Wellington Scoop
Network

Last to zero?

first to zero

by Benoit Pette
In August last year, the Wellington City Council declared a climate emergency, and released a blueprint outlining intentions and objectives to make the city carbon neutral by 2050. With a 30 year horizon, it was hard to get past the irony of the program name “Te Atakura, First to Zero.” Hopefully, by then, Wellington will not be first to zero, as many cities will have reached that goal much earlier. But it was a start, and intentions were clearly laid out.

There was therefore a lot of anticipation about the implementation plan, meant to articulate how we planned to achieve these targets. But despite the climate emergency, there hasn’t yet been much sign of urgency.

It wasn’t till one year later (on August 6 2020), that the implementation plan was released, without any media announcement. So it was mostly unnoticed, which might have been intentional – the document is 55 pages long and its lack of ambition is shocking when considering what’s at stake. It’s empty of real actions that could change the course of Wellington’s greenhouse gas emissions and ensure the city does its part to mitigate climate change.

What should we have been able to expect from the implementation plan? There should be binding, bold and clearly aligned actions for the council to deliver, with requirements and delivery strongly linked. According to this document, most of the emissions are coming from transport, so this is where the strongest actions should have been found. Alas, the plan is full of “advocating” with plenty of “investigating opportunities”. In other words, the strategy relies on “best efforts” and “best intentions”.

On page 12, it states:

“… Transportation: At 53% of the city’s emissions, we need a rapid reduction in fossil fuel vehicles in favour of public transport, electric vehicles, shared mobility, cycling, walking and remote working. Aviation and marine account for almost 20% of this sector, but have limited immediately available solutions; therefore a move away fossil fuel road vehicles will need to be the biggest challenge of this decade.”

The airport’s emissions, which amount to 20% of Wellington transport emissions (25% of ALL emissions according to other reports) are left unaddressed. For the remaining 80%, the only substantial actions are more cycleways, and rapid transit which as we sadly know won’t see daylight for at least another 10 years and are far from under the Council’s control.

The implementation plan sees great opportunities in switching to electric vehicles which will be achieved by:

“… advocating to central Government for regulatory and policy changes for EVs and renewable electricity generation”

To say this is underwhelming is a euphemism: the Council is not committing to do anything but watch and advocate, debate and identify opportunities. Yet, countless cities have already set a firm timeframe to ban fossil-fuel from CBD streets in 2030, some by 2025.

This implementation plan was the perfect opportunity for Wellington to issue a similar statement, as suggested by Councillor Tamatha Paul:

“… Auckland City have committed to being fossil-fuel free CBD streets by 2030. I want us to declare the same thing.”

The implementation plan was the precise moment to declare exactly that, followed by a by-law to make it certain. Additionally, since EVs are the answer to less emissions, the council could have committed to make the new tunnel dedicated to EVs only, should the tunnel come before rapid transit. This is a missed opportunity.

Thankfully, the plan outlines one very sensible measure on page 18:

“Incentivising city-wide remote working – has the potential to reduce city-wide emissions …”

Yet this has been contradicted by some councillors who have called for the exact opposite after the lockdown, to “save the CBD” (suburban businesses, you’re on your own!) The Wellington Regional Economic Development Agency is even spending $75,000 to attract people back into the CBD. As does the mayor, who is calling for people to come back into the CBD:

“GREAT to be down to Covid Level One. Now let’s have all our people back in town – our business community and their employees need us all doing that! …”

Of course, the elephants in the room are the big contributors to the GHG emissions: aviation and marine activities. Here, while 92% of the public says emissions must be reduced “no matter what” (page 15), the Council decides … to do nothing, despite the 92 per cent, and despite the very real threat of climate change. This is behaviour commonly known as “procrastination’ that has led to the climate debacle we are in, a crisis so severe that experts estimate its economic cost will be 5 to 6 times the cost of COVID-19.

As suggested several times, the only way forward, if Wellington is serious about reducing its GHG, is to put a sinking cap on emissions from these big polluters. While not stopping people from flying, it would force the industry to adapt to the pollution it is responsible for. The Council should create a framework to contain the emission of its two biggest polluters, located in the middle of the city.

This is a timely reminder that, while the city has been trying to bring down its emissions, the airport’s have gone up by a staggering 45% since 2001, and will increase even more if the expansion plan goes ahead. In a time of climate emergency, the Council could commit to not issuing resource consents for the Airport’s expansion. Upon arrival of clean planes , the growth could resume, with strict conditions that emissions don’t increase.

