The Civic Trust has no climate scientists on its Board. We have not therefore attempted to evaluate the science, we are persuaded, however, that if the great majority of climate scientists say that global warming is a life-threatening problem, we have not only to listen, but to act.
If 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences say that “there is compelling comprehensive and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend” we have to do something about it.
The Council to its credit through its 2007 and 2010 action plans is trying to do just that.
And so it must, for our city is very vulnerable.This was dramatically demonstrated to the Council’s Strategy and Policy Committee last December with 3-D graphics showing the impact of a one metre rise in sea level on the CBD.
The problem for the Council is that it is a minor player in the policy-making league.The scope for adaptation and, particularly, mitigation policies is severely circumscribed.Decisions taken at the international and national levels will establish the policy environment.Unfortunately progress at those levels has been poor –international leadership on climate change has failed asgovernments maneuver to seek national advantage.
In that light it would seem that although the Council has established emission targets its ability to achieve them is extremely limited.It seems likely that emissions have increased since the last action plan and may still be rising. We hope that the new interim target of a reduction of 3% (on 2001) by 2013 is achievable and not just aspirational. We should have an indication on this next year when measurements will be taken to establish whether or not emissions stabilised by 2010.
We note from page 17 of the plan that forecasting emissions has been carried out on the basis of various scenarios.It resulted in a wide spread of possible emission trends, so that by 2020 emissions could decrease by “as much as 11%, or increase by an average of 20%.If the most optimisticreading is a reduction of 11% we wonder why the Council is maintaining what would seem to be an unrealistic target of a reduction of 30% by 2020.
If the 2020 target is still considered by the Council as a realistic target, the Trust suggests thatit should commission research to show, under a number of scenarios, what changes would have to be made in respect of current patterns of living – particularly energy use in buildings and land and air transport – to get there.
The plan states that 43% of Wellington’s emissions are produced from energy used in buildings.Increasing the renewable component of the national power supply would reduce that percentage.Wellington is well placed to make an above-average contribution to such an increase.As noted in the plan Wellington’s wind is already being harnessed to the grid.There would seem to be scope for further developing wind farms in the rural areas to the west of the city andwe would hope that the District Plan provisions are generally sympathetic to such projects.
But local government is domestic, fireside, government.There is a special role for city and district councils to engage with the public and to help them make their houses warmer, healthier and less demanding on people’s pockets and the nation’s energy resources. The Warm Up New Zealand scheme is a great first step, but it seems that initial funding is for a four year period and in that time just under 190,000 households will have been retrofitted.According to an article in the current Listener at that rate it will take 20 years to upgrade the country’s old stock of houses.The Council’s role would seem to be to ensure that the capital gets its fair share of the programme, that it encourages Wellingtonians to take the opportunities offered and it lobbies the government to extend and expand the scheme.
The proposed Home Energy-Saver programme is very much one of those fireside programmes that local government, perhaps working with and through established community organisations, can most effectively deliver.If we are to beat climate change, people have to change their ways.In the absence of a visible, or felt, threat that is difficult to do.It is easier where you can show that by adopting some sensiblepower-saving steps they can save money.
But it is not only residential properties that waste power through energy inefficient buildings and wasteful operation.Theproposal to provide funds to support GWRC’s eMission programme is welcome.We understand that about twenty businesses are currently involved and we would like to know, given that the Council intends to contribute $50,000, what is the target for increasing the coverage.
It would seem that the most effective way of reducing the carbon footprints of businesses is to use powers under the District Plan.The five star green Meridian Energy building at Kumutoto was said to be a template for all future buildings on the waterfront.Could it not establish a design precedent for new commercial buildings and be a standard for new fitouts?
35% of the city’s emissions are from land transport.But the Council has only a limitedpolicy role in this area – the LTA and the GWRC have the major say operating within the broader policy agenda of central government.In its Wellington 2040 submission the Trust looked forward to a capital which was far less reliant on the private car as a primary means of transport, because there was an affordable reliable and integrated public transport system in place.We anticipated that one of the drivers for that development would be the financial incentives in place to move away from a carbon based economy.As with the drive to make our homes more energy efficient the move to a world class public transport system could and should be one of the few benign consequences of a process which threatens rather than reassures.
To effect such a change is not within the power of the Council, but the Council must have a seat at the policy table, it must know what it wants and it must strive to attain it.
The Council does have a more direct role to play, as noted in the plan, inrespect of urban planning strategies, bus-lane developments and promoting walking and cycling.These are essential elements in a total package which will only be assembled if the Council, the GWRC and the government and its agencies work towards a common objective.If the climate change issue does not achieve that , nothing will.
The Council will note that the Trust is not enamoured of the proposed electric vehicle pilot.It is not that we see no future for such vehicles.It is rather that in an area where the technology is still developing quickly it is better not to be out in front.Not that providing a few electrically powered
Nissans for visitors to Wellington amounts to a leadership role. We note from an article in the Evening Post that up to ten Nissan Leaf cars might be available for the Rugby World Cup and that they might be used to ferry VIPs around the city.This seems to me to be a product of the Nissan PR team rather than a useful contribution to the city’s plan to combat climate change. Surely it would be better to await the outcome of more thorough studies, such as the three year study being undertaken by Canberra.
At the beginning of this submission I referred to the threat of a significant rise in the sea level as a consequence of global warming.There is no agreement on the likely extent of the rise (with levels varying from the concerning to the alarming) and the process is, it seems, not yet fully understood.The Ministry for the Environment may develop a national environmental standard on future sea levels and clearly such advice should influence future Council policies and particularly the coastal study to be undertaken with the GWRC.
This is a tricky issue for the Council.It is right to keep the public informed (as it did last December) but it also has to avoid unduly alarming those living in the more vulnerable areas.It would seem to be at least prudent to avoid new developments on vulnerable sites.Because the waterfront project is a Council-controlled development it has a special responsibility (and no doubt legal obligation) not to mislead developers and investors.
The Trust recognises that climate change policy is difficult for all local authorities.Decision-making for national and local governments would be much easier if there was an international consensus on climate change policies. It would be easier for this Council if there was a clear national policy on climate change and if the political rhetoric was couched more in terms of sustainability objectives than in increases in GDP. But the Council must do its best in the real world and in general the Trust feels that the 2010 plan is a fair attempt to do that.
Those targets the Council has set are only relevant if they serve to energise the Council to press its policy partners in central and regional government to act promptly and decisively on climate change issues.The plan sets out a number of areas where the Council intends to lobby the government, we have suggested a few more.The next three years could be the last opportunity to confront this issue while it is still manageable.We very much hope that the next Council will be ready and willing to grasp the baton that you will be handing over.
Peter Brooks
Wellington Civic Trust
13 May 2010