Sci-fi won't help with hard calls on climate change
Ben Thomas is a public relations consultant and political commentator. He is a former National government press secretary, and is part of the Gone By Lunchtime podcast. OPINION: A deadly heatwave gripping India is grim enough news, but it would have been even more chilling for readers of Kim Stanley Robinsons 2021 sci-fi bestseller The Ministry for the Future. In the near-future world of the novel, a similar heatwave kills tens of millions and kicks off a battle for the earth. Nation states, international organisations and eco-terrorists fight a rearguard action against the devastation of climate change, together reshaping the worlds economy, geography and society. It is an apocalyptic vision, but ultimately a hopeful one. Perhaps too hopeful. Robinson, writing in 2020 during the mass state mobilisation to fight Covid, sees the Earths salvation in massive quantitative easing (QE) by central banks, and notional blockchain-backed securities. READ MORE: * Govt proposal to take exotic forests out of Emissions Trading Scheme could cost $64 billion - report * Scientists and most governments say fossil fuels must plummet by 2050. National's new adviser disagrees * 'We are all going to have to play our part': Tough decisions on climate change ahead * Emissions Trading Scheme most durable path to net zero carbon goal * Government commits to shrinking carbon budgets and new Paris target In 2022, however, where QE is partly responsible for cost-of-living crises across the globe and cryptocurrency assets are collapsing, we may have to switch from sci-fi to reality for answers to climate change. They are answers the political system is not yet ready to provide; perhaps the magnitude is simply too great. In New Zealand, a recent Taxpayers Union-Curia poll showed that climate change could not nudge into the top three concerns of the electorate (cost of living was first on 25% and Covid-19 third on 3.5%). This is in stark contrast to Australia, where it topped issues polling in a number of states and was the driver behind a teal wave of market and climate-conscious independents unseating government MPs. Unlike in Australia, we do not face bushfires of increasing intensity. As well, the major parties do not differ on the goal of decarbonisation. National leader Christopher Luxon emphasised his party supported the Governments emissions budgets , released a fortnight ago and setting out the target for greenhouse gases to 2035. A detente was reached at the 2008 election, when John Key and Helen Clark both prioritised emissions reduction in their campaigns and bid against each other, National promising to halve emissions by 2030 and Labour promising a carbon zero country by 2050. However, 14 years into this meeting of the minds, it could then be asked why emissions have stubbornly wavered around 2005 levels, never threatening to drop significantly. The reason is that, if the devastating effects of climate change seem far from top of mind of the electorate, the sacrifices necessary to achieve zero net emissions are downright subterranean. And, like climate activists with fossil fuels, our politicians are quite happy to keep them buried. Last week in advance of the Budget, the Government released, in succession, its first emissions budgets for five-year periods to 2035, and its first Emissions Reduction Plan to chart the path towards the necessary decarbonisation of the economy. It was the first significant step since the introduction of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) by Clarks Labour government towards outlining how decarbonisation may work, including a billion-dollar spendup of the proceeds of the ETS in a Climate Emergency Response Fund . National objected to the big numbers, saying that designated policy programmes were merely more examples of wasteful spending and working groups. Luxon also drew a perhaps hazy distinction between the corporate welfare of paying for industry to transition away from, for example, coal boilers towards more sustainable alternatives, and the legitimate spending of research into carbon-reduction technology in agriculture. Nationals position is, broadly, that price signals through the ETS will let the market work its magic on the use of carbon in the economy: low-value uses will be priced out, production will move to higher value, and emissions will fall as dictated. The Governments rejoinder is that you pay either way: subsidies and regulation direct business to make changes on which they may otherwise drag their heels. If this creates winners and losers, we trust the officials to choose the right ones. Both sides are arguable. However, if industrial subsidies can be justified, they simply show up the scale of the challenge ahead. Funding for improving process heating in industry will cost $653 million, and is estimated to reduce emissions by between 11 and 24Mt in total over the 14 years to 2035, during which total emissions of 835Mt are budgeted for. Similarly, the Governments new cash-for-carbon-emitters car trade-in scheme will cost over half a billion dollars. While details are sketchy, grants will presumably have to be higher than those available under the current low emissions rebate (around $8000 for a new car) in order to steer low-income families away from a Trade Me cheapie. If there is full uptake, the pilot programme would substitute something less than 1% of the countrys vehicle fleet. The Government has already admitted it cannot bankroll a soft-landing for climate adaptation, that is the retreat of properties from rising coastlines. At some point, it will have to admit the same for carbon emissions, just as a market-purist approach relying solely on the ETS will mean cost-of-living pressures: the purpose of a carbon market, after all, being to put a price on something that used to be free. The reality is that further down the line, whichever party is in government will have to make hard calls, not in science fiction, but economic fact.