To the Wellington City Council

The Trust congratulates the Council on the draft 2010 Climate Action Plan. Such a plan is essential if the city is to meet the challenges which global warming will bring.

The Trust’s submission is based on the following premises:

• Acceptance that significant and damaging anthropogenic global warming is a reality although there is no consensus on likely temperature rises by the end of the century
• Wellington city is particularly vulnerable to sea level increases and extreme weather events
• Both the Council and citizens have a duty of care to face up to the problems that will be created by climate change even if those problems are unlikely to be felt fully for many years
• Policies that are effective, efficient and politically palatable in both areas of adaptation and, particularly, mitigation are elusive
• Policies have to be consistent with both international and national policies on climate change
• The plan does not address long term strategies or issues and is to be considered in the context of the 2010/11 Draft Annual Plan

The issue of climate change has to be addressed through a hierarchy of policy-making institutions with the lead being taken by international agencies setting targets and procedures which are then adopted by national governments. It is within such a context that local communities must work. Unfortunately progress at the international and national levels has been poor and this raises major problems for those cities such as Wellington, that wish to prepare for the changes which global warming will bring and who wish to play their part in reducing emissions.

We understand that because no reliable estimate of a carbon price can be made it is very difficult for the city to estimate the outcome of various policy options. An indication is given in the plan that this might be possible in 2012 in combination with the LTCCP 2012/22. But it seems that the market will not establish a carbon price until some time in 2013 after completion of the transition period.

The Council is, however, committed to achieving quite challenging emission targets and it must convince central and regional governments to develop a policy framework within which the Council can use its own powers to effect local change.

Although the Mayor claims in her opening message that the city can be proud of its achievements in climate change, it would seem likely that emissions have increased rather than stabilised since the last action plan (2007). We agree, however, with her comment that cities need to demonstrate strong leadership. We hope that the larger urban centres in New Zealand (which are necessarily the larger emitters) will work together to find best practice solutions to common problems. We hope too that they will collaborate in lobbying central government so that city-based emission reduction policies can be developed within a sympathetic legislative and economic environment.

The Council should also develop close links with other citiesaddressing climate change issues effectively. We would hope that the contacts made at the recent Copenhagen meeting, attended by the Mayor and officers, could be used to good effect.

Emission Reduction Targets

The IPCC range of likely global warming effects presents major problems for the city even at the median level of a 3 degree temperature rise. The city will not know until next year whether or not the process of increasing emissions has been arrested. Between 2001 and 2007 they increased by 5%. We hope therefore that the very modest target to actually achieve a reduction of 3% (on 2001 levels) by 2013 is more than aspirational. We understand that the major components of the savings are Spicer Landfill gas capture and voluntary household changes. The first is no doubt largely within the power of the Council to achieve, but the second will depend on decisions by thousands of households. That will require the Council to convince them that this is a real problem and that we have to change our profligate ways with fossil fuels. The tone of the plan does not convey that message. Unfortunately, as long as national and local public policy objectives continue to emphasise economic growth, public concern about climate change is likely to be muted. As long as new roading products are heralded as another boost for the local economy people are unlikely to be convinced that we have to change our ways.

The Council has to take the public with it in developing and implementing climate change policies and programmes. Unfortunately the public has little conception of what a reduction of 30% (let alone 80%) in emissions would mean in terms of its impact on life styles. The Council should commission a study to provide a range of scenarios relevant to hitting these targets.

Energy Consumption

The plan states that 43% of Wellington’s emissions are produced from energy used in buildings. If the percentage of power produced from renewable resources was increased that could be significantly reduced. There are a number of factors influencing the use of wind power and most are beyond the power of the council to influence. However, it would seem that much rural land within the city boundaries has potential for wind farms. The plan states that two more wind farms are proposed. While such projects are controversial because of noise and visual pollution, in current circumstances, the public good suggests that the Council should ensure that its district plan provisions are sympathetic to such developments, while ensuring that the rights of local property owners are protected.

Such an approach would fit in with the Council’s intention to lobby for a 90% renewable energy target for total national electricity supply by 2025 (BE5, page 22). However, the carbon price issue is relevant, because to make renewable energy supply economically attractive coal and oil power generation has to be made economically unattractive.

New Zealand has lagged behind other countries in the use of solar energy and small-scale wind power. This may be partly due to the inability to feed surplus power into the grid. We support the Council’s intention to lobby for a change (BE8, p.22).

We strongly support the establishment of the sustainable and renewable energy centre of excellence (pp 7 & 21). We understand Grow Wellington is promoting a Pacific Clean Energy Institute – it would give climate change leadership not only to New Zealand but to the wider region.

During recent periods of power shortage public authorities have taken steps to reduce the use of electric power – non essential use has been curtailed. Street lighting has been reduced and office lighting used more economically. While the public may not be so accepting of such a policy over what would necessarily be a long term (at least until power was almost wholly supplied from renewable sources) the actual inconvenience to the public would be small. The private sector should be encouraged to participate.

Transport

Over a third of Wellington’s emissions are from land transport. A major shift from private to public transport use would effect a significant contribution to the 2020 target. Private car use will become increasingly expensive and with new rail rolling stock coming on line in the near future the prospects for increasing rail’s share of commuter rail travel (currently 3%) must be high. The plan notes that $7million will be spent on a ten year programme to expand the city’s bus-lane network through the central city and other key routes, and $13 million in the same period to improve facilities for cyclists and pedestrians and that this is part of a commitment to spend $31 million in the current LTCCP (page 10). By the following year the Council’s first significant target of a reduction of 20% on 2001 emissions will fall due. It seems unlikely that such a target can be reached without having a new low energy transport structure in place. We hope that the current planning will provide for that.

