Kate Newton, reporting for RNZ:
The activist suing major New Zealand emitters over climate change damage says a law change blocking his case and others like it is "an affront to democracy".
The government announced on Tuesday it would amend climate laws to prevent companies from being sued over damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
Most New Zealanders would believe that if there’s harm done, people should be able to have that harm heard out. Maybe even rectified.
Rangatira Mike Smith has been doing that on an atmospheric scale: taking our biggest polluters to court arguing that their carbon pollution is harming his people’s whenua and they should hold some responsibility for the damage of their products.
He might have a point, and from what little I know about tort law, that’s how it works. You hear the case and how it goes sets a precedent.
So for the Government to basically disallow Mike’s case as it’s waiting to be heard, and then disallowing all other cases like it in the future… well. Seems egregious to me.*
At this point, I’m numb to the mountainous volume of awful climate policies the current administration has made. Weakened methane targets, Roads of National Significance, scrapping the Clean Car Discount, crashing the ETS, restoring oil and gas exploration. I could go on.
All of this dubious exercise of power is a real teachable moment for those of us who want to fight for climate change.
The law will not protect us. Policy documents are not how we measure progress. Change in the real world is.
In this scary world of illiberal order, of global chaos and a breakdown of the rules, physical achievement in the real world matters.
It’s far harder to rip out a rail line than it is to rip up a rail strategy document.
It’s pretty easy to slash our climate laws but quite hard to switch an electrified factory back to expensive fossil fuels.
This law change might just be for damages against individuals and companies, but it might not stop there. As far as I know, the only thing that stops Ministers from blocking all climate court cases is norms.
The Ardern Government spent six years establishing a plan for climate change that could survive multiple governments. That admirable search for a lasting consensus failed pretty much as soon as the halls of power got new tenants.
While consensus is good, it’s fragile. It breaks. Easily. Quickly.
Next time around, we must learn from the breakdown in consensus. Instead, wield power. Use it to transform the real world. Spend political capital on breaking society’s dependence on fossil fuels.
Physical transformation of New Zealand has a fantastic side benefit, too. It blossoms a new political constituency. Every person who switches to a train or gets solar on their roof becomes a new kind of voter, who benefits from climate action.
Maybe, just maybe, that kind of power building can lead to lasting consensus.
*I work at Forest & Bird and a spokesperson at work has come out against this. Of course, all my views are mine alone.
