WEBVTT - Steve Abel: Greens claim they can reduce emission five-fold 0:00:05.761 --> 0:00:09.641 You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks'd 0:00:09.681 --> 0:00:10.721 be the Greens. 0:00:10.841 --> 0:00:14.641 As I mentioned today, I've released their new emissions reduction plan, 0:00:15.161 --> 0:00:17.921 taking a hit at the current government's plan. They claim 0:00:17.961 --> 0:00:20.721 that their plan will reduce carbon emissions more than five 0:00:20.761 --> 0:00:23.561 times the government's draft emissions reduction plan by twenty thirty. 0:00:24.121 --> 0:00:26.801 Some of the proposed policies include the re introduction of 0:00:26.841 --> 0:00:30.361 the Clean Card, discount cleaning heating subsidies for rooftop solar, 0:00:30.761 --> 0:00:35.601 and reinstating the oil and gas ban. And Green Party 0:00:35.721 --> 0:00:38.961 MP Steve Abele is with me now. Steve, Good afternoon. 0:00:40.921 --> 0:00:42.961 Good thanks, So there's a fair bit of detail on this. 0:00:43.161 --> 0:00:47.121 What's the What are the one or two takeaways you'd 0:00:47.201 --> 0:00:51.001 like our listeners to sort of take away from this announcement. 0:00:52.641 --> 0:00:54.321 I guess the main thing I'd like for to take 0:00:54.321 --> 0:00:57.441 away is that, you know, we think of climate change 0:00:57.481 --> 0:00:59.881 as this monumental challenge that we have to step up to. 0:01:00.601 --> 0:01:03.121 It turns out that if we actually put in the 0:01:03.161 --> 0:01:07.921 effort and decarbonize our society, it ends up also being 0:01:08.121 --> 0:01:11.721 better for our overall resilience and cost us less money 0:01:11.961 --> 0:01:14.441 in terms of at the household level, in terms of 0:01:14.481 --> 0:01:19.201 our transport in terms of the potential penalties will face 0:01:19.241 --> 0:01:21.641 if we don't achieve our mission targets. 0:01:22.161 --> 0:01:26.601 The demand to end fossil fuels is that realistic. 0:01:30.401 --> 0:01:33.841 I think what's not realistic is thinking that we can 0:01:34.521 --> 0:01:38.561 keep on business as usual, because we know that burning 0:01:38.601 --> 0:01:44.121 fossil fuels on a planetary scale drives these extreme weather 0:01:44.161 --> 0:01:49.201 events that cost us in lives and livelihoods and our 0:01:49.201 --> 0:01:53.641 ability to produce food, and obviously it cost the economy, 0:01:54.161 --> 0:01:58.001 and so it's not realistic for us to keep on 0:01:58.161 --> 0:02:01.361 burning fossil fuels at the volume that we are. We 0:02:01.561 --> 0:02:06.401 see here in New Zealand, we've got this incredible tricity system. 0:02:06.641 --> 0:02:11.321 There's mostly clean energy, mostly renewable, and our plan would 0:02:11.321 --> 0:02:14.801 allow us to take the whole energy system, you know, 0:02:15.081 --> 0:02:17.961 overbuild our generation so that we've got one hundred and 0:02:18.001 --> 0:02:22.921 fifty percent more electricity generation using clean energy solar and wind, 0:02:23.441 --> 0:02:26.761 and then use that energy to power our transport fleet 0:02:27.241 --> 0:02:30.201 trains and buses and cars, and that that will cost 0:02:30.241 --> 0:02:33.241 us a lot less than currently were import about eight 0:02:33.281 --> 0:02:37.481 billion dollars offshore oil to run our transport. So getting 0:02:37.481 --> 0:02:41.441 off that fossil oil is both better for our resilience 0:02:42.041 --> 0:02:42.961 and for our pockets. 0:02:43.001 --> 0:02:45.761 How much would that infrastructure cost to get what did 0:02:45.761 --> 0:02:47.201 you say? One hundred and fifty percent of what we 0:02:47.641 --> 0:02:48.721 what we currently need. 0:02:50.201 --> 0:02:53.001 Yes, I mean the cost of, for example, our clean 0:02:53.121 --> 0:02:57.161 power payment. It's about in about the one point six 0:02:58.641 --> 0:03:01.681 billion dollar mark. But you think about the government's current 0:03:01.761 --> 0:03:04.441 transport plan over ten years as one hundred and eighty 0:03:04.481 --> 0:03:05.041 billion dollars. 