Environment

Key Points:

All climate change and net zero spending and policies would be cancelled
Any international agreements about climate change would be withdrawn from
All conservation projects (both environmental and recreational) would be funded by a GoFundMe-like system and user fees

Details:

Climate Change:

The degree to which human carbon emissions affect the climate is far from settled science and open to debate, but it is abundantly clear that climate change is not an emergency or imminent threat to human lives or the economy. Humans are a tropical species and thrive in warmer environments, with the warmest periods through history being the most prosperous. Carbon dioxide is essential for plant life and elevated levels are probably a net benefit to the environment, resulting in the greening of the planet and higher crop yields. Even if climate change was an imminent threat, taking New Zealand's economy to net zero emissions would have no effect on the global climate and do nothing but destroy our economy, especially given that the largest economies in the world are not currently taking any action towards net zero. The only potentially valid argument for continuing with net zero efforts is that the EU may use our lack of action as an excuse to implement barriers to our trade with them but given that they are the only significant region still perusing net zero they would have to do the same for trade with the rest of the world, which is unlikely. Even if our trade with the EU was in danger, it is not clear that the loss of our trade with them would be more costly than persuing net zero in the first place.

The most scientifically illiterate and economically ruinous climate change policy for New Zealand is trying to control methane emissions from livestock. Every atom of carbon emitted as methane from livestock came from the plants the animal ate, which got its carbon from the atmosphere, where the methane breaks down naturally into carbon dioxide to complete the natural cycle. Regenerative farming methods actually sequester carbon in the soil as livestock manure fertilizers it. Even if carbon dioxide emissions were an existential threat, livestock are not contributing to this.

To prevent committing economic suicide for no reason, all government net zero spending and policies would be cancelled. All international agreements including the Paris agreement would be withdrawn from. All restrictions on prospecting, producing, and using oil, gas, and coal would be lifted, with the exception of regulating direct environmental effects such as water quality and particulate air pollution.

The emissions trading scheme would become voluntary for emitters, and businesses could offer carbon neutral options to consumers if they were willing to pay for them.

Fiscal Impact: I estimate the government would save $1.15 billion by ending climate change policies, but would also lose $1.3 billion in net carbon credit revenue (resulting in lower energy prices and boosting the economy)

Conservation:

The best way to preserve and restore the natural environment is to have a wealthy population. Only people who are not constantly worried about their own or their children's survival, safety, and comfort will begin to care for the environment. The number one environmental objective should therefore be to generate as much wealth as possible.

The most difficult task in conservation is deciding which projects are most worthy of allocating taxpayer's money to. Taxes are taken from residents by force, and at minimum they should be spent in line with the wishes of the population, and having unelected bureaucrats allocate these funds is unlikely to result in this happening. To solve this, a system similar to GoFundMe should be set up, where anyone can propose a project (from environmental programs such as species protection or pest control to recreational projects such as upgraded or new tracks and huts), and anyone could pledge an amount towards the project. Proposed projects that received their full funding budget would be allowed to proceed, and the individual or group who proposed it would be responsible for delivering the project within budget, with any shortfalls met out of their own pocket (they would be entitled to keep any surplus). Projects could include their own revenue streams (such as hut fees) to help fund it and could utilise volunteer subsidies to keep costs down. As well as projects reflecting the wishes of the public more accurately, crowdsourcing the funding in this way would save a lot of costs for both the government and community groups by eliminating the bureaucracy that deals with funding allocation and community grants. The delivery of projects is also likely to be much more efficient, with them being managed by groups of passionate volunteers who have to meet budgets or fund the difference themselves, and this budgetary pressure is also likely to spur innovations.

An app would be created with GPS tracking that would be a requirement for anyone using popular tracks (poorly maintained tracks would be free). Similar to road tolls, the app would charge users per km, and these fees would be used to construct and maintain tracks and other infrastructure, as well as environmental improvement programs in the surrounding area. Landowners could add private tracks to the app, and giving them a revenue stream would incentivise them to open their land to recreation and improve the environment to make it more attractive to users. Private groups could also use the app to fund projects on public land as an alternative to seeking donations. Random checks would give anyone without the app an instant fine to encourage compliance.

The role of the Department of Conservation would be limited to determining whether proposed projects were suitable or not. Projects would be allowed to proceed if they have a net positive environmental impact, which could be achieved by minimising the negative impacts of the project, or by including an improvement program (such as pest control or planting) to counter the negative impacts on the environment and make the net impact positive. To restrict proposals to only serious projects, a fee would be charged to cover the cost of reviewing them.

Roads controlled by the Department of Conservation would receive road tolls to fund their maintenance, which would cover the costs of maintaining these roads and related infrastructure. With all projects being funded by user fees or donations, the net cost to taxpayers for conservation would fall to zero.

Fiscal Impact: These proposals will save taxpayers $795k, although they would be expected to voluntarily donate to projects they believe in, and would have to pay fees for any tracks they used.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse