Taking the Long View: Paris Conference

The current refugee crisis, with the wave of people on the move to Europe, is a clear and present emergency. Yet the pitifully low number of refugees New Zealand is prepared to accept shows just how little our Government cares. Even more disappointing was the initial reaction to turn its back on the problem altogether.

The Government has taken the same stance with another emergency. It refuses to take decisive action to address the situation and is even putting in place policies that will make matters worse. In this way, the Government is turning its back on those most affected: some right now, others in the future and in other places.

This other emergency is more subtle. It’s building slowly. It’s easy not to think about it day-to-day. It certainly hasn’t been a priority for many national governments.

This other emergency is climate change. It featured in James Howard Kunstler’s 2005 book, The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century. Climate change will play an increasing role in water scarcity, global economic instability, and resurgent diseases. They’re creeping up on us. I guess that’s why it’s a “long” emergency.

To their credit, some nations are setting meaningful greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and taking concrete steps toward a low carbon future. Sadly, New Zealand is not one of them.

New Zealand is taking an emission-reduction target of 11 per cent below 1990 levels to the crucial Paris Climate Change Conference, opening 30 November and running through to 11 December.

The Climate Action Tracker (CAT), an independent scientific analysis produced by a consortium of European research organisations, deems this target “inadequate”. For his part, Tim Groser, National’s Minister responsible for climate change issues, calls the target “fair and ambitious”.

Fair for whom? Certainly not for our farmers. Erratic weather patterns – including more frequent and more severe droughts and floods – brought on by climate change were predicted by scientists decades ago. Well, they have arrived.

Just ask North Canterbury farmers. This year’s drought has been called “gut wrenching” and seen farmers selling prized stock or spending big to bring in feed. Some have paid in the range of $5,000 a week to feed stock – a cost which is surely unsustainable.

Or ask Lower North Island farmers how they did in the recent floods. One farmer who has lived in the area for more than 60 years said the 2015 floods caused rural devastation on a scale he had never seen before. Two hundred of the most severely affected farmers reportedly face average costs of more than $100,000 each. Total negative economic impact of this “weather event” is estimated at $260 million.

And ask our Pacific Island neighbours or residents of nations such as Bangladesh how fair it is? In time, the consequences of emission-reduction target like ours will render many Pacific Island countries uninhabitable and lead to inundation of low-lying Asian nations and other regions around the world. It will unleash a tidal wave of environmental (more accurately, climate change) refugees that will make the current refugee movement look like a ripple by comparison.

So how ambitious is our target? The CAT assessment of “inadequate”, given our 11 per cent reduction relative to 1990 levels, stands in contrast to Switzerland, for example, with a proposed 50 per cent reduction and the European Union at 40 per cent.

New Zealand has agreed to a global pact to limit the planet to no more than 2°C of warming. If all governments put forward an “inadequate” target like ours, warming is likely to exceed a catastrophic 3 to 4°C. So much for ambitious.

The Government’s public consultation prior to setting a target was a blatant insult to those who took the time to make a submission. Engineers for Social Responsibility said the consultation document provided by the Government “read like a series of excuses for avoiding or delaying action.”

It’s not too late for the Government to do it the Kiwi way. A good measure of humility, high aspirations, sincere generosity, a true sense of fairness, respect for adversaries, and a willingness to adopt the good ideas of others could work wonders.

If there was ever a time for cross-party collaboration in Parliament, this is it.

Gord Stewart is an environmental sustainability consultant. He does project work for government, industry, and non-profit organisations.

© Scoop Media