0:03:05.521 --> 0:03:09.201 So that isling roads though, isn't it, which we will 0:03:09.241 --> 0:03:09.841 still be using. 0:03:10.041 --> 0:03:12.401 That's basically mostly what it is. But it's a lot 0:03:12.401 --> 0:03:14.321 of stuff and the new stuff that we don't need, 0:03:14.761 --> 0:03:17.721 and we could be instead of investing in that, investing 0:03:17.761 --> 0:03:20.681 in the cheaper, more efficient means of getting around our cities, 0:03:20.721 --> 0:03:23.961 particularly urban transport systems. So in terms of how we 0:03:24.081 --> 0:03:29.481 juggle the money, we can through an emissions training scheme 0:03:29.561 --> 0:03:34.321 and through the way we redirect our current fiscal expenditure 0:03:35.041 --> 0:03:39.121 actually lower the cost of energy bulls, lower our carbon emissions, 0:03:39.361 --> 0:03:41.521 and it is cost effective. In fact, it's much more 0:03:41.521 --> 0:03:44.561 cost effective than what we're the current government's doing, which 0:03:44.601 --> 0:03:48.321 is kind of throwing fuel on the flames of climate change. 0:03:48.401 --> 0:03:51.201 What you mentioned about that the massive budget we spend 0:03:51.241 --> 0:03:54.201 on transport and everything, what don't we what don't we 0:03:54.241 --> 0:03:56.841 need to spend that money on. What do we would 0:03:56.921 --> 0:03:58.721 put any particular standouts for you? 0:04:00.361 --> 0:04:02.681 I think the sort of idea that we could build 0:04:02.721 --> 0:04:06.681 our building roads is going to solve our congestion problems. 0:04:07.521 --> 0:04:12.721 A lot of those roading projects are really extravagant, very expensive, 0:04:13.401 --> 0:04:17.121 and they don't solve congestion. We know that because we 0:04:17.201 --> 0:04:19.001 see all over the world, don't we see right here 0:04:19.081 --> 0:04:22.281 that if you just keep adding more cars to the equation, 0:04:22.561 --> 0:04:25.361 it's a very inefficient way of moving people around. But 0:04:26.081 --> 0:04:29.641 what if we ability outcomes if you invest in public transport, 0:04:29.761 --> 0:04:31.961 because the train or a bus is a farm more 0:04:32.001 --> 0:04:34.401 efficient way of moving lots of people around a city 0:04:34.441 --> 0:04:36.441 than private automobiles. 0:04:36.481 --> 0:04:39.761 Well, in terms of commuters perhaps, but I mean we 0:04:39.841 --> 0:04:41.681 might all be driving green cars. They're still going to 0:04:41.681 --> 0:04:42.521 need the road, aren't they. 0:04:44.161 --> 0:04:46.241 Yeah. I mean it's not that we have no roads. 0:04:46.281 --> 0:04:49.441 We'll certainly have roads, But it's about where you direct 0:04:49.441 --> 0:04:53.001 your investment in terms of the whole mobility picture. So 0:04:53.401 --> 0:04:56.801 roads are an important part of that. But the idea 0:04:56.801 --> 0:05:00.441 that we should be cutting funding from public transport or 0:05:00.481 --> 0:05:04.001 not thinking that electrification of rail isn't a great and 0:05:04.081 --> 0:05:07.001 useful thing to do. You know, when you go to 0:05:07.321 --> 0:05:10.081 cities around the world that have the mix right, they 0:05:10.121 --> 0:05:13.721 have a lot of other mobility options. You know, to 0:05:13.721 --> 0:05:15.681 get from a to B you can take a bike, 0:05:15.801 --> 0:05:17.401 or take a bus, or take a train, or take 0:05:17.401 --> 0:05:20.481 a car if you need to. And that's fine, but 0:05:20.521 --> 0:05:23.921 it's we can't have a situation in most of our 0:05:24.201 --> 0:05:27.081 urban centers where the public transport options are pretty scant 0:05:27.521 --> 0:05:29.921 and people are kind of trapped in the hegemony of 0:05:30.041 --> 0:05:33.121 the automobile, you know, they can't kind of do much else. 0:05:33.161 --> 0:05:34.361 You know, I lived in London for two and a 0:05:34.401 --> 0:05:35.721 half years. I never needed a car. 0:05:37.001 --> 0:05:40.601 Yeah, difficult to compare the city of the size of London, 0:05:40.641 --> 