KEY POINTS:
In his documentary An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore says three times that climate change is foremost a moral issue. Why so? The public debate is all about scientific, economic, political and, yes, environmental issues. But morality?
What more could be said than stating the obvious, namely that each of us need to do more to reduce greenhouse gases. There wouldn't be a single New Zealander who disagrees with the need to do something. Likewise, we expect Government to do "something" about climate change.
It did not take David Skilling to remind us that the Government "lacks strategic clarity" and that New Zealand is facing a huge bill for not meeting its Kyoto target. The New Zealand Institute offers an overly convenient solution to an inconvenient truth: let's just forget about legal obligations, see what other countries are doing and be a follower ("fast" mind you) rather than a leader.
That fits nicely with John Key's formula of "balancing economic opportunities with environmental responsibilities" and Fran O'Sullivan's fears that "hard-nosed reality" will be overlooked by politics.
What do David Skilling (New Zealand Institute), Fran O'Sullivan (Herald) and John Key (National) have in common? They all promote economic realpolitik that can only be described as a morality of denial.
Climate change is going to force us to radically rethink moral norms and legal norms, domestically and internationally. As a reminder, the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change stated in its preamble that climate change is a "common concern of humankind", that the "largest share of historical and current greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries". In Article 3 it confirmed that "developed countries parties should take a lead in combating climate change" and that "Parties should take precautionary measures".
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol merely specified such obligations by setting targets and timetables. The entire international climate change regime expresses a morality that is conducive to the welfare of humanity and the planet, but not to national egoism and rivalry.
To suggest that national interests should matter more than global responsibility may be politically expedient, but contradicts the legally recognised morality of climate change.
We desperately need a public debate on morality. The morality of climate change and sustainability reflects a changed reality where problems and solutions are global in nature, not national or economic.
It forces us to answer some tough questions. For example, what about the NZI's proposition that we don't have to do anything until other leading countries do something? That is a moral issue. Can a co-criminal decide they don't have to stop their crime because the other co-criminals haven't stopped doing it?
And what about the much cited issue of scientific uncertainty? Is it morally sound to suggest that we must protect the national economy when we do not have certainty about the impacts of climate change? Across the world you can't use a criminal defence that you didn't know it was going to happen. It is criminal to allow behaviour that threatens human life to continue.
Finally, what about the argument that New Zealand is a tiny contributor to global climate change? Per capita, New Zealand ranks third or fourth among the world's highest emitting nations. Most politicians and businesspeople value the economic importance of New Zealand's clean-green image. They also know how tarnished this image has actually become.
The Government is right in saying that it is too late not to commit to the Kyoto Protocol. But that is only a start. Responding to reality requires a lot more.
The international climate change regime is totally inadequate, delaying the tough decisions to some indefinite future. There is a huge gap between the jurisprudence of international environmental law and so-called "sovereign" states enviously pursuing their national interests. The gap can only be closed through a worldwide moral discourse with strong leadership.
This is precisely where New Zealand as a small player can make a difference. International moral leadership will be awarded, in political and economic terms. There may be a bill to be paid in the short term, but big dollars can be earned by moving fast towards carbon neutrality and letting the world know about it. In sum, sound morality makes sound politics.
* Dr Klaus Bosselmann is Professor of Law and Director of the New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law at the University of Auckland.
