Towards a Bluegreen future?

I recently read through the policy document from the National Party entitled “Building a Bluegreen Future” and the first thing I noticed was how much more important the economy was to National than the sustainability of our environment. Now, the economy is an important thing, but when a document that purports to be environmental policy spends the entire introduction talking about growing our economy I think there is some cause for concern. From a policy perspective you would expect them to outline their environmental goals and then fit them within economic practicalities, rather than outlining economic goals and then cutting loose any environmental practices that might put the economy ‘at risk’.

Following the introduction the document moves into explaining National’s five principles for the environment.

First, “Resource use must be based on sustainability”- great, sounds good.

Second, “Economic growth and improving the environment can and must go hand in hand”. Economy as a principle of environmental policy- this is concerning, but it is worded well enough that being charitable you could imagine this as saying- ‘we will not grow the economy without taking the environment into account.

Third, “Good science is essential to quality environmental decision making”. This made me laugh. “Good” science? The adjective is so open to interpretation as to make it irrelevant. Remember that John Key said on Hardtalk that with science, just as with law, he could find someone who could give a “counter-view”- and this was in discussion about the pollution levels in New Zealand rivers and streams. Is this what they mean by good science?

Fourth, “People respond best to change when engaged and given incentives”. This could either describe how they want to promote green technologies or how well they manage the New Zealand public through the media, who really knows.

Fifth, “New Zealanders have a unique birthright to access and enjoy our special places”. Sounds great but is blatant populism and does not have in real worth when it comes to environmental policy.

So we begin with five principles that at best, guide the government in a very centrist and populist way, and at worst, open up the possibility of fixing the figures so the environment can be relegated behind the economy.

Straight off the back of this we get the claim that, “Regulation so often assumes Government knows best and often costs the economy more and delivers the environment less”. This does not bode well for our environment, the underlying message being that the market is a better judge and driver of environmental protection. I assume they have some statistics to back up this claim, here are some ‘statistics’ in opposition: Shell, Exxon, BP, de-forestation in South America.

Moving on we have discussion about emissions, and carbon neutrality. The dominant phrase here (because let’s be honest, policy is all about ‘phrases’) is “fair share”. In the two pages devoted to “Climate Change” there are twelve paragraphs. Within those twelve paragraphs, some of which are a comprehensive twenty words or more, “fair share” is stated seven times- often alongside phrases such as “but not to the detriment of our economy”. The overwhelming message here is that if other countries are not going to come on board, then we won’t act either, and even if people do get behind it, we will not do a thing if it ‘hurts’ New Zealand economically.

Next up is the Energy policy, where the Bluegreens are aiming for ninety per cent renewable energy by 2025. I assume this is the reason why we are planning to undertake ‘fracking’ in Christchurch, mine the Denniston plateau for coal, and encourage offshore oil-drilling. They also talk about the way in which resource exploitation is “painted as a conflict by some”, which suggests they are rather out of touch with actual environmental issues, and the processes they are engaging in. If they, as the National government, do something that some people do not like, then it is a conflict, it is not ‘painted’ as one. It may be painted as a bad idea perhaps, but to ignore the fact that the government is in direct conflict with people on environmental issues by passing it off as some kind of hearsay is dishonest. Tacked onto the end of this section of energy policy is the much touted insulation of homes, once again they do not site the Green party as being major contributors on this, and it ends up feeling like ribbons tied to a particularly ugly dog in an attempt to pretty it up for the show.

As you may have realised there are issues with this entire document, but the largest is in the section titled “Fresh Water”. Alongside the text the National Bluegreens have included two graphs showing how great New Zealand’s fresh water statistics are. These graphs come from the 2010 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) by Yale and Columbia Universities. Besides the fact that there is now a 2012 release with updated figures, the graphs shown here only reveal a very small part of the picture, and frankly, if they want to use such information they should be taking on board the full range of results.

One major point overlooked by National is the fall of New Zealand since the index was first introduced. In 2006 New Zealand placed 1st. Now in 2012 we have dropped to 14th, and we are also ranked 50th in terms of the developments we have made in the last decade. In other words we are a country whose environmental record is in decline. Of even more concern are some of the individual scores we have managed to rack up, in Environmental Health improvements we are ranked 97th, our scores for Agriculture and Air(Ecosystem Effects) are ranked 117th and 121st respectively. And shockingly (in direct challenge to what the Bluegreens have shown us) in one water category, Water Resources(Ecosystem Effects) we have a score of only 40.3 out of 100, ranking us 43rd globally. I know this is a policy document, and they want information in it that makes them look good, but are they seriously expecting that they can just pick and choose like this? Is this the ‘good science’ that they discussed earlier in the piece?

The final thing that really seemed to be at odds with actual National policy was a claim under the heading “Biodiversity” that, “Our flora and fauna is an important part of New Zealand’s culture and heritage. We need to protect our native species for future generations.” Is this why they are mandating the mining and destruction of the Denniston Plateau, a place that Forest and Bird calls “one of earth’s rare and special eco-systems” and that is home to species found nowhere else on Earth.

Somehow I find it hard to reconcile National’s policy aspirations with their actions.

Links:

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/building-bluegreen-future-launched-forum

http://www.national.org.nz/bluegreens/Bluegreen_Future.pdf

http://epi.yale.edu/

© Scoop Media