0:05:41.641 I guess, hasn't that. 0:05:42.601 --> 0:05:46.241 Well, it turns out size that actually size doesn't matter 0:05:46.241 --> 0:05:48.201 in this instance. But there's lots of cities that are 0:05:48.201 --> 0:05:50.201 the same size and some of our bigger cities or 0:05:50.241 --> 0:05:54.321 smaller and they have far better transport systems than we do. 0:05:54.801 --> 0:05:58.121 So you can still have a much more efficient transport 0:05:58.201 --> 0:06:03.081 network by reducing our fixation with the automobile. And it's 0:06:03.121 --> 0:06:04.921 just one of the things. But the opportunity we have 0:06:05.121 --> 0:06:10.041 news on with our already strong electricity network is that 0:06:10.121 --> 0:06:13.721 we can electrify whatever means to transport we we're using, 0:06:14.081 --> 0:06:17.601 whether it's the electric bus or train or automobile. And 0:06:17.641 --> 0:06:20.841 that's these big emissions cuts and also big cuts to 0:06:20.921 --> 0:06:27.041 our our household expenditure and energy builds. Domestic energy bills 0:06:27.081 --> 0:06:30.241 go down. There's lots of advantages. The kind of reinvestment 0:06:30.361 --> 0:06:33.721 in oil and gas and cold pre is the most 0:06:33.761 --> 0:06:36.641 expensive option. That's what the government's pushing for, and it 0:06:36.681 --> 0:06:38.961 doesn't solve this catastrophic I guess you have climate change. 0:06:39.041 --> 0:06:41.041 The reintroduction of the clean car disc out. There's a 0:06:41.081 --> 0:06:42.921 lot of people who are thinking they just see that 0:06:42.961 --> 0:06:45.801 as a benefit for the wealthy, middle income people who 0:06:45.801 --> 0:06:51.921 can't afford a new green car. Basically, ev isn't this 0:06:52.081 --> 0:06:54.361 just a social welfare for wealthy people who can pay 0:06:54.361 --> 0:06:55.401 for it themselves. 0:06:56.321 --> 0:06:58.241 I think the thing is that you do it as 0:06:58.281 --> 0:07:01.041 part of a suite of strategies, and it's one way 0:07:01.081 --> 0:07:05.361 to get greater electrification capability. The cost of a lectric 0:07:05.401 --> 0:07:07.561 cars is going down all the time. If we have 0:07:07.641 --> 0:07:12.161 a much bigger electric car fleet, the secondhand market becomes 0:07:12.921 --> 0:07:16.721 more substantial, and so those sort of inequities in terms 0:07:16.761 --> 0:07:18.681 of the cost of buying any electric car which most 0:07:18.681 --> 0:07:21.721 people can't afford. You, right, we'll move out the system. 0:07:22.721 --> 0:07:24.761 Would you have the discount for secondhand cars as well, 0:07:24.761 --> 0:07:26.361 for those whose budget isn't so bad. 0:07:28.001 --> 0:07:30.281 Now it's designed for getting new cars into the system, 0:07:30.321 --> 0:07:35.281 but then that naturally creates a secondhand electric cars fleet. 0:07:35.921 --> 0:07:38.961 But also you get the infrastructure so that you know, 0:07:39.001 --> 0:07:41.681 you can readily confidently know you can get from a 0:07:41.801 --> 0:07:43.401 to be a long distance and there'll be a place 0:07:43.481 --> 0:07:47.281 to charge on the way. And the advantage of that 0:07:47.321 --> 0:07:49.281 one is huge, and people took it up, you know, 0:07:50.121 --> 0:07:53.721 on an extraordinary scale. The clean cake discount was extremely effective. 0:07:54.841 --> 0:07:57.641 And you know, LO looked a lot of taxi drivers 0:07:57.641 --> 0:07:59.561 and huber drivers who went and got an electric vehicle 0:07:59.641 --> 0:08:02.241 because they did the maths on it was it was 0:08:02.241 --> 0:08:05.041 a very good option for them. This government is absolute, 0:08:05.201 --> 0:08:07.721 we can to that market. But they've they've kind of 0:08:07.801 --> 0:08:11.721 killed it overnight by sending lots of the wrong signals 0:08:11.761 --> 0:08:15.361 to the community about the support for electrification. And that's 0:08:15.361 --> 0:08:16.561 a real backward step. 0:08:16.801 --> 0:08:19.801 So you've got a play proposing a tax on agriculture, 0:08:19.961 --> 0:08:22.321 isn't it and so the farmers are in the gun, 0:08:22.361 --> 0:08:24.121 I guess, But isn't the problem. Do you have a 0:08:24.121 --> 0:08:26.321 problem with the amount of milk, lamb and beef that 0:08:26.361 --> 0:08:28.881 we are consuming? Isn't the consumer as the consumer the 0:08:28.881 --> 0:08:30.681 problem and we're going to have to pay for it anyway. 