logo
Where do I send conservatives the bill for climate change?

Where do I send conservatives the bill for climate change?

The Spinoff16-07-2025
In the 40 years since the world was first alerted to climate change, right-wingers have consistently been the ones most opposed to doing anything about it. And if there's one thing that conservatives like, it's personal responsibility.
It seems almost impossible to believe, but until two years ago New Zealand's most expensive weather-related event, from an insurance point of view, was a big hailstorm in Timaru that cost $170 million. Now, of course, things happen at 10x magnification. The Auckland Anniversary floods and Cyclone Gabrielle each led to insured losses of around $2 billion. And – here's a cheerful thought – such events will only become more frequent and more expensive, as the planet heats and the atmosphere comes to hold more moisture.
Which leads, inexorably, to my current preoccupation: where do I send conservatives the bill for climate change?
In just one news bulletin this morning, two instances of soaring climate-change-related costs: the bill for repairing roads after the terrible Tasman floods is around $1 million every two days, and the damage those floods did to agriculture will drive up vegetable prices around the country. Yesterday a homeowner was on RNZ's Morning Report lamenting a landslip that had caused massive damage to their house: another cost. After each major flood, public bodies have to repair bridges, community halls, communication infrastructure, and so on: yet more costs. Heatwaves, too, cause droughts and losses to farmers: cost upon cost.
Where, then, do I send conservatives the bill?
Some will try to argue that weather is just weather: floods, cyclones and droughts have always happened. But the scientific consensus is clear: climate change makes all these events much worse. It renders them more likely to happen and, when they do happen, more devastating. A couple of years ago scientists, using a methodology called extreme event attribution, calculated that climate change was costing the globe $16 million an hour, and was set to cost up to $3.1 trillion – that's right, trillion – a year by 2050, as hurricanes, floods and heatwaves all worsen.
Here at home, scientists in 2018 estimated that climate change had already caused at least $840 million worth of damage in a decade, and in truth probably much more than that. The Treasury, meanwhile, has calculated that climate change's worsening of extreme weather events could cost the state 3.8% of GDP by 2061, while GDP itself could be around 1% lower. Governments, families and firms will all have to spend billions of dollars repairing totally avoidable damage.
Clearly, then, there is a bill to be paid. So where are the conservatives stepping up to accept it?
I ask this because, for the 40 years since the world was first alerted to climate change, right-wingers have consistently been the ones most opposed to doing anything about it. As the documentary Hot Air reveals, in the early 1990s Simon Upton, the minister for the environment, wanted to introduce a carbon tax, but was thwarted by the likes of the New Zealand Initiative – in its former guise as the Business Roundtable – bringing in climate deniers to disrupt the debate.
As Upton explains in the documentary, one of the Roundtable's 'experts' claimed that addressing climate change was a form of social engineering akin to – wait for it – eugenics. 'My eyebrows raised at that point,' says Upton, who tried to push on regardless. But this lobbying, allied to the usual right-wing campaigns by business and farming interests, derailed his well-laid plans.
It could be argued that left-wing governments haven't always had a great record on climate change: emissions rose under Helen Clark, for instance. But her government did introduce the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and if she didn't go further, it was substantially because of opposition from – you guessed it – the right. Remember National MP Shane Ardern driving a tractor up parliament steps to protest against the ETS? That's the story of this issue, over and over: left-wing governments trying to do more in the teeth of right-wing opposition, and right-wing governments doing very little despite being urged to do more by left-wing ones.
I return, then, to my theme: where do I send conservatives the bill?
New Zealand right-wingers might argue that their actions, however unhelpful, have been essentially irrelevant, given that virtually all globe-heating emissions are created offshore. And that's fair enough. They can forward on a big piece of the bill to World Conservative Headquarters, which I imagine as a large and imposing edifice, albeit crumbling around the edges and with some increasingly lunatic fringing.
I'm happy, in short, for Kiwi conservatives to pass on part of the bill – just as long as I know where to send it in the first place.
Domestic right-wingers might feel this argument is a bit too sweeping. Hashtag Not All Conservatives, etc. And that's true, up to a point. Just look at Upton: he was a conservative, and doing his best. Ditto, at different times, Guy Salmon, Todd Muller and the like. It's such a shame, then, that – to reprise the old joke about lawyers – 95% of conservatives are giving the remaining 5% a bad name.
There's a great irony here, in that conservatives are supposed to be strong in a couple of areas, including – you know – conserving things (the planet, for instance). Saving money, too. But although the costs of mitigating climate change have always been vastly lower than the costs of not doing so, this point has somehow eluded the ostensible fiscal conservatives among us.
If there's one thing that I know conservatives like, though, it's personal responsibility. They're always talking about the costs that 'feckless' poor people impose on the rest of us, constantly attacking left-wing governments for treating taxpayers 'like an ATM'. And so, as the Tasman region reels from the devastation, as hundreds of homes are flooded each year, and as we face the prospect of this fiscal picture deteriorating with each passing decade, I'm sure that everyone on the right who has ever opposed or downplayed the need for climate action will step forward to take responsibility.
And then, at last, I might know where to send the bill.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How New Zealand's tax system compares with other countries
How New Zealand's tax system compares with other countries

