“Clean, Green” New Zealand?

One of my major interests in coming to New Zealand was to compare environmental policies and attitudes to that of the United States. It would be misleading, given my limited experiences to extrapolate and speak for the sentiments of the New Zealand public. I live in a complex of predominantly international students and it has been difficult to make strong connections outside of this network – most of the ways I’ve found to engage in environmental issues involve attending events which naturally attract those concerned with the environment. There is a strong dichotomy between the way environmental issues are treated at my flat (I’m not sure half of my flatmates understand what recycling is/make no effort to do so – our recycling bin is continually stolen so it’s difficult to blame them) and the opinions of people in my environmental politics class, in the tramping club, and attending environmentally focused lectures and debates. That being said, I feel like three and a half months should be enough time to make some general comments.

In large part, NZ is “clean” and “green” because of its low population density rather than any sort of purposeful planning or good regulatory controls. In fact, based on a study done by the OECD, New Zealand has some of the least “red tape” for businesses to get through of any developed country. The Resource Management Act (RMA) stands as the dominant form of environmental legislation. It dictates the resource consent process and the relationship between district, regional and national government. It advocates “sustainable management” but leaves what this actually means open to interpretation and so far the government hasn’t provided many standards or policy statements to clarify. The act is also very much effects-based; as long as a potential resource user can demonstrate that a proposed project has only minor impacts on the environment or that the effects will be mitigated, the consent will likely be approved. Because of this, the act is poor at dealing with the cumulative resource requests in an area and privileges present users over potential future uses for the resources.

That being said, some positives:
- environmental issues seem to get a more central place in political campaigns.
- more public concern and involvement (this one is the most likely to be affected by being encompassed by a university) Ex. there is little question of whether or not climate change is happening and strong support for the NZ government to step up its pledge to lower emissions. (The only person I have seen to question its existence was a professor attacking the validity and universal application of scientific knowledge and the people around me were getting pretty angry…) There has similarly been strong backlash against the current proposals to open conservation land (national parks and reserves) to mining.
- pay as you go rubbish collection – In Dunedin, the waste disposal services will only collect one type of trash bag approved by the city council. They are very expensive and are meant to be an incentive for people to recycle more (free service) and limit their waste.
- paying for plastic bags – this has been implemented by some stores. New World, the grocery store I frequent, put a policy in place momentarily where customers had to pay 5 cents per bag, but have unfortunately since rescinded it to prevent losing business. :(

Through my environmental politics class and other lectures around campus I have managed to hear 4 of the 9 NZ Green Party MPs. Jeanette Fitzsimmons spoke regarding the Emission Trading Scheme currently being proposed by National (equivalent to Republican party – they are currently in control of parliament) She argued that it would not be effective at reducing overall emissions to meet the Kyoto target and instead detailed the Green Party suggestions for reducing carbon. I also heard Sue Bradford speak about grassroots activism and the role of democratic practices in proper operation of a green party and the two co-leaders, Metiria Turei and Russel Norman, describing the NZ green party’s basic campaign platform and strategies.

This last speech was especially great because one of Norman’s specific interests was in water resource distribution. Someone asked him a question about current proposals to change allocation in the Canterbury region and, though he was clearly trying to keep his comments brief, it wasn’t long before he was filling the board with diagrams. He declared freshwater and water quality to be “New Zealand’s greatest environmental issue.” Not something I would have expected.

Experiencing Kiwis perception of what constitutes a healthy environment and sound policy gives perspective – from tramping club members bemoaning increasingly not being able to drink straight out of streams to outrage at the idea of using aquifer water (unsustainable) it is a very different baseline from which to measure environmental degradation. As another example, landscape has a completely different value here. In Environmental Politics, part of our assessment was based on presentations about recent, local resource conflicts. It turns out there is a surprising amount of antipathy toward proposed wind farms in Otago amongst the student presenters as well as in public response to the proposals. For the last four years I have been surrounded by people who are very optimistic about wind as an alternative energy and have scoffed at those who were opposed to them for aesthetic reasons as being unrealistic about our energy options (NIMBY – not in my backyard). I haven’t changed my stance but certainly putting wind turbines on the top of a ridge in a rural area of Otago means something very different to people than putting them in a field in rural Minnesota.

Some other issues:

The country champions biodiversity and has some amazingly cool endemic species including the only mountain parrot in the world, a variety of rare penguins and amusingly thick worms. But with 40 million sheep, hillsides covered in gorse, and 60 million possums (aka “little speed bumps”) it is hardly an ecological paradise. (Currently there are some pretty hefty debates regarding how to get rid of the possums. The Department of Conservation (DOC) is engaged in systematic poisoning with a chemical called 1080 but recent evidence has emerged showing that it has negative effects on humans.)

Insulation!!! – buildings in Dunedin and especially in the “student ghetto” are old and poorly designed to deal with cold South Island winters. Most houses are poorly insulated and lack double-paned windows. While winters are not nearly as bad as in MN, so much energy could be saved (and comfort provided) if the heat didn’t immediately go through the wall. They are currently working to address the problem – the government is subsidizing installation of insulation - but it will be probably a decade before all of the people on the waiting list can be processed.

All cars in NZ are imported. When a car enters the country, it will likely remain in use for twenty years. Because of this the market does not work efficiently to encourage fuel economy because, even when the price of petrol rises, it is being consumed by a fleet operating on decades old fuel conditions. Currently NZ does not have fuel economy standards for incoming cars – it needs them.