I spoke to Climate Change Commission Chair Rod Carr about whether another unexpected population jump over the next 30 years would blow our climate targets out of the water. He explains why it wouldn't
Interesting read. One point I'd add is that unless the essential infrastructure can process the water, wastewater, storm water and solid waste requirements of an increased population in towns and cities then this failure does have negative impacts on the environment. How can an exponential increase in the delivery of treated waste water to waterways, or increased need for land to discharge treated waste water as a result of population increase be ignored as a pollution factor? It may not be the main cause but it is still a cause. Environmental effects are supposed to be one of the considerations when deciding whether to approve a resource consent for storm water, waste water, solid waste and water services. This is a recognition of the impact of an activity on the environment. Here in Horowhenua we are already seeing the impacts environmentally of allowing the population to explode, but expecting an ageing industrial age infrastructure to handle that growth. The whole of the Hokio area has borne the brunt of such practices. In some coastal areas the population growth is already affecting the water table. Add unusual climate change events that are becoming usual events (like flooding) and that is not only a pollution problem but a capability problem. Perhaps three waters is a solution - but it's not a magic bullet.
Underlying assumptions of privileged men are the bane of women, indigenous and poor people’s lives. There’s plenty of evidence for that and not too much reliable evidence for much Governments do. We already have gross inequality, decreasing social cohesion and rampant oppression and abuse of women and children with bureaucracies breaking human and legal rights routinely. The same goes for the environment and with many kiwis (800000 plus partners and family) likely and entitled to return 250000 needing to stay and inadequate housing, hospitals and infrastructure to adapt I can’t see any of these projections being correct or working at all despite the political desire to not appear to be xenophobic. The reality is MIQ will likely need to be permanent treated as a bio security issue and much building and rebuilding, educating and health system, pollution waste and water systems reforestation rewilding and economic transformation etc needs to be in place before population increases are planned. That’s probably why such barriers to repatriation are already (purposefully) in place. The passive aggressive kiwi way. Sneaky and not endearing or inspiring of confidence really. Thank God we are all in lockdown so it doesn’t all drive more raging misogynists or there victim/survivors up the wall with raging untruths. Ask our intelligence agencies what’s at our gates and what we already somewhat naively already harbour. Of course they wont say. But it doesn’t take much looking for in a small connected country. What you can’t see or count and is hidden and unaccountable is the problem. Be kind, be nice 😂...
How species is a plague on the planet wiping out resources and habitats of other species. An increasing population blindly follows the unsustainable business growth model.
Bernard, good work as always. I read your article in the spinoff on immigration. Frankly governments in NZ need to take ownership in the future for policy around immigration. Its probably less about numbers of people, its more about whats the growth proposition and what does this mean for the people who are here! Being naive about demand from people in the world who surprisingly take the opportunity to apply to come to NZ and then not planning for this is ridiculous! However this appears to be the behaviour by governments, this is what enables them to open the doors to solve softening economic conditions, create asset inflation etc. But its dangerous without a coherent plan. A sceptic might suggest that the govt that appears to get surprised does not have to answer for their intended policy outcomes.
If we divide our economy up into small enough activities on the basis of special pleading, we can ignore any of them on the basis that they are insignificant compared to overall gross emissions. To focus on gross and give migration or any other element a free pass is to undermine the entire effort.
It seems to remain a central tenet of NZ's policy paradigm that planning is an intrinsically bad thing (or at best futile) and that passive forecasting is sufficient. That such determinism pervades the CCC (as much of the public sector) is tragic, leaving us ill-equipped, underprepared and without a credible platform for action.
This has provided perfect cover for the successive governments terrified of receiving a mandate for concrete and immediate reforms.
Interesting read. One point I'd add is that unless the essential infrastructure can process the water, wastewater, storm water and solid waste requirements of an increased population in towns and cities then this failure does have negative impacts on the environment. How can an exponential increase in the delivery of treated waste water to waterways, or increased need for land to discharge treated waste water as a result of population increase be ignored as a pollution factor? It may not be the main cause but it is still a cause. Environmental effects are supposed to be one of the considerations when deciding whether to approve a resource consent for storm water, waste water, solid waste and water services. This is a recognition of the impact of an activity on the environment. Here in Horowhenua we are already seeing the impacts environmentally of allowing the population to explode, but expecting an ageing industrial age infrastructure to handle that growth. The whole of the Hokio area has borne the brunt of such practices. In some coastal areas the population growth is already affecting the water table. Add unusual climate change events that are becoming usual events (like flooding) and that is not only a pollution problem but a capability problem. Perhaps three waters is a solution - but it's not a magic bullet.
Underlying assumptions of privileged men are the bane of women, indigenous and poor people’s lives. There’s plenty of evidence for that and not too much reliable evidence for much Governments do. We already have gross inequality, decreasing social cohesion and rampant oppression and abuse of women and children with bureaucracies breaking human and legal rights routinely. The same goes for the environment and with many kiwis (800000 plus partners and family) likely and entitled to return 250000 needing to stay and inadequate housing, hospitals and infrastructure to adapt I can’t see any of these projections being correct or working at all despite the political desire to not appear to be xenophobic. The reality is MIQ will likely need to be permanent treated as a bio security issue and much building and rebuilding, educating and health system, pollution waste and water systems reforestation rewilding and economic transformation etc needs to be in place before population increases are planned. That’s probably why such barriers to repatriation are already (purposefully) in place. The passive aggressive kiwi way. Sneaky and not endearing or inspiring of confidence really. Thank God we are all in lockdown so it doesn’t all drive more raging misogynists or there victim/survivors up the wall with raging untruths. Ask our intelligence agencies what’s at our gates and what we already somewhat naively already harbour. Of course they wont say. But it doesn’t take much looking for in a small connected country. What you can’t see or count and is hidden and unaccountable is the problem. Be kind, be nice 😂...
How species is a plague on the planet wiping out resources and habitats of other species. An increasing population blindly follows the unsustainable business growth model.
we need less kids
Bernard, good work as always. I read your article in the spinoff on immigration. Frankly governments in NZ need to take ownership in the future for policy around immigration. Its probably less about numbers of people, its more about whats the growth proposition and what does this mean for the people who are here! Being naive about demand from people in the world who surprisingly take the opportunity to apply to come to NZ and then not planning for this is ridiculous! However this appears to be the behaviour by governments, this is what enables them to open the doors to solve softening economic conditions, create asset inflation etc. But its dangerous without a coherent plan. A sceptic might suggest that the govt that appears to get surprised does not have to answer for their intended policy outcomes.
Listen to Rod Carr ‘steppin an fetchin”. I think what he is saying is that climate change is not caused by human activity at all.
If we divide our economy up into small enough activities on the basis of special pleading, we can ignore any of them on the basis that they are insignificant compared to overall gross emissions. To focus on gross and give migration or any other element a free pass is to undermine the entire effort.
It seems to remain a central tenet of NZ's policy paradigm that planning is an intrinsically bad thing (or at best futile) and that passive forecasting is sufficient. That such determinism pervades the CCC (as much of the public sector) is tragic, leaving us ill-equipped, underprepared and without a credible platform for action.
This has provided perfect cover for the successive governments terrified of receiving a mandate for concrete and immediate reforms.