1News

time12 minutes ago

  • 1News

How New Zealand's tax system compares with other countries

In recent months, Treasury, Inland Revenue and an organisation representing accountants have suggested New Zealand needs a rethink of its tax settings. Inland Revenue said taxes would have to increase to cope with an ageing population and CPA Australia said a capital gains tax should be considered. But do you know how much the average person in New Zealand pays, and how that compares to other countries? Infometrics calculated the average tax bill of a household with two median income earners, earning $72,900 per person before tax, not including any Working for Families credits. Chief executive Brad Olsen calculated that they would pay $39,800 to the government, made up about $14,100 in income tax each, and $11,600 in GST. They might pay another $3800 a year in local government rates. ADVERTISEMENT Infometrics principal economist Brad Olsen. (Source: 1News) "Central government still collects the vast majority of money from households - at still over 90% of total funds collected by central or local government going to the Beehive coffers. The proportions have shifted slightly, in 2023 when we ran this same exercise, around 93% of tax or rates collected went to central government, and 7% to local government. "In dollar terms, we estimate that our median household scenario would be paying around $985 more a year in rates than in 2023, but $3182 more in income tax and GST." Rates rises were more noticeable because households received a direct notice in the mail telling them what they had to pay, Olsen said. "In contrast, most households don't track — or get a demand for — their taxes from central government. For income taxes, PAYE workers never see their income tax as their employer withholds the tax and pays it to IRD. For GST, you don't directly tally up your GST and pay it to the government — it's all part of your daily spending. The difference in how you pay — and how noticeable that payment demand is or not — does behaviourally contribute to how we talk about these various increases. "We spend a lot of time, fairly, on rates increases. That's reasonable scrutiny. But we spend a lot less time on tax payments than rates payments, even though tax payments are 10 times larger than rates payments. "That's also true, in my mind, around current discussions on rates capping. Presumably if it's good enough for central government to impose on local government, it would be good enough for central government to tax-cap itself? For every dollar of additional rates paid in the last three years, tax paid by a household has increased by $3.23." ADVERTISEMENT As people earn more through the PAYE system, their income tax bill increases. A report by consultancy OliverShaw in 2023 said those in the top two tax brackets at the time made up 21.2% of taxpayers and paid 68.5% of income tax in the 2021 tax year. Those earning $180,000 to $300,000 constituted less than 2% of taxpayers, but paid 9.3% of income tax. But while the dollar value of GST paid is higher for wealthier people, it may make up a smaller proportion of their income because they may save more, or put money into financial assets that do not incur GST. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including the West Auckland builder sentenced over massive meth haul, fire on a commuter train, and how Bluey could teach kids about resilience. (Source: 1News) Some wealthier people may also be able to earn income in ways that does not attract as much tax. Simplicity chief economist Shamubeel Eaqub said people might be surprised to see that New Zealand is among the lower-taxed countries in the OECD. On a measure of tax-to-GDP, in 2023, New Zealand had a ratio of 34% compared to the OECD average of 33.9%. ADVERTISEMENT He said the country was only on the higher side of average because many countries had some significantly lower taxes on specific things, such as Ireland's low corporate tax rate. On an income tax wedge basis, New Zealand was third-lowest in 2024, behind Chile and Colombia on a comparison of total tax as a percentage of labour costs. Shamubeel Eaqub says there will still be some shocks, especially for those with mortgages. (Source: Breakfast) "There is no right or wrong number when it comes to taxes," Eaqub said. "If we want less public service, we pay less tax, if we want more public services, we pay more." He said many countries had much higher tax bills — France has tax at almost 44% of GDP, Denmark at 43.4% and Italy at 42.8%. "Italy has to but that's why younger people are leaving. There's a cost — if you tax a lot and make younger people poor they might go somewhere else. You can't arbitrarily increase taxes if you're not giving the value people are looking for. You need to maintain the legitimacy of the tax system." New Zealand workers tend to shoulder more of the tax bill than those in other countries, because income tax on individuals makes up such a large proportion of the total tax take. ADVERTISEMENT "We have big areas where we don't have any tax," said Council of Trade Unions policy director and economist Craig Renney. "There are no capital taxes, no social security taxes. It means New Zealand's taxation structure looks very different to the majority of developed economies around the Western world. We tend to over-emphasise GST and PAYE. Labour is a smaller share of tax in other jurisdictions." Any conversation about tax changes needed to get away from winners and losers and instead encourage people to consider what outcomes could be gained from higher revenue, he said. "The way we historically structure tax conversations does not help." New Zealand's corporate tax rate is now one of the highest in the OECD, at 28%. NZ Initiative chief economist Eric Crampton said reducing the government's structural deficit would require a mix of reducing spending, boosting economic growth and increasing taxes. "I would focus on spending before looking at taxes. Increasing revenue to cover the cost of current spending should depend on decent evidence that current spending delivers substantial value. ADVERTISEMENT "If the government demonstrated that higher tax revenue was needed, increasing GST while shifting income tax rates and thresholds to compensate could make sense. Inland Revenue has been looking at different options for ensuring lower-income households would not be made worse off if GST increased. GST captures spending that comes from income that is harder to tax when it is earned, including income from capital gains, as well as spending by tourists. "But first priority ought to be ensuring value-for-money in spending, especially where an ageing population increases fiscal pressure."

