Emissions policy must include social and economic plan

Some people have been scratching their heads about the inclusion of such policies as changes to NCEA, the polytechnic merger, income insurance and monitoring of the welfare system in the Government’s plan to reduce emissions.

The reason for their inclusion should be obvious. We will not make progress on emissions reduction if we do not include social and economic policies.

Think about it. Progress towards reducing emissions has been painfully slow. So slow that only the truly optimistic hold out hope that the world will restrict the rise in temperature to

1.5%. The more realistic scenario is between 2% and 3% over the course of the century.

Adaptation to the inevitable is fast becoming essential.

It is, on the surface of it, hard to understand why the world has not acted sooner and faster. It is painfully obvious that the activities of people have and are impacting on the climate. I have just been reading about temperatures in parts of India hitting 50C.

In such temperatures it is allbut impossible to work outside and the likelihood of older or health-compromised people dying is dramatically increased. The consensus is that the temperatures are a result of global warming driven by human activity.

Such stories, it might be thought, will lead directly to urgent action. Not so. Not even in India.

The reason for the lack of action can be traced to the failure of policy makers to tie climate change policy to social and economic policies. This should be done because although it is vital we learn to live in harmony with nature, we also need to eat, clothe ourselves, build houses and earn an income.

It seems simple to say this but the urgency and zeal of those campaigning for action on climate change has too often blinded them to the need to address very practical issues.

What further complicates the issue is inequality. For many people in the world the need to attend to everyday issues like earning an income is not just pressing, it is overwhelming. Being told that some time in the future (even if that future is getting nearer) all manner of catastrophic events will happen does not compare with immediate problem of putting food on the table.

Unless these immediate issues are addressed, do not expect enthusiastic attention to be paid to the future.

It is this mindset that underpins the Government’s emissions plan.

To take one example, if the economy is going to become carbon-neutral, old jobs will disappear and new ones will appear.

This means people will need to opportunity to retrain (hence the focus on polytechnic changes) and to access income support while they search for the new job (hence income insurance).

If there is a problem with the Government’s emissions plan it is more that it is not comprehensive enough rather than it includes what might appear to be irrelevant policies.

The facts are that if we want to enjoy living in a carbon-neutral world, we will need to change almost every aspect of our lives. Burning fossil fuels, for example, not only led to global warming, it also made the world we live in possible. As the Government is at pains to point out, the transition to the new world needs to be just (address inequality) and attractive (something we want) rather than fight against.

The critics of the Government’s emissions plan are right to want more detail (we can’t go forever planning), but they are wrong to attack its breadth. I suspect they are doing this because it might win votes and because they are misguided about the breadth of policy that will be needed to lower emissions and thereby slow global warming, or, both.

Perhaps the way forward is for the critics to put forward their own plans. In doing so they may find that focusing on emissions in isolation has not worked and will not work.

There is not too much time left for this conclusion to be reached. If we go on arguing rather than contributing to the solution the existential threat climate change represents will move from threat to certainty.

If we want to enjoy living in a carbon-neutral world, we will need to change almost every aspect of our lives.