It’s not a trick question. It’s no chicken or egg.
The environment existed long before and will continue to exist without our modern conception of economics. Economics as we know it, though, can only happen within a conducive climate.
Not only are our climate and environment the obvious foundation for any kind of economy, but the scientific fundamentals for life on earth as we know it are hard science, like gravity.
Economics, on the other hand, is social science. It’s laden with a number of theories that have been shown false in practice many times over. Yet, somehow, it’s economic theory, not the real-world limits of our climate and environment, that is treated as gospel beyond reproach in politics. The folly is obvious when we see economic engine rooms, like airports, flood to a stand-still in climate-change-charged weather events.
Sacrifices to the altar of climate-heating, trickle-down economics are plentiful in the coalition Government’s Budget and policies. That sacrifice is the wellbeing of people and the planet, for the benefit of very few.
Think about the $2.9 billion tax cut for landlords which our Reserve Bank tells us will simply increase the cost of housing. Or the Government’s whole $15b tax cut package, which will not only see 64% of the benefit go to the top 40% of households, but also shreds the Climate Emergency Response Fund’s previously ringfenced revenue from the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) – taking money paid by our biggest polluters previously ploughed into decarbonising our economy to pay for trickle-down tax cuts.
The Government would prefer you didn’t ask questions about that earmarked ETS revenue necessary for their Budget to add up. Doing so would mean discovering that the latest auctions have failed – if you ask those who live and breathe this stuff, because of the Government’s weak and uncertain climate policies. With each failed auction, that leaves a whopping approximate $700 million hole in the Government budget.
Not only does this policy-vacuum-induced failure create an enormous fiscal hole, but makes a mockery of, “credible markets to support the climate transition,” one of Government’s five bullet-points in their so-called “climate strategy” pamphlet released last week. This credibility claim comes from the same Government which cut funding from critical ETS Market Integrity work in the same Budget that they sought to siphon projected ETS revenue, continuing to leave the market without any meaningful regulation and open to, for example, insider trading.
Economics as we know it can only happen within a conducive climate, writes Chlöe Swarbrick. Photo / 123rf
Meanwhile, NZIER analysis of the Government’s Budget concludes a third of it is actively damaging our climate, stating it’s “a backward step in terms of meeting the Paris Agreement”, meaning “the further New Zealand gets behind its emissions reduction targets, the greater the rate of reduction will need to be in future Budgets. This means more and more financial responsibility is committed to each successive government, resulting in a more rapid and painful transition”.
How can the Government say they’re good economic managers when they’re actively destroying the climate and environment necessary for any economy?
How can they pretend to be getting the books in order when non-partisan, straight-shooting economic analysis concludes that their policies and Budget will ultimately mean a harder, more expensive transition they’re actively pushing out into the future?
None of it adds up – and they’re hoping you’re not asking questions.
While their “climate strategy” pamphlet claims “clean energy [will be] abundant and renewable”, they move to fast-track pouring oil, coal and gas on the climate crisis fire, keeping fossil fuels in the energy mix and in turn pushing up energy costs for households across the country.
While they claim to be supporting farmers, their cuts and delays to climate action leave NZIER to state: “New Zealand’s agricultural industry and its export value are particularly at risk.”
While they campaigned on more local decision-making and less Wellington bureaucracy interference in communities, members of the Government lodge laws to prohibit Regional Councils from considering climate impacts in resource consent decisions.
They’re winding the clock so far back that they’re even worse than the Key National Government. Not only shattering the veneer of democratic process with the excessive use of urgency and refusal to release the list of Fast-Tracked, environmentally-destructive projects during the select committee stage, but sneaking in an amendment to repeal processor-level reporting requirements on agricultural emissions which have been around since 2011.
Any day now, the Government must release its long-awaited Emissions Reduction Plan, required under the Zero Carbon Act, to show us all how its actions will contribute to our pathway to carbon neutrality by 2050.
Claims of economic credibility are meaningless if they can’t show how their administration of our country will help maintain the climate necessary for life – let alone economics – as we know it.
For all of our sakes we hope that, for once, the Government’s numbers add up.
