Simon Wilson is an award-winning senior writer covering politics, the climate crisis, transport, housing, urban design and social issues, with a focus on Auckland. He joined the Herald in 2018.
OPINION
Judith Collins, Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology, made a speech to a roomful of Auckland’ssci-tech bigwigs last Friday. She was charming and witty and she spoke without once referring to her notes. She was enthusiastic: this is a minister who loves her mahi.
“Trust the science,” she said at one point, and it’s not a bad mantra. A Government that trusts the science, given appropriate rigour, transparency and ethical standards, would be doing good work.
But Collins’ enthusiasm could not disguise the reality that she told her audience almost nothing of any substance. They were polite about it, but there was consternation in the room.
We’re smug about our science and technology skills in this country and we think being on the edge of the world gives us a special power. “RocketLab!” enthused the minister, who is also the world’s only Minister for Space.
And it’s true, we do have innovative companies and institutions, but mostly they’re not nearly big enough or plentiful enough. In the inaugural State of the City report released last August, Auckland rated a mere 3 out of 10 for innovation: the lowest of any of the cities we were benchmarked against.
Funding for innovation here was around half that of Melbourne, Singapore and Sydney.
It was a similar story for the country as a whole in the Global Innovation Index published last November. New Zealand ranked 27th overall, down three spots on the previous year, and we were 39th in knowledge and technology outputs and 31st in market sophistication.
Unsophisticated! You’d think that would be embarrassing to business and Government.
Professor Sir Peter Gluckman of the research agency Koi Tū. Photo / Brett Phibbs
Becoming an “innovation city” was one of them, and there were many suggestions for how that could happen. But almost none of the recommendations and observations of any of these reports have been taken seriously by either this Government or the last.
On the contrary. More than 350 science jobs have been lost this year and there are more cuts to come. Universities New Zealand chief executive Chris Whelan warned last week of a “catastrophic” outcome if the Government doesn’t recommit to current levels of funding for his sector. Which, so far, it has declined to do.
It’s not all the Government’s fault, but it is a problem for the Government to take the lead in solving. Collins was introduced to the meeting by Mark Spencer, chairman of the Committee for Auckland (CfA) and general manager of Beca Consulting. He referred to CfA research that shows private sector R&D funding follows government funding.
Collins’ response was bleak. “We can only advance with innovation,” she said. “And that needs money. And there is none.”
In her talk, Collins talked enthusiastically about the sci-tech commitments of Ireland, Austria, Denmark and Estonia. She could have added Israel, Switzerland, Singapore and other Nordic countries. But we’re doing almost none of the things that make those economies work, not just in support for innovation but in tax, welfare and infrastructure planning.
And most of all in wages. We have a low-wage economy and unless we change that, all the enthusiasm in the world for technology and innovation will remain a blathery fantasy. Young people will go where they can get paid well.
As for “trust the science”, Collins’ ministerial colleagues Simon Watts and Chris Penk both had a good go last week at trashing the very idea.
Climate Minister Simon Watts Photo / RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Watts, the Minister for Climate Change, released his draft Emissions Reductions Plan (ERP), which reveals we will hit our targets for 2025 and 2030, but that’s because of policies of the previous Government. We are on track to miss the 2035 and 2050 targets.
Watts’ plan relies on “breakthrough technologies” to reduce emissions, and offsetting emissions by planting trees and buying credits offshore. That is, as far as ordinary citizens and companies are concerned, we don’t have to change anything we do. Agriculture will remain outside the scope of the Emissions Trading Scheme for longer.
This is dangerous. New technologies will offer solutions, of course, but they’re unlikely to be silver bullets. For example, Watts is keen on slow-release methane inhibitors for livestock, but the Climate Change Commission warns a viable version of this may not be available until 2039.
Relying on tech at some point in the future undermines attempts to reduce emissions now and gives succour to denialists everywhere. “Science will save us” is the excuse du jour of people who think there is no climate crisis: people who, on the whole, have been outspoken in denying the science of climate change for years.
Besides, the Government is not relying on the science.
If it were, it would not be cancelling the clean car standard and the clean car discount, or abandoning the subsidies for companies to adopt clean energy. The ERP says those policies will raise our emissions by 5.7 megatonnes (5.7 million tonnes) by 2030.
But rolling out 10,000 fast EV chargers to counter that will save only 0.01Mt.
A megatonne of emissions is equivalent to nine million petrol-engine car trips from Auckland to Wellington.
As for reversing the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration, the ERP says that could mean 51Mt more emissions by 2050.
Watts, like all ministers, says the economy is in too much trouble to do more. But the longer we delay integrating economic and environmental goals, the more expensive it will be.
And if we do miss the 2035 target, it will cost the country many billions of dollars. Not just because we’ll have to buy carbon credits, but because our free-trade deals with Europe and Britain demand that we meet the target.
The Government’s economic excuses for not doing more are very bad economics.
As for Penk, the Minister of Building and Construction, he’s announced he wants to abandon the H1 home insulation standard introduced only last year.
The new insulation standard is expected to cut heating bills by 40% and reduce hospital admissions and climate emissions while adding only about $15,000 to the cost of a standard new build. But Penk said some builders have told him the new rules make houses too expensive and “too warm”.
Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk has announced the rollback of high insulation standards, believing it adds too much cost to the price of a home. Illustration / Rod Emmerson
The industry was quick to set him straight. Certified Builders chief executive Malcolm Fleming said the minister “appeared to have been told costs were three times higher than they actually were, conflating a $3 million home build with a regular home build”.
Fleming wondered if the minister was aware of the significant investment the Government and industry had made to prepare for the new standards last May. Joinery manufacturers, for example, had invested heavily in new plant and machinery to produce thermally efficient windows.
Richard Arkinstall from the Insulation Association said, “Insulation represents approximately 1.2-1.4% of the total build cost of a new home but its impact is significant. Properly installed insulation offers a return on investment of $4 for every $1 spent through energy savings for families struggling with the cost of living, improved health, fewer sick days and reduced doctor visits.”
He also said, “Insulation cannot overheat a home – only solar gain and artificial heating provide heat to homes. If it is cold outside, insulation retains heat in a building. Equally, if it is hot outside, insulation retains cold air in a building thereby reducing both heating and cooling energy costs.”
The Institute of Building Surveyors’ James Biscaldi also chimed in. “Rolling back insulation standards is not the solution,” he said. “Instead, we need to focus on educating our builders and industry professionals to ensure compliance and efficiency.”
It’s great Collins is an enthusiast for sci-tech innovation. But is the lack of Government commitment to it a surprise, when some of her own colleagues show such little respect for scientific evidence? Is it playtime at Cabinet? They’re like a bunch of Bears of Very Little Brain.
Judith Collins, Minister for Space, speaking at a symposium in the United States.