Even with its core operations (“The Council itself”, page 36), the Council fails to set ambitious actions. It starts with a 2030 goal to convert its transport fleet to electric (page 39):

“Alongside identifying opportunities to reduce the size of the Council’s vehicle fleet, a December 2030 timeframe has been proposed to replace all Council owned fossil fuel driven cars, SUVs, vans and utes with zero emission electric replacements. Electrifying the fleet has the potential to reduce our corporate transport carbon emissions …”

While this is laudable (but note the “identifying opportunities” part), why did it stop there. There should be a change to the procurement process for subcontractors, setting up a minimum share of electrified tools, trucks and machinery to be eligible to work for the Council. A gradual increase over the years (20% minimum by 2025, 40% by 2027, etc) would give a firm indication to the industry it is time to undertake the transition, beyond the narrow perimeter of the Council owned fleet.

Finally, the implementation plan is not supported by reliable numbers. It starts, on page 12, by confusing the efforts that will be required, by which decade:

“… Council has committed to ensuring Wellington is a net zero emission city by 2050, with a commitment to making the most significant cuts (43% [from 2001]) in the next 10 years.”

The problem is that a couple of lines below, a table shows that Wellington has already reduced emissions by 10% in 2020 from 2001. With a reduction target of 43% by 2030 from 2001, the reduction between 2020 and 2030 is of 33 points. In the same table, the reduction target between 2040 and 2050 is of 32 points (from 68% to 100%). So, in this plan, the reduction efforts will be steep (33 points) between now and 2030, then relax a little (25 points), then steep again (32 points)! These numbers contradict the story that the commitment will be more significant in the first 10 years – 32 points (or a 43% reduction compared to 2001) is what’s needed to get to zero in 2050.

On page 18, the plan sums up all the 28 actions it has listed and concludes it has the potential to reduce emissions by … 14%! In other words, the implementation plan, with all its advocating, recognizes it will fail:

“This plan includes 28 committed and recommended actions with associated GHG reductions that can be measured. These actions are estimated to result in an 80,043 tCO2e reduction per annum, or a 14% reduction, in city-wide emissions from 2001 levels at 2030”

So the actions are not only unambitious and weak, but also they are insufficient to reach the targets the 2019 blueprint has set out … How can we, as a city, can be satisfied with that?

Overall, the implementation plan is a missed opportunity. It reiterates some lukewarm targets, set a year ago, and does not contain any new meaningful actions to significantly curb emissions in Wellington. It leaves the market to act on its own, and it hopes that Central Government will do the hard work, which makes the City Council a simple observer, with plenty of advocating to do.

Can Councillors and the Mayor say they are truly satisfied with it? Do they think it really lays mechanisms to curb the city’s emissions “no matter what”? Is there something more coming (another document?) which will gives confidence that climate change will not be left to luck in Wellington? Everyone knows that “economic urgency” is not enough to justify lack of action, so why is this plan so pale?

9 comments:

  1. TrevorH, 27. September 2020, 7:50

    The “climate emergency” is so 2019. People are now having to cope with the very real economic crisis of COVID 19.

     
  2. James, 27. September 2020, 23:10

    Say that to the next bush fire Trev

     
  3. PCGM, 28. September 2020, 10:01

    Benoit – You’re completely right about the lack of action and lack of ambition on climate change. Based on its track record, the council is entirely disinterested in ever addressing the issues – it’s far more intent on endlessly talking about them instead. Unfortunately, the current “implementation plan” is merely the latest in a long string of documents that all say the same things, in some cases using nearly identical words.

    Back in 2007, the Wellington City Council Climate Change Action Plan noted that >50% of the city’s emissions were caused by transport, and that urgent action was needed. It committed to a Council target of being carbon neutral by 2012 and a community target of a 30% reduction by 2020. The same plan got updated in 2010, with no noticeable changes other than a shifting of the goal-posts.

    By 2013, Wellington City’s Climate Change Action Plan had received an extreme makeover and was a professionally produced document. The 30% reduction in emissions by 2020 was still on the table (despite no noticeable progress in the years between plans) and transport was still noted as being more than 50% of our emissions. So the report was money well spent, then.

    By 2016 there was the Low Carbon Capital document, billed as a “climate change action plan for Wellington 2016-2018”. It trotted out the same assessments and analysis, which is to be expected – all the challenges in the capital are exactly the same as they were for the first report in 2007 (and indeed, since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992). But what had changed by 2016 was WCC’s abandonment of its own responsibility for delivering reduced emissions.

    In the 2016 document, the council was no longer committing to any emissions reductions in its own operations until 2050, whereupon – magically and miraculously! – emissions would plummet 80% overnight. The phrase “magical thinking” rather springs to mind.

    And, of course, nothing much has happened in the interim … unless we count the $350,000 allocated in the mother-of-all-budgets post-COVID emergency annual plan from the council, which was going to go towards – you guessed it – more talking about climate change. As if the issue of the climate emergency and its causes and solutions were still somehow new subjects that needed yet more meetings involving furrowed brows and whiteboards. Rather than, say, buying some electric cars to replace the petrol and diesel equivalents in the council fleet.

