Groundswell and the new scaremongering about climate action
What does the taxonomy plan really mean? AgriZeroNZ has one answer. This joint venture between the Government, agribusinesses and banks has just announced a $6.3 million investment in BiomEdit.
BiomEdit is an Indiana-based company that makes probiotic feed additives designed to boost productivity and reduce methane emissions from dairy cows. This is AgriZeroNZ's third such investment.
Chief executive Wayne McNee says, 'We're investing in local and global companies to give us the best chance of providing New Zealand farmers with access to a range of affordable, effective mitigation solutions to choose from.'
The taxonomy plan will allow this kind of financing to be accurately and independently assessed and labelled. Why would anyone call that 'the scariest thing'?
Groundswell has come a long way in a short time. In 2020 this group of Southland farmers started to build a nationwide network with tractor convoy protests, sporting slogans like 'No tax on food production' and 'Don't bite the hand that feeds you'.
Part of a Groundswell protest at Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Back then, Groundswell was relatively fringe. Since then, it has channelled climate denialism and anti-government campaigns into high-powered lobbying.
I know, they will say they're not denialists. But in my view they consistently do their best to block climate action in the rural sector. They want us out of the Paris Accord and they argue methane has been unfairly targeted. They quack like a duck. To me, they're having the same impact as climate denialists.
And their lobbying is effective. In my opinion, Groundswell has bent the Feds increasingly to their views and they have influential supporters in all three parties of Government.
Back to sustainable finance taxonomy, which has been proposed by Climate Change Minister Simon Watts. As press gallery journalist Richard Harman has reported, his plan aligns with similar moves in Australia and the European Union.
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts. Photo/ RNZ /
The Centre for Sustainable Finance calls it 'a standardised framework for classifying economic activities according to their environmental performance'. The centre is a co-ordinating group that includes all the major banks and several of the big law and accountancy firms.
When Watts floated the idea last September, he said, 'The strategy will provide the necessary clarity for financing and investments, helping New Zealand align with global sustainability trends. This alignment will not only attract investment but also increase jobs and drive economic growth locally.'
If you think that sounds like a framework to allow banks to assess the climate impacts of lending proposals, you'd be right.
Groundswell and the Feds are opposed and, in parallel, Act and NZ First both have private member's bills intended to make it illegal for financial institutions to consider 'ideology' or 'reputational risk' in their lending decisions. 'Woke banks!' complains NZ First.
NZ First leader Winston Peters visiting the Covid-related protest at Parliament in 2022. Photo / Mark Mitchell
This is absurd. Banks aren't driven by green ideology: they know that lending to ventures that could be undermined by climate change is bad business. They also know the world is full of greenwashing.
The law firm Russell McVeagh says taxonomy 'could reduce both the risk of organisations describing financial products in a way that is accused of being misleading (greenwashing) and the risk of organisations staying silent on sustainability-related matters to avoid being accused of making misleading statements (greenhushing)'.
Is that BiomEdit work credible? Sustainable finance taxonomy, done well, will tell us the answer. If it's yes, it can be promoted; if it's no, funding agencies can move on.
Standing in the way of this is, to me, the same as denialism.
It's also hypocritical, when it's done by political groups who claim to believe in the value of the market. Sustainable Finance Taxonomy empowers the market to make economically informed decisions.
Russell McVeagh says it 'could allow the development of new financial products, such as KiwiSaver products that align ... with taxonomy criteria'.
What a good thing that would be.
Where does National stand on all this? Does Watts represent the party position or are the politics more subtle than that?
National's climate response is very oddly mixed.
To take just one example: oil and gas exploration is supposed to be restarting but the legislation to allow this is a long time coming. There's more rhetoric than reason in this policy, because it's well known that new exploration will not solve the twin energy crises of customer pricing and precarious supply. This is because prospecting outcomes are uncertain and the timelines are far too long.
Meanwhile, Watts has put incentives in place to expand urban residential and rural solar power, but there's very little action to back them up.
One way to read this is to assume Watts has been designated to build National's appeal to the climate-conscious middle ground of the electorate. But the party is terrified of losing provincial and rural votes to Act and NZ First, so Watts gets to say more than he gets to do.
And while the oil and gas policy won't change anything we need changing, it does reward some very well-oiled lobbying from the fossil-fuel sector. Also, it allows Shane Jones to keep up the inflammatory posturing.
Resources Minister Shane Jones during his appearance at the Economic Development Select Committee hearing this year. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Which, in turn, provides cover for Government inaction on what's really needed: meaningful, customer-focused, climate-conscious reform of the energy sector.
Where does this leave sustainable finance taxonomy? Will the Government support this initiative to reduce emissions and build climate resilience? Or will it cave in to Groundswell-inspired climate denialism and attack the ideologically-rotten greenies running the banks?
It's a common view that the coalition Government has brought a new maturity to MMP, because the major party has worked out how to let the minor parties strut their own stuff, even when it's outrageous, while it gets on with its own programme.