0:08:30.401 --> 0:08:33.361 Aren't we? Certainly not in New Zealand. I mean, we 0:08:33.481 --> 0:08:36.081 don't consume much of that, and in terms of what's 0:08:36.121 --> 0:08:39.841 produced domestically, ideally we do have a you know, milk, 0:08:39.841 --> 0:08:43.561 for example, ninety five percent of its exported. But the 0:08:43.561 --> 0:08:47.361 the issues about how do we support the farmers who 0:08:47.401 --> 0:08:52.281 are moving to the more efficient and more sustainable ways 0:08:52.321 --> 0:08:54.841 of farming. And there's lots of really exciting stuffing in 0:08:54.881 --> 0:08:58.681 the agriculture space. I'm constantly inspired by what farmers are doing, 0:08:59.521 --> 0:09:04.001 but we need to actually recognize that bringing in emissions, 0:09:05.121 --> 0:09:07.761 you know, price on emissions at the processor level, which 0:09:07.841 --> 0:09:10.401 is you know, not putting the pressure on the farmers 0:09:10.441 --> 0:09:13.241 at the farm level, but keeping a track of reporting 0:09:13.801 --> 0:09:16.801 of what's going on at that level, and reinvesting that 0:09:16.881 --> 0:09:20.441 money back in the agricultural systems to support the transition. 0:09:20.881 --> 0:09:25.161 So really it's a cycling money back into agriculture. But 0:09:25.161 --> 0:09:27.241 the other thing where we're going to do, which farmers 0:09:27.241 --> 0:09:30.881 have been calling out for, is a recognition of biodiversity credits. 0:09:30.921 --> 0:09:32.681 So where farmers are protecting a bit of nat a 0:09:32.721 --> 0:09:35.361 bush and their land or restoring a wetland, we're going 0:09:35.361 --> 0:09:37.401 to recognize that. We're actually going to acknowledge that that 0:09:37.521 --> 0:09:40.001 really good work has been done. And I just want 0:09:40.041 --> 0:09:42.481 to say farmers do some amazing work in that space. 0:09:43.241 --> 0:09:46.961 It's a system problem we have with varying particularly it's 0:09:47.001 --> 0:09:49.761 just a shed volume of animals, the amount of waste 0:09:49.841 --> 0:09:52.961 they produce and nitrate in the urine and all the 0:09:53.001 --> 0:09:54.881 fertilized the use. So the other thing is the cap 0:09:54.921 --> 0:09:56.761 on the fertilizer. We're going to have a sinking cap 0:09:56.841 --> 0:09:59.521 on the amount of nightride fertilizer use, which be better 0:09:59.561 --> 0:10:00.641 for our fresh water as well. 0:10:01.281 --> 0:10:02.921 Looking at the sort of their elephants on the room. 0:10:03.681 --> 0:10:07.681 Because the question is anthropogenic climate change, isn't it? Have 0:10:07.801 --> 0:10:10.561 you within the greens and it's a bigger question, isn't it? 0:10:10.601 --> 0:10:13.761 But the global population is obviously growing at an unsustainable 0:10:13.921 --> 0:10:16.281 rate every year, every few years, we seem to add 0:10:16.281 --> 0:10:19.121 a billion, you know, people to the planet, and therefore 0:10:19.161 --> 0:10:22.401 the demand for our food and our beef and our land, 0:10:22.401 --> 0:10:24.561 et cetera is hardly going to diminish, is it? You 0:10:24.601 --> 0:10:26.881 guys got any thoughts about whether there needs to be 0:10:26.921 --> 0:10:31.601 some action taken internationally speaking about the global population growth 0:10:31.721 --> 0:10:34.521 rate and which probably is connected with the empowerment of 0:10:34.521 --> 0:10:37.881 women in poor countries, isn't it? 0:10:37.881 --> 0:10:40.281 It is very much connegave with that. But the other 0:10:40.321 --> 0:10:43.601 thing is that lots of modeling, you know, most of 0:10:43.641 --> 0:10:48.241 the modeling shows that the global population will plateau in 0:10:48.281 --> 0:10:50.001 coming decades quite significantly. 