Editorial: Red-faced over greenhouse gas reduction plan

Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson with ministers, from left, James Shaw, Michael Wood, Megan Woods, and James Shaw. Photo / Mark Mitchell

EDITORIAL

American boxing legend Joe Louis is often credited with saying "everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die".

In this environment, almost everyone agrees on where we need to go to ameliorate climate change but no one wants to pay for it. Nowhere is this more starkly illustrated than with the Government's budgeted plan to reduce greenhouse emissions announced on Monday.

Even before the live stream of Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson's press conference ended, environmentalists were knocking out press releases, decrying the lack of action around agriculture - the sector responsible for half of the country's emissions.

The Opposition was less vociferous, and therein lies cause for concern. Leader Christopher Luxon was unable to find any sector being impacted, unduly or otherwise, by the plan. Instead, he criticised the amounts of money going to "corporate welfare and working groups". That is, there are too many sectors benefiting from the plan.

The Emissions Reduction Plan is then another step down the same path which brought the carbon credit regime, allowing permit holders to continue emitting carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. It is another attempt to buy our way out of the situation.

Luxon is right when he says companies should be making these investments already.

No one is suggesting New Zealand should be killing the golden goose. The agriculture, forestry, and fishing industries are major production and export assets. In the year ended March 2021, the gross domestic product of the combined industries amounted to over $12.77 billion.

We need this more than ever after tourism was knocked on the head by Covid. But an industry of this size gladly accepting a $710 million package to look at ways to reduce emissions should embarrass everyone.

On the issue of transport, the Government's strategy is also to subsidise people out of fossil-fuel burners with $1.2 billion of enticements, including $569 million to assist low-income households in getting into hybrid or fully electric vehicles. Perhaps due to their lesser perceived contribution to GDP, the scheme is less generous.

The cost of an entry-level Toyota Prius hybrid is $47,490 and a fully electric Nissan Leaf is $59,990. With the maximum rebate of $8625 for new vehicles and $3450 for a used one, a car owner still has to find $40,000 odd to change the family car.

So there will be a $20m "social leasing trial" for low-income families in three communities to lease EVs from community organisations early next year - car rentals now.

At what point in an existential crisis does a government stop giving hand-outs and ask a resilient and innovative nation such as New Zealand to put its shoulder to the wheel? Yes, we all pay through taxes for this plan, but it smacks of paying for change rather than making genuine change, cognisant of the need.

The Government has opted for more largesse and, in doing so, appears to have been too wary of spooking the herd. Maybe Joe Louis also had it right when he said, "I don't like money, actually, but it quiets my nerves."