But real MMP maturity would involve more than this. If National supports Watts' plan for sorting the real climate action from the fake, and its partners are away chasing their denialist base, it should call on Opposition support.
Call out that 'scariest thing yet' nonsense: that's how to stop the tail wagging the dog. And getting a mid-ground consensus to do the right thing is also very likely the way to build more trust and respect for politicians.
Simon Wilson is an award-winning senior writer covering politics, the climate crisis, transport, housing, urban design and social issues, with a focus on Auckland. He joined the Herald in 2018.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
17 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Rand Merchant, South Africa parks mull conservation, rhino bonds
So-called conservation bonds are being seen as a new tool to raise money for the preservation of wild spaces and as a way of enhancing biodiversity. They are a subset of the US$6.5 trillion ($7.9t) use-of-proceeds bond market, which spans labels from green and social to blue bonds. Nature bonds, coined by the Nature Conservancy, have been used to finance debt swaps where proceeds from lower interest rates are allocated to environmental projects. Collectively, such bonds are expected to help close the US$200 billion ($243.1b) per year gap in funding to halt and reverse widespread global nature loss. The World Bank rhino bond, at the time the world's first wildlife bond, has been structured so that instead of paying a coupon, the issuer makes contributions towards conserving the animals and the buyers of the bond receive a payment from the Global Environment Facility based on preset targets for population growth. To receive the maximum payment the rhino population in the two parks would need to increase by more than 4% per annum. RMB, the Johannesburg-based investment-banking unit of FirstRand, last year said it was working on selling five-year bonds worth about US$233m ($283.2m) aimed at raising money for the conservation of wild dogs and lions in southern Africa. RMB was working on the wild dog bond with the Endangered Wildlife Trust and on the lion bond with the EWT and the Peace Parks Foundation. 'We are in conversations with numerous clients around opportunities in this space,' RMB said, declining to comment on talks with SANParks. FirstRand is Africa's biggest bank by market value. South Africa is home to about 80% of the world's rhinos, with most of those in the country being white rhinos, the world's most populous species. The animals have been subjected to sustained poaching for their horns, which are hacked off the dead animal's carcass and smuggled to Southeast Asia, where they are ground into powder and consumed as they are believed by some to boost virility and cure cancer. In 2010 the country had a rhino population of about 20,000 with more than 12,000 of those in the Kruger National Park, a reserve on South Africa's eastern border that's the size of Israel. Now, Environment Minister Dion George said on July 15, there are 14,389 rhinos in the country and less than 2000 in the Kruger. That reduction is because of both poaching and a drought in 2015 and 2016 that saw more rhinos than usual die and their reproduction rate slow.
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Passionate, divided response to assessment of PM's legacy unexpected
Sir Ian Taylor reflects on his recent open letters. If I had any doubts of the power of the brand that has been built around Dame Jacinda Ardern, they were well and truly put to rest following my open letter that featured in a number of publications recently. This was not a letter I had written lightly. Since Dame Jacinda had made the call to leave New Zealand to take up residency in the United States, I hadn't written a single article about her, or the choices she had made. My focus remained here, in the country she left behind. But then Dame Jacinda returned to the country on part of a world tour promoting her memoir. Her visit coincided with the Covid Royal Commission I had presented to a couple of weeks earlier. I had an opinion on the timing of that promotional tour and took the opportunity to share it. Of course, I expected feedback. What I had not expected was that the open letter would become one of the most read and commented I have ever written. The responses were passionate, divided and many were simply angry that I had questioned a legacy that I believed was built off the back of the sacrifices that had been made by an entire nation, rather than a single person. A person who had the undeniable skills to define the message of who we were as a nation, but it was our message none the less. The response on social media was also extraordinary, the second-largest I've ever received. Fittingly, the most viewed post remains one from the pandemic, acknowledging the selfless decision of three of our team members made five hours prior to the second lockdown. When government officials ruled their work in our Dunedin-based studio as "non-essential", barring them from travelling from their place of residence to our deserted office, they made a call. They shifted their place of residence — from their flat to our office. That act, technically compliant, entirely safe, and essential to our ongoing business, exposed the flaws in what we were being told daily from "the single source of truth". To save lives we had to put people's livelihoods on hold. And then, something special happened. Dunedin residents heard what they were doing and began dropping meals at the door. Others took their laundry. He waka eke noa, we truly were all in this together and kindness flowed naturally from ordinary people. But what struck me most was that more than a year had passed since the first lockdown and this second "short, sharp" version that eventually extended to more than 100 days in Auckland, costing the country more than $8billion and upending countless lives. This was when I started my open letters to the prime minister. They weren't aggressive, they weren't "whingy," they were a genuine offer of help. While the response from government was almost non-existent, an organisation called The Cross Sector Border Group contacted me. This group was made up of business leaders, health specialists, scientists, hotel operators, logistical experts, tourism organisations and health technology companies. It was this group that backed my "151 Off The Bench Self-isolation Trial". A trial designed to explore how we might get people in and out of New Zealand