Greens co-leaders James Shaw and Marama Davidson as the former announces his plans to leave politics. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Greens co-leaders James Shaw and Marama Davidson as the former announces his plans to leave politics. Photo / Mark Mitchell
OPINION
James Shaw is resigning after a very credible 10-year parliamentary career. The commentary prompted by his decision reflects the importance of good environmental management in everything from global trade to household costs.
Exporters face “non-tariff” restrictions in accessing higher value markets from climate-related border taxes and thechanging preferences of “green” consumers. The declining state of Aotearoa’s waterways and forests has been the subject of decades of debate. Recently those of us privileged to live in the “leafy suburbs” discovered the climate has changed the leaves from decades of amenity planting from valued asset to a threat to life, all in a little over four hours!
Environmental issues in the broadest sense ought to transcend politics. Everyone needs clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. The laws of physics and chemistry don’t change whatever the size of the government’s majority. Whether the principle is called sustainable management or kaitaikitanga, maintaining the country’s and the planet’s “environmental bottom lines” is in everyone’s long-term interest.
Far North iwi leader Mike Smith has won the right to sue seven big polluters for their role in causing climate change - a win that legal experts say marks a ‘‘significant judicial recognition of climate issues’’
All significant political parties have environmental policies promising improvements “tomorrow” rather than in the first 100 days.
Act’s “solutions for .... conserving nature” is for neighbours to sue each other where “peaceable enjoyment” is jeopardised by pollution. Even a one-time Labour party stalwart like me can understand the theoretical merit of people determining use of their land as long as it doesn’t harm common property such as rivers. Regrettably, Act’s solutions document doesn’t define the environmental limits needed to determine nuisance other than to state “legitimate expectations, established through years of law and practice should be respected”. Who does Tainui sue for the damage being caused to the Waikato River by decades of “established” land users in the catchment? Pity the downstream Esk Valley property owner looking to sue those upstream for the metres of silt that will inevitably disgorge from established pastoral farming practices when (not if) the next cyclone hits the East Coast.
The NZ Green Party has a different policy problem. Environmental causes beyond basic clean water and good sanitation are a consumer choice for those on good incomes. A full puku takes precedence over protection of the pūteketeke in most households, notwithstanding John Oliver’s good-natured campaign helping protect NZ’s beleaguered biodiversity.
Where environmental restoration is a government cost it is also a fiscal choice. Clearing litter from the streets is a cost to ratepayers imposed by consumers too lazy to do the right thing and those opposed to the polluter paying by way of container deposit legislation.
Pharmac or the police might legitimately argue that resources be diverted from Vote Conservation on the basis the critically ill and the victims of crime deserve a different benefit than that arising from DoC’s maintenance of NZ’s Great Walks.
Act's David Seymour (left), National's Christopher Luxon and NZ First's Winston Peters have shown how MMP enables minority and even uncomfortable issues to be represented in Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell
They don’t as far as I am aware, presumably understanding that good government is about making difficult choices with the “correct” decision a compromise that satisfies no one completely.
The median income in the three seats taken by the Greens is well above the average (if you view Auckland Central’s student population as the high-income earners of tomorrow). The Greens got more party votes than Act in Epsom (5507 versus 5041) where the median income is close to double the average.
Why the well-off support the Greens electorally is a matter of speculation; perhaps “Vote Green” helps soothe the conscience of those with yeti-sized carbon footprints from flying between the second home in Queenstown or jetting off for that vital mid-winter escape to the islands.
The NZ Green Party and Act should subscribe to “internalising the environmental cost” of fossil fuel use by way of a carbon tax; the much-vaunted “polluter pays” principle. National and Labour voted for Shaw’s Climate Change Act after the removal of any obligation on farmers for the climatic “nuisance” posed by enteric methane emissions. Application of that same prescription would enable the minds of those air travellers troubled by thoughts of the looming climate catastrophe to be put at ease by the increased cost of tickets, accepting the rest of us would buy cheaper tickets on a competing service.
Much air travel is discretionary, less so the commute in an inefficient older car down clogged motorways by a minimum wage worker heading to their second job. Red-greens are as conflicted as their blue-green cousins, albeit for different reasons.
A virtue MMP has over FPP is the ability to enable minority and even uncomfortable issues to be represented in Parliament. Effective kaitaikaitanga of NZ’s environment requires a consistent green voice in Parliament.
A fresh green voice is needed in Parliament. Without it politicians of all stripes will continue to “tax” future generations of their environmental wealth in order to reward today’s voters. The 2050 zero-emissions economy will remain a 30-year target forever or until the west Antarctic ice sheet collapses, whichever comes first.