0:10:50.401 --> 0:10:52.881 Well, I mean, goodness me, what are we at now? 0:10:52.961 --> 0:10:56.241 I mean, what's the plateau going to settle out? Two 0:10:56.321 --> 0:10:57.681 or three billion? Well, that's a lot. 0:10:58.681 --> 0:11:01.041 So let's get bag step because you know, for example, 0:11:02.841 --> 0:11:05.921 the efficient you know, the amount that one person consumes 0:11:05.921 --> 0:11:07.841 in one part of the world versus somebody another part 0:11:07.881 --> 0:11:11.401 of what can be quite substantially different. And you find 0:11:11.401 --> 0:11:15.641 that the sort of distribution of wealth, the distribution of food, 0:11:15.681 --> 0:11:20.001 and the distribution of resources makes a big difference. And 0:11:21.001 --> 0:11:24.361 it turns out that the wealthier countries are the least efficient. 0:11:25.521 --> 0:11:28.761 And it doesn't mean that we can't find huge efficiency 0:11:28.801 --> 0:11:32.161 games in the way that we provide people's needs food, fiber, 0:11:32.201 --> 0:11:36.401 housing and the like. And in terms of the egg space, 0:11:36.521 --> 0:11:41.641 particularly the idea that we're just going to keep sort 0:11:41.641 --> 0:11:44.721 of consuming these volumes of animal products, which are actually 0:11:44.841 --> 0:11:48.041 quite an inefficient way to get nutrition into human bodies. 0:11:49.361 --> 0:11:52.841 And I think my personal view is that animal products 0:11:52.841 --> 0:11:55.841 will always be a part of our diet, but we 0:11:55.921 --> 0:11:59.081 could for a healthier diet ourselves, but also for the 0:11:59.081 --> 0:12:03.241 good of fresh water and the climate, a less livestock 0:12:03.321 --> 0:12:07.241 dependent economy would be better. And here in New Zealand 0:12:07.281 --> 0:12:09.081 there's really exciting opportunities around that. 0:12:09.241 --> 0:12:13.641 Hey, just one last question, what about nuclear great source 0:12:13.641 --> 0:12:16.281 of green energy, isn't it? Would you guys ever support that? 0:12:17.361 --> 0:12:20.881 So it's amazing massive hydrogen and nuclear reactor in the 0:12:20.881 --> 0:12:23.921 sky called the Sun. I'm a big supporter of that 0:12:24.001 --> 0:12:26.601 nuclear energy, and it turns out we've got this incredible 0:12:26.641 --> 0:12:30.721 way of capturing it is very efficiently through solar panels. 0:12:30.721 --> 0:12:33.641 So you know that there's your answer right there. And 0:12:33.681 --> 0:12:39.001 solar panels are way cheaper than you know, clear power plants, 0:12:39.041 --> 0:12:43.201 which are very expensive to build. Even if we didn't 0:12:43.241 --> 0:12:46.201 have a population that doesn't want nuclear power in the zone, 0:12:46.201 --> 0:12:49.641 which we clearly do, you wouldn't find anyone want to 0:12:49.641 --> 0:12:54.041 build a power plant here in a hurry because expensive 0:12:54.161 --> 0:12:55.041 interesting pole. 0:12:55.041 --> 0:12:56.601 That one day, but we can we can discuss that 0:12:56.641 --> 0:12:58.601 another time, Steve. I really appreciate, you know. 0:12:59.321 --> 0:13:02.441 The cost of nuclear in terms of keeping it safe, 0:13:02.601 --> 0:13:07.121 dealing with the waste. They're actually really water intensive nuclear 0:13:07.161 --> 0:13:09.121 power plants and they have a problem with overheating. 0:13:09.601 --> 0:13:11.481 Okay, Steve, I'm going to have to wrap it up 0:13:11.481 --> 0:13:13.521 there there, but thank you so much for your time. 0:13:13.561 --> 0:13:15.521 Really appreciate and enjoy the rest of your day. That's 0:13:15.641 --> 0:13:19.881 Steve Abel. That's around the announcement of the Greens new 0:13:19.881 --> 0:13:21.121 emissions reduction plan. 0:13:21.841 --> 0:13:24.641 For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to news 0:13:24.681 --> 0:13:28.321 talks'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast 0:13:28.401 --> 0:13:29.281 on iHeartRadio.