Peoples Times

World leaders, us? Yeah, nah. Um, nah. Not if it means putting the environment ahead of economic growth. Which seems odd, when you read that New Zealand is becoming a top destination for eco-immigrants.

It's more than likely, of course, that what these people – the wealthier ones at least, those coming from Kiribati may see us more as a last resort – want is simply a place where they can drive their SUVs happily without fear of tidal inundation. Queenstown, for example, is pretty high above sea level.

But now, when the slow tsunami brought on by profligate CO2 use is being overtaken by the financial tsunami brought on by simple profligacy, quite a few countries seem to have figured that the solution to one problem might just also prove to be the solution to the other. That the opportunity for a government to spend up large to stimulate the economy means it can also afford to invest in energy efficiency, clean energy, insulation, public transport and the like. The Guardian has this piece covering just that point.

Interestingly, it seems that it is actually countries such as China, demonised by the West for wanting to burn oil like the rest of us, who are prepared to spend the most to make their economies less dependent on fossil fuels. Of the US stimulus plan, the Guardian says:

The $100bn in green measures represents just under 13% of the total package, falling short of the benchmark set in a recent report led by economist Nick Stern, that green measures should account for 20% of global economic recovery plans. It also fails to meet the UN target of 1% of GDP. South Korea devoted two-thirds of its $36bn recovery package, or about 3% of its GDP, to green investment. China allocated about a third of its $580bn recovery plan to green measures, concentrating on energy efficiency.

But many countries are planning to spend approximately zip on green initiatives. The paper quotes US economist Ed Barbier as saying: "I suspect that one reason some governments, including European ones, are reluctant to adopt green stimulus initiatives is they are still stuck in the 'old school' thinking that we have to revive the economy first before thinking about long-term low-carbon strategies."

That would be us then.

We've spent so long talking up our clean, green image that that is all it is anymore: image. More evidence this week, as John Key tells Investigate magazine (for now you'll have to go browse at the stationery shop for this) that his government's green credentials are as good as the last one's, and that in any case the Green party aren't really green at all, just fringe leftists in pantomime costumes.

Back in the real world, our government's energy policy appears to be doing exactly what Barbier warns against. Yesterday, energy minister Gerry Brownlee told the National Power Conference, billed as the year's largest gathering of energy industry executives, that New Zealand's energy strategy must have "the overriding goal of maximising economic growth".

"The current Energy Strategy represents the high point of the total subsuming of energy policy into climate change policy. The whole strategy is an idealistic vision document for carbon neutrality."

"Gas will be a big part of New Zealand's energy mix in the future," he thinks. What's more, Brownlee believes that the contribution that the coal and petroleum industries can make to our growth rate, levels of employment, and quality of life, has been neglected in the last few years. There could be 24 billion barrels of oil out there under our feet, and Brownlee has already found money to "stimulate" further exploration.

Wind is mentioned, erm, in passing in his speech. Solar not at all. But efficiency gets a paragraph or two. Brownlee is "keen". Even though the last government's plans to spend up large on insulating homes were quickly torched after the election, the government is now quite interested. Apparently, a night in a hospital costs the same as insulating a house. They will be making announcements "later".

Sadly, the possibility that, by using energy more efficiently (squiggly light bulbs anyone? low-flow shower heads?) we might be able to avoid having to increase our new generating capacity from the current 135MW annually to around 200MW, doesn't appear anywhere in Brownlee's speech.