How would you spend an unlimited war chest for battling climate change?
Can we afford the changes climate change is forcing upon us? Paul Gorman surveys the options in a world where money is no object. Imagine an unlimited pot of money for New Zealand to spend on battling climate change over the next few decades. What would we spend it on? Who would decide the priorities? READ MORE: * Brutal climate-change challenges will put an end to 'magical thinking' * National Portrait: Bronwyn Hayward - Accidental Activist * Climate change report a wake-up call for NZ farming * An unusual coalition appears in pricing farming emissions A FANTASY WORLD Presented with this thought experiment, some experts bristle at the very suggestion. A dream world of unlimited dollars does not provide useful conclusions because it will simply solve all the problems, which is a total fantasy, they say. "If we had infinite, unlimited resources, then there's no problem at all," says the New Zealand Initiative's chief economist, Dr Eric Crampton. "There is existing technology that can scrub carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for about $100 a tonne. So if we had infinite money, we could build a pile of those plants and just suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere. Problem solved." Victoria University of Wellington's Professor James Renwick, head of the school of geography, environment and earth sciences, also considers the limitless funding proposal a "curious question". "Given unlimited money, pretty much everything is possible," he says. "Make the whole vehicle fleet electric and build enough renewable plant solar and wind to make New Zealand 100 per cent or more renewable for electricity, so we are generating more electricity from renewables than the current total capacity of the system. I assume we'll need more, if all transport is going to be electric. "Ramp up public transport in cities, and between towns and cities, so a fully electric rail system covers the country with frequent trips between major centres, and have frequent reliable renewably-powered bus and light-rail systems in all major centres. And invest in diversification of agriculture to bring in new crops and move away from dairy. "With unlimited resources, all that's needed is the time to bring in the new infrastructure. Sorted!" Greenpeace Aotearoa New Zealand executive director Dr Russel Norman says: "It makes it sound like it's a huge expense, when it's not, and it makes it sound like an optional extra, when it's just what we have to do in order to be able to do everything else. "And here's the paradox: we're actually spending a fortune to destroy the planet right now. It's costing us as New Zealand taxpayers billions of dollars a year to destroy the planet. If we stopped subsidising environmental destruction, that would be the first step. "[Those who make] half of our emissions currently pay zero per cent of the costs. One hundred per cent of the ETS cost of agricultural biological emissions is paid for by taxpayers. We are subsiding the pollution. "It's expensive to destroy the planet." ELECTRIC EVERYTHING Christchurch city councillor and Sustento Institute director Raf Manji says if money were no object, the first thing would be to make big changes to New Zealand's transport system. "If we electrified our transport system, one, we would reduce emissions, two, we would reduce our import bill for fossil fuels, and yes we will be externalising some of those environmental costs in terms of some of the kit we might need but that's fine, we should be paying for that. "I grew up on the Tube, went to school on the Tube. For us from England, you might think, if you want to go from Auckland to Hamilton 'I'll get the train down'. And everyone says, 'there isn't a train', and you go, 'what, why isn't there?'. And that's one of the joys of living somewhere like Europe is you get on a train and go anywhere, you go to India, you get on a train and go anywhere, China, the same. "Why don't we have a proper rail system between our major centres? It would take a lot of traffic off the road and you also enable people to live and commute. You could do the same from Christchurch to Timaru, even as far north as Amberley. "I mean the train tracks are already there, interest rates are low and now is the time to make these long-term infrastructure investments. It will generate new jobs and drive innovation and technological development." Environment Canterbury (ECan) candidate Felicity Price also takes up the public transport funding baton. "ECan declared a climate emergency and then just weeks later raised bus fares, especially for children. How is that saving on emissions? "It's a serious loss of credibility if ECan councillors don't walk the talk and put their words into actions. All decisions from the date of declaring a climate emergency have to be framed by that decision. "It's all very well to have fully electric buses by 2030, but if they aren't being used they're not going to save on emissions at all." EVEN MONEY CAN'T SAVE US University of Auckland sociologist Associate Professor Steve Matthewman says even unlimited money would not guarantee that New Zealand takes perhaps the most important actions to build resilience, reduce vulnerability and act collectively to better deal with the future. "Climate change presents a threat unlike any other. It is not merely a wicked problem but a 'superwicked' problem. "By that we mean one in which the time to act is running out, those who cause the problem are also trying to provide the solution, the central authority required to tackle the problem is weak or absent, and, consequently, the policy responses tend to be dismissive of the future. "Normally the focus here is on physical 'lifeline' infrastructure. Sociologists would argue that we need to pay more attention to building social infrastructure. This will increase resilience, social capital and social cohesion. "Public parks, mixed social housing and libraries all work well. "I'd also be a bad sociologist if I didn't note the differential impacts of climate change it always hits the poor hardest. "So another sociological solution to vulnerability is resource distribution. You can do redistribution through progressive tax and transfers and pre-distribution, which is limiting the money that gets into individuals' hands such as the living wage, limiting executive pay levels and closing tax loopholes." Redistribution should help with climate change and the over-consumption of Western countries, Matthewman says. "Compare the carbon footprint of a New Zealander to a Somalian. The countries that are the biggest creators of climate change, the wealthy ones, will not be the biggest sufferers of its effects, which are the poorer ones. "The vaguer point is that disasters are always patterned, and the poor always get hit hardest. More resources means more ability to cope with whatever comes." New Zealand also needs to think carefully about its place in the world. "We have much to learn and gain from Maori . "Environmental management looks completely different when the words 'resource' or 'natural capital' and 'stakeholders' are replaced by words like taonga and kaitiaki. "Think of the difference that is made by shifting beyond the language of commodification and individual ownership to collective models that stress relationships between all things animate and inanimate." THE COST OF EVERYTHING University of Canterbury political scientist Associate Professor Bronwyn Hayward says there isn't any getting around the fact climate change adaptation and mitigation will be expensive. "But it will be far less expensive than leaving these tasks until later and to those who say, 'but the cost of our mitigation is excessive compared to our impact', I would simply say that, in the future, countries and businesses and cities that are not seen to be doing their part are going to face all kinds of very significant trade, consumer and insurance backlashes. "Due diligence now requires leaders who are prepared to undertake real cuts to emissions and make real preparations to protect people. "We need to rethink how we account for money spent and this is a very deep change, far beyond redistributing tax dollars." Crampton says neither the government nor anyone else really knows any company's or industry's cost of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. "The government might have guesses about whether it makes the most sense to reduce emissions in transport or in agriculture or in industrial heating, but it just can't really know. Getting a common price for CO2 equivalents across all sectors, comprehensively, is the only way to be sure we're doing the most good we can do." It is cheaper to reduce emissions in some countries than others, he says. "What makes most sense will depend a lot on what other countries are doing too. When countries do not co-ordinate, it is easy to wind up in scenarios where greenhouse gas mitigation in one country results in greater global emissions, because production shifts to places where production involves more emissions." Crampton believes New Zealand's ETS needs to be strengthened to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions "that allows people to adapt in the ways that make most sense, given their own particular circumstances".