How "long" is the long run of which Keynes spoke? The Kyoto protocol was promulgated in 1992 and I understand Simon brought it to the attention of his colleagues in government. He was ahead of his time. Thirty years later we have a government that seems to be undoing what little progress we might have been making on climate change, including in the primary sector. In thirty years' time will we still be debating these issues? Quite possibly, and by then it will surely be too late.
Can we "square the circle", reconciling environmental requirements with economic advance and doing what we have to do to save the planet and address climate change while at the same time maintaining our standard of living and the social conditions of life that we take for granted? I think there is a way through, but it requires throwing out a lot of ideological baggage and working in a much more pragmatic and coordinated way, including using the convening power of the state in concert with key stakeholders.
New Zealand has "soft power". To much of the rest of the world we look like an idyllic corner of the globe with high environmental standards, an independent stance on many issues, a "work in progress" on relations with first nations that looks world leading, an acceptable welfare state, high levels of renewable energy in electricity, and so on. In this context environmentalism and climate change compliance are commercial opportunities, not existential threats. Increasingly consumers want to know that the fruits of land and sea are being reaped sustainably. We had it right with "100% Pure", except that was a slogan rather than a substantive policy commitment.
At The Helen Clark Foundation we recently released a report on adding value in the primary sector, arguing that it should shift from being an extractive industrial sector to one that grows by adding value and gaining a premium in the market place for its distinctive national brand (https://helenclark.foundation/publications-and-medias/pathways-to-prosperity/). The former CEO of Unilever, Paul Polman, beamed into our launch to urge us on in this endeavour.
In the report we featured case studies of successful added value that did not require plunder of our natural capital - Red Stag (adding value to lumber instead of exporting raw logs), Comvita (developing IP for a natural resource (Manuka) in honey), Zespri (constant product development, industry coordination, savvy marketing), A2 milk (another IP story), and the Icelandic fishing industry which realised it was at a tipping point to disaster and halved its take from the ocean while doubling the value extracted. We could have found more.
Unfortunately we are still at the stage of score settling and clearing the legislative decks at this stage in the electoral cycle, including getting rid of all the industry groups the previous government had established and a close-to-final agreement on bringing methane into somewhere close to the ETS and climate change action. Once we get past the utu and the associated performative theatre of politics at this stage of the electoral cycle, can we have a concerted attempt to exploit that "soft power" that New Zealand has in abundance - both for our environment and for our future economic and social prospects?
Thanks for posting this. I think Dr Upton is correct on every point. I also appreciate that, like Keynes in 1930, he is concerned with the economic possibilities for our grandchildren. The post contains practical suggestions on how our generation can address that vision.
Great post. Thanks for sharing. It's important to face up to these uncomfortable realities. And to do this in a way that recognises what or who is on the other side of the table. Increased polarisation won't help. Pragmatism will. We need pragmatic solutions, otherwise resistance will stop any progress. And, like you say, we need to work with and hear those voices we disagree with to find solutions that are likely to be implemented.
Re: Trade-offs. 100%! Trade-offs are everywhere but people tend to overlook them. I talk a lot about tradeoffs in my newsletter on biodiversity-climate nexus and water management issues. e.g. "Life is all about trade-offs. Until we understand that, our actions will be sub-optimal. Yet, until recently, policies have tended to treat climate change and biodiversity loss as separate issues." - https://predirections.substack.com/p/the-search-for-win-win-biodiversity
Anyway, thanks for this post. I enjoyed it and am disappointed I missed the EDS conference,
How "long" is the long run of which Keynes spoke? The Kyoto protocol was promulgated in 1992 and I understand Simon brought it to the attention of his colleagues in government. He was ahead of his time. Thirty years later we have a government that seems to be undoing what little progress we might have been making on climate change, including in the primary sector. In thirty years' time will we still be debating these issues? Quite possibly, and by then it will surely be too late.
Can we "square the circle", reconciling environmental requirements with economic advance and doing what we have to do to save the planet and address climate change while at the same time maintaining our standard of living and the social conditions of life that we take for granted? I think there is a way through, but it requires throwing out a lot of ideological baggage and working in a much more pragmatic and coordinated way, including using the convening power of the state in concert with key stakeholders.
New Zealand has "soft power". To much of the rest of the world we look like an idyllic corner of the globe with high environmental standards, an independent stance on many issues, a "work in progress" on relations with first nations that looks world leading, an acceptable welfare state, high levels of renewable energy in electricity, and so on. In this context environmentalism and climate change compliance are commercial opportunities, not existential threats. Increasingly consumers want to know that the fruits of land and sea are being reaped sustainably. We had it right with "100% Pure", except that was a slogan rather than a substantive policy commitment.
At The Helen Clark Foundation we recently released a report on adding value in the primary sector, arguing that it should shift from being an extractive industrial sector to one that grows by adding value and gaining a premium in the market place for its distinctive national brand (https://helenclark.foundation/publications-and-medias/pathways-to-prosperity/). The former CEO of Unilever, Paul Polman, beamed into our launch to urge us on in this endeavour.
In the report we featured case studies of successful added value that did not require plunder of our natural capital - Red Stag (adding value to lumber instead of exporting raw logs), Comvita (developing IP for a natural resource (Manuka) in honey), Zespri (constant product development, industry coordination, savvy marketing), A2 milk (another IP story), and the Icelandic fishing industry which realised it was at a tipping point to disaster and halved its take from the ocean while doubling the value extracted. We could have found more.
Unfortunately we are still at the stage of score settling and clearing the legislative decks at this stage in the electoral cycle, including getting rid of all the industry groups the previous government had established and a close-to-final agreement on bringing methane into somewhere close to the ETS and climate change action. Once we get past the utu and the associated performative theatre of politics at this stage of the electoral cycle, can we have a concerted attempt to exploit that "soft power" that New Zealand has in abundance - both for our environment and for our future economic and social prospects?
Thanks for posting this. I think Dr Upton is correct on every point. I also appreciate that, like Keynes in 1930, he is concerned with the economic possibilities for our grandchildren. The post contains practical suggestions on how our generation can address that vision.
Great post. Thanks for sharing. It's important to face up to these uncomfortable realities. And to do this in a way that recognises what or who is on the other side of the table. Increased polarisation won't help. Pragmatism will. We need pragmatic solutions, otherwise resistance will stop any progress. And, like you say, we need to work with and hear those voices we disagree with to find solutions that are likely to be implemented.
Re: Trade-offs. 100%! Trade-offs are everywhere but people tend to overlook them. I talk a lot about tradeoffs in my newsletter on biodiversity-climate nexus and water management issues. e.g. "Life is all about trade-offs. Until we understand that, our actions will be sub-optimal. Yet, until recently, policies have tended to treat climate change and biodiversity loss as separate issues." - https://predirections.substack.com/p/the-search-for-win-win-biodiversity
Anyway, thanks for this post. I enjoyed it and am disappointed I missed the EDS conference,