    Looking back on this sorry mess of inaction and prevarication, the only positive I can identify from 13 years of council-issued reports on climate change is that the production values of the documents have increased significantly. The fonts are now much nicer than they were. But the planet is still burning, and the council is still sitting on its hands.

     
  4. Groggy, 28. September 2020, 11:38

    No only has no positive action been proposed, but we have gone significantly backwards. Gone are the 50 bus electric trolley fleet replaced by Auckland’s castoff polluting old diesels. Supposedly temporary they are still belching their way around the city.

     
  5. Tim Jones, 28. September 2020, 19:53

    That’s a very good analysis, Benoit! I thought the intention was a 43% reduction *on 2020 figures* between 2020 and 2030, so this needs to be clarified urgently by Councillors.

    This reinforces my sense that we can’t rely on Council officers – even those with goodwill to this kaupapa are already over-stretched by their current commitments – to make these decisions. Neither can we rely on the big emitters on the current implementation group, like Wellington Airport or Victoria University, to make good or just decisions about where emissions cuts should be made, who pays, and who benefits.

    An approach that reaches is out to the community – and not just to folks like me! – and uses existing and new community decision-making methods is more likely to be effective, I think.

     
  6. Iona Pannett, 28. September 2020, 23:12

    Great article. We know there is a gap. Hopefully to be plugged through the LTP. More political will needed to do better. Thanks for your work. [via twitter]

     
  7. Tamatha Paul, 28. September 2020, 23:22

    I wish this discourse was around prior to adopting the plan but it’s a living doc so can incorporate some feedback in. There is definitely heaps more that we need to do, and climate change has to be factored into every decision we make. Which I have done consistently and you might have seen in the 20+ amendments I brought forward to the plan incl references to spatial plan and LGWM. It was a shame the media weren’t interested but I did try, no public participation on the plan either but I did promote the Plan as much as I could on all of my channels + there was an RNZ article and WCC release so no intention to obscure the plan. Needs committed funding through Long Term Plan. [via twitter]

     
  8. Benoit Pette, 29. September 2020, 10:59

    @Tamatha Paul: Thanks for your feedback, Tam. I naively thought my articles and continuous discussions with you and other councillors would suffice to feed into the consultation. My only new suggestion that came with this article is on conditioning resource/building consents on strictly not increasing emissions (especially and more importantly for the airport). The plan is very clear on this (page 22):
    “Major GHG reduction potential
    At almost 20% of the city’s emissions, and with emissions from these sectors still increasing, actions to reduce emissions from aviation and marine sectors must be explored and identified in collaboration with key stakeholders. Although aviation emissions will remain low in the short-term due to the Covid-19 pandemic, strong investment in potential solutions is needed.”

    The lack of action directly addressing the airport emissions is worrying. On my contribution to the consultation process, lesson’s learned, I’ll take part in the official process next time. Also, I am not saying my suggestions are gospel, but whatever the ones that make it to the plan have to stack up to meet the targets! And of course, actions have to be more than advocating: the Council has levers, it must use them.

    On communicating on the plan, I have looked for a WCC press release and couldn’t find it. I asked officers to send a link and didn’t get it. My comment on the plan being obscured was more tongue in cheek.

    Finally, I have zero doubt on the sincerity of your actions, Cr Paul, but I now have serious doubt the Council has what it takes to make a difference. As Cr Pannett said, political will is what will matter here, and the Council has little time left to show it is really serious about climate change. Also I have requested feedback on this article from every Councillor, separately.

    @Tim Jones: Agreed with your suggestion for community decision making (although, isn’t it why we elect a Council?): I have already suggested a few solutions doing exactly that to Cr Matthews (in charge of engagement portfolio) and the Mayor. At a high level, it’d consist in a simplified, digital consultation process, mixing online debate, geo-fenced, moderated and weighted, leading to a vote that would be either binding for the Council, or at the very least represent two votes at the Council table when the issues are debated.

     
  9. Dr Sea Rotmann, 22. October 2020, 15:08

    Thank you, Benoit for this great piece of analysis. The Guardians of the Bays did a similar one on the 2016 climate “plan”, and highlighted the huge issue of simply ignoring the aviation emissions (especially for long-haul/international flights). The WCC is 1/3 co-owner and has a seeming conflict of interest when it provides WIAL with ongoing consents to expand into our communities, yet ignores it as the single-largest GHG emitter in our city.

    All the other points people made are true as well, and although I appreciate there is only so much WCC can do (also needs GWRC and the national govt agencies like NZTA to play ball), the ongoing “talk but no walk” strategy is going to bite all us majorly in the butt once climate disasters start piling on top of one another… We are SUPER vulnerable as a city and need to take this on much more seriously, and systemically including by forming a Citizens Assembly, and an independently-run stakeholder group like the Land and Water Forum.

    It’s been going on for too long that WCC has been captured by big business interests like Infratil’s or Ian Cassel’s or the business roundtable’s. Our people and our environment urgently need our elected officials’ support too.