduction and a realisation of the limits to emissions off-setting.

We strongly reject the purchasing of international carbon markets to cover our failures to meet Aotearoa’s commitments to reduction. By all means assist foreign governments with reductions as NZ and EU have done in assisting Tonga to supplant diesel electricity generation with solar generation, but we should not trade in international units.

We agree with the recommendation that we reduce methane. Waste appears to be a small element and actions to reduce waste require a whole of society approach while cattle especially dairy produce a large portion of the methane. Consideration should be given to a reduction of the national dairy herd, a requirement to reduce herd sizes when operators cannot achieve the conditions of resource consents and consideration of alternative products to dairy. The associated benefits in increased biodiversity in pasture, cleaner rivers and protection of aquifers from nitrogen leaching could drive public acceptance of such measures.