West Coast-Tasman candidates clash on climate change actions

Can you build new roads if you want to reduce carbon emissions by 50%?

When it comes to candidates standing for election in West Coast-Tasman, it depends on who you ask.

That question, along with how climate issues sit alongside agriculture and economic policies were teased out by three candidates vying for the seat in an online debate hosted by the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum and Tasman Environmental Trust on Wednesday night.

Green Party candidate Steve Richards and Labour Candidate Damien O’Connor attended, alongside National’s Nelson candidate Blair Cameron, standing in for Maureen Pugh.

While traversing the impact of transport, agriculture, the economy, and even the length of showers on climate change goals the candidates were united in a commitment to reduce carbon emissions – but they demonstrated different ideas about how to achieve that.

Transport – and the level of investment in roads – was a particular point of contention after it was asked whether you could build roads while still achieving climate targets.

Both National and Labour have committed to building the Hope bypass to ease traffic congestion around Richmond.

Cameron argued the economy, and particularly the farming economy of West-Coast Tasman, relied on good roads to get goods where they needed to be.

Committing to building roads wouldn’t prevent a National government achieving targets, because it was also committed to getting more people into electric vehicles by improving the charging network, he said.

“EVs use roads. We’re absolutely pushing for that transition to electric vehicles.”

But Richards argued that building roads only led to more cars.

Investing in public transport and walking and cycling infrastructure was more beneficial, as it reduced the number of private cars on the road.

“We have got enough roads … what we need is less cars on them, then there’s plenty of room for the trucks.”

O’Connor said the majority of Labour’s roading budget was focused on maintenance and upgrades.

“We need to have safe systems of transport.”

He also suggested residential development needed to take a “village” approach to become less spread out and improve connectivity for public transport.

He used the opportunity to question National’s budget, saying that Labour’s balanced while they were “yet to see from National where they will fill in the holes”.

Cameron responded that O’Connor should “stop speculating on things you don’t know about”.

The clash between the level of growth in the economy, and the role of agriculture in greenhouse gas emissions, also dominated the debate.

Richards argued the economy did not need to grow, as that led to more emissions, and the country should instead look at a “reducing material throughput model” if it wanted to get “anywhere near” its targets. That included reducing herd sizes.

But Cameron said that growth was necessary to fund the investment in infrastructure needed to bring down emissions – including new technologies to change farming practices.

O’Connor took the middle ground, saying there needed to be “growth in sustainable ways, and not for the sake of it”.

All candidates said a good educational base was the key to ensuring young people left school with a scientific understanding of climate change.

O’Connor plugged Labour’s lunches in schools programme, while saying that while most kids understood climate change, they may not comprehend the impact of their individual actions. Kids needed to leave school with a good understanding of all of life’s challenges, including climate change, he said.

Cameron argued that most young people were well aware of the impact of climate change.

“It’s probably people from your generation rather than mine that sometimes lack the science-based understanding of climate change.”

Education needed to get the basics of reading, writing and maths right to give children the ability to tackle more complex matters, he said.

Richards said any education should be science based and should “foster life-long education”.

He also advocated for lowering the voting age to 16.