Climate Commission report levels with public on true costs of a total economic overhaul
OPINION: Climate change is going to cost us. About 1 per cent of gross domestic product per year, according to the Climate Change Commission. For anyone working in climate change policy, that will come as no surprise, and the numbers maybe even look a little low. Judith Collins for her part yesterday was sceptical of the 1 per cent figure, meaning that she thought it would be more expensive than that estimate. The guts of the Commission's draft proposals are now pretty well known: The country has to emit 5.6 per cent less than in 2018 each year between 2022 and 2025, increasing to 14.7 per cent less each year between 2026 and 2030 and 25.9 per cent less each year between 2031 and 2035. To do this the Commission recommends loads of new things, but the most headline-grabbing are: no new petrol cars imported by 2032, no new home gas connections after 2025, loads more native forest plantings, and agriculture having to become more carbon efficient. READ MORE: * Government commits to shrinking carbon budgets and new Paris target * Transport and food two keys to reduce our carbon footprint * Election 2020: Does Labour really cut it on climate? All this, it is argued, will put New Zealand on a path to hit net-zero emission by 2050. Some of it can come from carbon credits, and some from planting trees, but as the Commission makes clear the main game is simple: reducing emissions. Overall it also says that deeper emission cuts well over 35 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 will be required if New Zealand is to play its part in keep temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The broader point however, is that this new Government quango has put an estimated cost of transforming New Zealand into a net zero carbon emitter. This report will now form a set of mostly agreed-upon facts on which climate change mitigation and adaptation will proceed. Politically, this is significant. First. Because there is now an official body whose job is to come up with both how much New Zealand should be cutting emissions, but also from which industries they should be cut and over what period. More importantly however, this is an independent report well, as independent as these sorts of Government bodies can be which estimates how much cutting emission is going cost. That matters because for much of the past decade or so, both major parties have seriously downplayed the true costs of New Zealand adapting its economy to a carbon-constrained world. For Labour, high on vaulting ambition and rhetoric (remember Jacinda Arderns nuclear-free moment?), its actions have simply not been matched with anything like the structural change required to achieve it. National when in Government simply cheapened efforts to fit what it thought were reasonable costs vaguely in line with other trading partners. Either way, the message from politicians has been mostly the same: sure climate change will require change, but it wont really cost you that much. This report puts in black and white that it will cost to meet our stated international obligations, and tries to put some numbers beside it. There has been some lurking criticism, particularly from more vociferous climate warriors, that the report did not do enough to quantify the costs of climate inaction . That view is folly. The nature of climate change is that each nation can only really control what they do themselves, and try to pressure others to act in concert to prevent first-mover disadvantage. Ultimately the big players: China, India, the US and EU, will determine what the costs of inaction are, not New Zealand. There is no point speculating on that which New Zealand has no control over, and the Commission sensibly avoided this. The fact that Labour is now untethered from NZ First, and has to deliver a plan to start to get these goals sorted by December 31, will focus the mind. The final report from the Commission is due by May 31, and the Government expects to produce a package of reforms around October or November. Politically, the Commission was designed to be an independent goal-setter for the Government. Or, viewed in another light, a political scapegoat for if it gets tough. That is its institutional purpose. In common with the Zero Carbon Act, the Emission Trading Scheme and the Climate Related Financial Disclosures legislation, this has Greens leader James Shaw all over it. His consistent modus operandi in this area has been to build the long-term institutional architecture to embed emissions reduction deep into the economy, legislation, regulation and culture. The rubber will really hit the road when the Government comes up with its plan to meet these targets later in the year. Then both the sticks and carrots that will be required to get the economic transformation underway will be fully presented to voters.