safely, using technologies that had been overlooked by the government. The Royal Commission has all the information and evidence from that trial, and it will be up to them to decide what, if anything, can be learned from it. As an island nation, at the bottom of the world, we had the advantage of closing our borders early in the pandemic, a move that drew global praise and made our prime minister a celebrated figure of calm kindness. What's overlooked is that other Pacific Island nations did even better. Samoa kept Covid out for 21 months after New Zealand's first case, Tonga for 20, and the Cook Islands for almost two years. Some may argue we can't compare New Zealand to smaller Pacific nations, but we're a small nation too. Just 5million people, no land borders. We had everything working in our favour: geography, control and time. Those advantages remain, and they are our greatest assets in any future crisis. We should be looking at how we use them to do what New Zealanders do the best. Think outside the box. After the first lockdown we sat on our laurels. Let's not do that again. Empathy should never be a substitute for strategy. While Dame Jacinda earned praise abroad, at home we were left waiting. Waiting between lockdowns, between waves, between decisions. There was no real plan, so when Covid returned, it found a country exhausted, divided and unprepared. That division wasn't caused by the virus; it was caused by a vacuum. It's a division that clearly remains today, long after Dame Jacinda has left the building. If we are going to come together as a country with a strategy for a potential new pandemic, then we must be willing to talk honestly about what went wrong, why it went wrong and how we ensure that next time there is more than a "single source of truth" at the table. If the past few years taught us anything, it's that pandemic planning is too important to be left to politics. This isn't about left or right. It's about the right way of doing things. We need a plan shaped by expertise, not headlines. Science, health, logistics and business all working together. The Cross Sector Border Group showed what's possible when politics steps back and people step up. Maybe that's where we start. All rowing the waka in the same direction. Let's do this. Now. ■Sir Ian Taylor is founder and managing director of Animation Research Ltd.
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Polytech head fears reputation at risk
Otago Polytechnic's boss fears being "dragged down to the lowest common denominator" by the Open Polytechnic, as she stakes her institution's claim for independence. In an interview with the Otago Daily Times , the polytechnic's executive director, Megan Potiki, was withering in her criticism of the government. Topics she covered included Vocational Education Minister Penny Simmonds' failure to respond requests for meetings and her belief Otago Polytechnic had been singled out for the worst treatment of any institution in the government's shake-up of the sector. Her interview comes as the polytechnic undergoes two separate but simultaneous restructures — one affecting management; the other general staff — and grapples with the fact it has been placed into a federation with the Open Polytechnic and Universal College of Learning rather than being independent. "It feels like we have had completely different treatment to everyone else, it's been utterly unfair. "What was [Ms Simmonds'] understanding to get to this point where she decided that others were going to stand up that were clearly similar to us or worse, in some cases? "We have had no conversation with her about us going into a federation, it was a complete surprise." Dr Potiki likened the situation to "building a ship while we're actually sailing" because the minister had not met her to explain how the federation model would actually work. Otago Polytechnic had one of the highest degree completion rates in the country, and placing it in a federation with Open Polytechnic could drag down its reputation, she said. "Not to be disrespectful to the Open Polytech, but they've got very low completion of degrees. "There's a risk of being dragged down to the lowest common denominator. If our stake in the ground is that we have exceptional learning and great learning outcomes for our akonga and our community, why would we want to put that at risk?" Dr Potiki said Otago Polytechnic's management and staff "bled blue and gold" — and she had been impressed by the community response to its troubles. "We've re-engaged stakeholders and we had a really successful stakeholder meeting the other night with about nearly 80 people and we've got community people who have reached out who care and we're wanting to engage them as well." Dr Potiki said among the institutions to have received better treatment was Invercargill-based Southern Institute of Technology, which was allowed to stand alone. "SIT leadership reached out because, actually, I have a really good relationship with them through Te Pūkenga ... so those are relationships I don't want to burn. "We want to have continued strong relationships in the South Island with all polytechnics. But the minister has muddied the waters." Dr Potiki acknowledged staff would be getting mixed messages in recent times about their future. "We're receiving mixed messages from government. "We just want more clarity and a path for us. "What we're asking staff to consider now is, unfortunately, they've been through this before, and nothing happens quickly." The nature of the funding model of polytechnics meant "reviews" of staff could happen annually. "It's good practice. I think that's part of something that staff need to understand. "But actually, we want to look at our vision, our values, our future and get to that point. We haven't had the chance to really do that. So there's a lot of good work to come." Ms Simmonds said supporting Otago Polytechnic to achieve a surplus was critical. "With the support of a soon to be appointed Establishment Advisory Group (EAG), I am sure Otago Polytechnic will continue to progress along their financial viability pathway. At that stage, they would not require the support of the Federation if they did not wish to use it." She had met Dr Potiki on several occasions and "was committed to continuing open and constructive engagement". "The federation approach avoids the drawbacks of the centralised, one-size-fits-all model of Te Pūkenga and instead supports regional polytechnics to thrive, while offering the option to access system-wide efficiencies through the Federation."