We accept that in the short term diesel buses will be a major element in the public transport fleet but in the longer term less damaging emitters should form the backbone of the public transport road fleet. Clearly evolving technology will provide options not currently available. We are pleased to note at page 21 that the Council is investigating electric vehicle technology for the city’s bus network and we assume that this might include hybrid vehicles..

The ability to move easily between different transport modes and to provide on-site accurate information about bus/train arrivals are essential elements in making public transport an attractive option. We support the policy of promoting compact city growth (Page 24) including development along public transport routes.

The Trust noted in its submission on the Wellington 2040 project that a shift from private car use to public transport would transform the central city; it would also make a major contribution to meeting the city’s emission targets. But, again as we noted in our submission, the Council cannot achieve such a transformation on its own. It would have to alter the policy mind sets of both central and regional government. If the Council is serious about its emission targets it has to be equally serious about the development of a renewable energy based public transport system which makes private car travel comparatively unattractive.

Electric vehicle pilot

The Trust is not convinced that an electric vehicle pilot scheme has much to offer the climate change programme. We accept the argument that because most of our electricity is derived from renewable resources electric cars have the potential to make an above average contribution. But many other cities will be researching their use and the infra-structure necessary to support them. Canberra is to undertake an extensive and expensive three year programme. We should let others pioneer this work and adapt their findings to our city’s special features. Technology in this area is likely to advance quickly, especially in respect of batteries, and a cautious approach is warranted. The Council wants the capital to be “an early adopter of electric vehicles.” The Trust does not think that is wise. The suggestion that cars and facilities should be available for the use of tourists (such as cruise ship and Rugby World Cup visitors) introduces an undesirable ‘gimmicky’ element into what is an important issue. We do not support the proposed $100,000 expenditure on this project.

Proposed Studies

The potential threat posed by rising sea levels has to be taken very seriously. The Trust supports the Council commitment to the coastal study undertaken in partnership with the Greater Wellington Regional Council and the city vulnerability assessments (A1, page 16). We also understand that the Council is drawing on the specialist knowledge and skills of NIWA and Victoria University. The Council will need to handle the public information aspects of this work with care because of the potential effects on public confidence and property values. Nevertheless, the Trust’s view is that the public must be kept fully informed

Much of the CBD is vulnerable to the levels of sea rise which might result from global warming. Currently the Council, through its company Wellington Waterfront Ltd, is trying to market building sites on the Wellington waterfront. Consideration should be given to putting a holdon such marketing, at least until further credible information is available on the likely impact of global warming and what steps might be taken to protect vulnerable areas.

We understand that the Department for the Environment will later this year provide revised advice to council’s on potential sea level rises and the implications for coastal communities. That advice should inform Council policies including relevant provisions in the District Plan.

Residential Energy Efficiency Projects

The proposed Home Energy- Saver programme (BE1, page 21) may seem a minor initiative, but it is one which the trust believes is vital to the success of the climate change plan and one of the relatively few areas where the local authority has the opportunity to make a real difference. Working with households to help them reduce energy consumption in the home is likely to encourage people to think more constructively about how they can change ingrained habits in the light of the reality of climate change. Support for the Warm Up New Zealand scheme is strongly supported for the same reasons. We note that it is estimated that 2000 Wellington households will benefit from the scheme annually. We would hope that this scheme can be expanded because the dividend is not only in power savings to the country and in the reduction of power bills to the household, but in the improved health of those no longer living in cold and draughty environments. The Council should add that item to the list of matters on which to lobby the government.

The Trust suggests that in promoting community initiatives related to climate change the Council should establish climate change partnerships with appropriate community organisations. Using their membership lists and contacts such organisations would be able to help spread the messages quickly and effectively.

We welcome the proposal at BE6, page 26, that the Council will lobby the government for higher energy-efficiency standards in the building code and for a home energy ratings scheme for housing. The latter provision is particularly welcome because it would provide a major incentive for a home owner, or a landlord, to improve the energy efficiency of their property. We hope these initiatives will be resolutely prosecuted with the government.

Business energy efficiency programmes

The Meridian Energy building on the waterfront was hailed as the first five star green building in Wellington and the then chair of Wellington Waterfront Ltd said it would be a template for all future buildings on the waterfront. Could not such a standard also be applied to all new commercial projects in the city?

Conclusion

It could be argued that because the Council does not have the power to attain the emission targets it has set for the city, those targets are meaningless. The Trust believes that as long as the Council ensures that those targets inform and determine policies which the Council can implement and as long as they mean that the Council lobbies the relevant policy makers in respect of policies outside its direct control, the targets are relevant and necessary.

We have noted in this submission a number of instances where the Council intends to lobby the government (national sustainable energy target, residential energy efficiency programmes, feed-in tariffs). We welcome that, but because the city is dependent on central government for setting the national policy agenda for climate change, it must press ministers to act effectively and decisively at both the international and national levels.

We would be proud of our council, and of our city, if it truly became a leader in lobbying for effective action at all levels on a problem which threatens to determine the future of our city – and much else.