Climate Change attitude risks NZ economy

Bovine climate criminal from WikiMedia

Government is wowed by analysts, but inaction on climate change risks Kiwi livelihoods.

DESPITE New Zealand's tourism being fuelled by the "100% pure" marketing slogan, the government is mistaken on its lack of urgency for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) said in a report this week that New Zealand's environmental priorities were "not well targeted" and that improving urban air quality and protecting biodiversity and ecosystems should be the highest priority.

"Actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a low priority for New Zealand."

Environment Minsister Nick Smith told Radio New Zealand that the NZIER report was taking the environment debate a "new leap forward".

But this "leap forward" is down a blind alley. If a serious attempt at limiting emissions is made at December's climate change conference in Copenhagen, developed countries will begin to measure food miles, emissions caused by food production, and, in particular, GHG emissions from flights.

A one way flight from London to Auckland emits nearly 10 years of a person's safe CO2 ration, and meat and dairy production is one of the most CO2 intensive agricultural processes due to methane from livestock.

Nicholas Stern, the UK economnist responsible for seriously opening the debate on costs of climate change with the Stern report in 2006, has already suggested Britons should reduce their meat consumption and reduce flying as part of their personal contribution to tackling climate change.

Stern: I think that once people understand the great risks that climate change poses, they will naturally want to choose products and services that cause little or no emissions of greenhouse gases, which means 'low-carbon consumption'.

New Zealand is uniquely positioned to suffer from green consumer choices made by the rest of the world. Rather than burying its head in the sand NZ should be vocal in finding a scientifically-valid, binding agreement that its farmers and tourism operators can plan for.

Without such planning the cornerstones of New Zealand's economy, agriculture and tourism, are in dire jepoardy.

Comments

[Juli Ryan]

Let's stick our heads in the sand, and pretend we can just go on like we have been...

I do think, however, that the big countries will have to take the lead on initiating climate change policies.

[Joe]

Climate control, and the reduction of carbon footprint will only ever be undertaken by only those who can afford it. I know of almost no-one who actually makes REAL sacrifices to abet their eco-beliefs - it's easier to offset your flights than not to fly, on the whole. As long as humans proliferate, the race is DOOOOOOOOMED, DOOOOOOOMED, I tell you.

[Motella]

While we can all agree that our environment is important, New Zealand is at risk of taking itself too seriously and turning off major tourism streams.

Pushing environmentalism is a valid niche market, however we are at risk of suffering a backlash from the traveling public that wish to relax, have fun and enjoy a first-world Kiwi experience without being made to feel guilt and anguish about the myths of climate change.

100% Pure was a fantastic branding exercise that has its own lore within industry and marketing circles. By continuing with this sentimental campaign, NZ Tourism is setting itself up to be further sabotaged by hand-wringing minority environmental groups that wish to elevate their cause by hysterically claiming that NZ is an environmental disaster.

Nothing is further from the truth.

Its time to get 100% Real.