Govt forges ahead with foreshore and seabed change
Govt forges ahead with foreshore and seabed change

Otago Daily Times

timean hour ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Govt forges ahead with foreshore and seabed change

By Craig McCulloch of RNZ The government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change. The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline. The government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling. At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans. Today Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless, and to pass it before October. "Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right." Goldsmith said he was not convinced that the Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted. "We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then - which have shown almost 100 percent of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title - which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve." Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: "time will tell". "There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do." The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest. More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024 will need to be reconsidered. That would appear to cover seven cases involving various iwi from around the country. "I understand their frustration over that," Goldsmith said. "But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand." Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs. The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership. The 2004 law - introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government - provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori. National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek to recognition of their rights - or "Customary Marine Title" - through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. The 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that, saying the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation.

Govt going ahead with foreshore and seabed change
Govt going ahead with foreshore and seabed change

Otago Daily Times

timean hour ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Govt going ahead with foreshore and seabed change

By Craig McCulloch of RNZ The government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change. The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline. The government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling. At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans. Today Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless, and to pass it before October. "Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right." Goldsmith said he was not convinced that the Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted. "We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then - which have shown almost 100 percent of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title - which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve." Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: "time will tell". "There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do." The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest. More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024 will need to be reconsidered. That would appear to cover seven cases involving various iwi from around the country. "I understand their frustration over that," Goldsmith said. "But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand." Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs. The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership. The 2004 law - introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government - provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori. National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek to recognition of their rights - or "Customary Marine Title" - through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. The 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that, saying the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store