Target production, not consumers when it comes to climate change
OPINION: If 2018 can be seen as the year of self-identity and individual rights, it should be of no surprise that individual action is seen as the solution to all problems. That might be the case on a national or local level, especially where the problem is of a national or local nature. However, with a global problem like climate change, the individual has limited influence. Yet, the behaviour of the individual is constantly portrayed as both the problem and the solution; eat less meat and milk, walk or cycle everywhere, go full vegan, as if this will solve the problem. It won't, because the global industrial system is so complex, that trying to control emissions at the end point is an impossible task. Ignoring this reality and remaining fixated on individual behaviour change carries two risks: it deflects political attention from where the solution lies and diverts us as a small nation state from progressing the adaptive policies that will be required. As many activists have found, it also leads to moral exhaustion READ MORE: * Expert panel calls for tax on red meat to help save the planet * New Zealand heatwave - the science behind why it's so hot * In hot water: How climate change is affecting our treasured lakes Climate change is a global problem, in search of a global solution. What is unclear though is where changes will impact the most, and whether all changes will be negative. Some areas or regions may benefit, and some will be hit harder than others. This makes international cooperation more difficult to achieve. The national self-interest will usually trump the global one, as much as we would prefer to believe that everyone is concerned about fellow nations. With that thought in mind, it's important to note that we have experienced and dealt with similar global problems before, with the impact on the ozone layer from chemical substances being a prime example. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol was signed to reduce these harmful substances. It has largely been successful in phasing out the offending chemicals. In 1992, the Kyoto Protocol was signed to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, taking a similarly global approach. This has largely not been successful. Why? There is a stark difference between the two protocols. The Montreal Protocol targeted the production of the harmful substance, whilst the Kyoto Protocol targeted the consumption. The former focused on a small group of producers, the latter on nation states, and by extension, the citizens of those states. The former moved to phase out and replace the offending chemicals working with producers, the latter simply hoped that individuals would make the right decisions and that nation states would provide the right incentives to change behaviour. That hasn't happened, and yet we see a continued focus on individuals to solve the problem, when faced with a global production system that is completely dependent on fossil fuel extraction. Amongst the numerous articles about millennial angst at being unable to impact the problem and see positive results, there has been a new focus on the global production system and the small number of global companies who are seen as being responsible for the majority of global greenhouse gas emissions. There has been a renewed focus on holding them to account. That's a better approach, as it helps develop a more direct relationship between producers and consumers, who are often separated by global and complex supply chain systems. This suggests that the principles of the Montreal Protocol could help focus on the small group of producers, primarily nation states, and provide a framework for them to come together and agree a global quota for fossil fuel production, thus limiting potential emissions at source. An agreed quota would need to involve the main producers, which fortunately mirror the G20 grouping. G20 countries are responsible for over 60% of oil and gas production and over 95 per cent of coal production. If they can agree on a global quota, then it will happen. In fact, there is a working example of this already in place, namely OPEC. If G20 can come to an agreement on a global quota, then there is a possibility for a Montreal Protocol type approach, where a production quota can be established, cross referenced against a global emissions budget, including land use changes. This will guarantee the required emissions outcome, and help send the appropriate price signal to global energy markets, which will enable a more realistic and sustainable shift in consumer behaviour. For small countries like New Zealand, who have a negligible global emissions profile, the focus should be on adapting to potential changes in the global energy supply, land use shifts and climate change hazards. Advocating for a global solution along the lines of the Montreal Protocol would be the best political stance, rather than hoping that domestic policy frameworks such as Zero Carbon Act will make any difference to global outcomes. That does not mean we shouldn't act, but it allows us to focus on what we can meaningfully achieve through adaptation, with our national interest always to the fore. The purpose of our new Climate Commission should therefore be to advocate for a workable global solution and at the same time adapt locally, by preparing for and anticipating economic, environmental and social changes. This could involve a widespread shift to renewable energy powered electric vehicles, a focus on passive housing building, accounting for the true costs of intensive agriculture and a managed retreat from vulnerable coastlines. It also may relieve the pressure on individuals and allow them to focus more on adapting to positive and implementable changes at the local level and leave government to advocate for a workable global solution. Raf Manji has been a Christchurch city councillor and chair of the finance committee since 2013. He is a policy and strategy consultant, with a masters in International Law and Politics from the University of Canterbury. In 2008 he published a paper on climate change titled: Climate Control: A proposal for controlling global greenhouse gas emissions.