Analysis: The new Green Party co-leader believes the general public can play a greater role in pushing for climate action and hopes to encourage that when she likely takes on the party’s climate change portfolio after James Shaw leaves Parliament.

In an interview with Newsroom, Chlöe Swarbrick discussed her approach to climate policy and activism, and how she feels the Greens can do both effectively.

The new co-leader was careful to emphasise that portfolios for the caucus hadn’t been finalised yet, in the wake of Shaw’s resignation, the resignation of MP Golriz Ghahraman in January and the tragic death of MP Efeso Collins a month ago. But she has also made no secret of her desire to hold the climate role either.

“I’ve made it pretty clear that I have interest – a lot of interest – in that portfolio,” she said.

It would mark the first handover of the job in nearly a decade. Shaw has held the role since 2015, first as an MP, then as co-leader, then as the Minister for Climate Change over six years. He has become the face of the Greens’ environmentalist wing, and although there are plenty of MPs with climate bona fides in the caucus like former Greenpeace activist Steve Abel and energy analyst Scott Willis, Swarbrick seems a likely shoe-in for the role.

In part, that’s because it makes sense for the job to sit with one of the party’s co-leaders. Climate is an integral part of the Greens’ identity. It is a major concern for their base but also one of the ways they have wooed Labour supporters in the past, when that party has failed to live up to big promises on a transformational approach to emissions reductions. Having one of the leaders of the party also be the face of the party’s climate advocacy is just smart politics.

Then there’s the fact that Swarbrick is relatively experienced on the climate policy front. She worked on the Environment Select Committee in her first term in Parliament, acting as the Greens’ representative in discussions over the Zero Carbon Act and crucial reforms to the Emissions Trading Scheme.

In 2021 she successfully pushed the Labour government to reduce emissions from investments by Crown financial institutions like the NZ Super Fund. In the aftermath of the Auckland Anniversary floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, she has also taken an interest in adaptation and recovery work. After the election, she was made the party’s associate climate spokesperson with specific responsibility for adaptation.

Asked about Shaw’s approach to the job, Swarbrick said he ably achieved both policy victories through compromise and negotiations while continuing to publicly advocate for more radical measures.

“He’s been able to simultaneously get things across the line, behind closed doors, but then also to hold true to the things that he’s advocating for and what Green Party policy position is, including some pretty intense negotiations in our first term and relationship with Labour and New Zealand First,” she said.

That would serve as the basis of her approach as well, Swarbrick said, but she also wants to extend beyond that into building a wider public movement for climate action.

“The wahine Hurricanes team said, in their haka, governments are temporary. Governments are temporary, politicians and politics of the day and political parties are temporary. But there are some fundamental truths with regard to the scientific non-negotiables for life on Earth as we know it,” she said.

“It’s really a matter of what we can achieve in the politics of the day to overlay on that fundamental truth. The way we try and synthesise those two is in trying to get democracy to work properly. This is where we’re in a really interesting time and space with regard to the engagement or lack thereof and the potential for engagement of the general citizenship.”

The School Strike 4 Climate movement is a useful case study, Swarbrick believes. The September 2019 school strike marked New Zealand’s largest-ever protest for any issue, with nearly 3.5 percent of the population turning out to events throughout the country. Then Covid-19 hit, demonstrations were cancelled or deemed unsafe and the movement lost the wind from its sails.

Since the end of gathering restrictions, the student protesters have slowly been building back up, with another demonstration scheduled for April 5. But that will be hard work so long as people remain disengaged from politics.

“I think that we’ve got this negative feedback loop at the moment, where, not just in the climate space but also in the democracy space, where there’s this disenfranchisement with politics because people are not seeing what they want to from politicians and in turn that results in disengagement which results in less representation … which in turn results in less engagement,” she said.

“The fuse-breaker for that and the role that I would like to see myself helping to play is not only doing that behind-the-scenes work on legislative negotiations but also in helping to inform the populace so that everyday people are equipped and armed to hold their government to account.”

That means breaking down the complexity of climate policy in communications with the public but also mobilising the public to advocate not just for general climate action but for specific measures. Swarbrick uses last year’s Auckland Council budget process as an example, where when community and climate initiatives were on the line the local community was rallied to submit on the process. That saw the largest ever number of submissions through the annual budget process.

“I see the role and the way to hold the Government to account is not simply relying on the institutions of Parliament, but also rallying the people and building a sustainable movement.”

One potential opportunity to rally that nationwide climate movement is the Government’s plan to repeal the offshore oil and gas ban.

“I think that this is one of the most obvious and self-evident and least complicated anti-climate policies that the Government has put forward. I do think that this can very much capture the imagination of New Zealanders because it speaks to the antithesis of how we tend to want to view ourselves, least of all on the world stage.”

Climate feels more and more immediate to the public, Swarbrick believes. It’s no longer an intangible event, far off on the horizon. It’s affecting people, in New Zealand, right now. The Auckland floods are one example.

That has also coincided with the information revolution, where people are able to access reliable information about climate change more easily than ever before.

“What I’m seeing across the board is almost a renaissance of and a mobilisation of people realising that day-to-day political decisions impact their daily lives in a way that I haven’t seen throughout my entire lifetime,” she said.

That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a sure thing. While surveys repeatedly show most New Zealanders are highly concerned about climate change, there are two key caveats.

First, when asked what concerns are actual priorities, climate generally gets ranked below day-to-day concerns like cost of living, law and order and the health system.

Second, there is still a serious knowledge gap when it comes to the causes and solutions to the climate crisis. While individual action alone is insufficient, New Zealand respondents regularly say that recycling is the most climate-positive action they can take, when it is actually relatively insignificant in reducing emissions. More beneficial actions, like consuming less meat and dairy or driving less, are rarely identified by the general public.

This all suggests that building a movement is no easy feat. While the Greens are skilled at advocacy campaigns, breaking beyond their base to raise awareness and concern among the general public is a tall ask. It remains unclear when or whether we will ever again see a climate protest on the scale of that September 2019 event.

Join the Conversation

9 Comments

  1. The really rather confronting reality is that our average GHG footprint in NZ is around 7 tonnes of CO2e per person (and that’s excluding our agricultural emissions) – we need to get that down to around 2.3 tonnes per person if we want to play our part in avoiding disastrous global mean temperature rise.
    A glance at any popular holiday resort over summer reveals a mass of double-cab utes, power boats, jet-skis, and enormous campervans. And most people I know are planning a flying holiday in the near future.
    What does that tell us about our culture, our awareness of the urgency of the climate crisis, or our concern for our kids’ future?
    Either mainstream Kiwis get on board with the need to be content with a more modest lifestyle, or we’ll see increasingly bitter polarisation, and ultimately economic collapse. Currently all mainstream politicians still peddle the absurd notion of endless GDP growth. How long until voters see that for the lie that it is?
    With or without hope, this 74 year old will be out on the streets supporting the student strike movement, and I’ll be making submissions and writing letters as long as I have the ability to do so.
    https://stats.govt.nz/indicators/new-zealands-greenhouse-gas-emissions-published-february-2022
    https://nzpod.co.nz/podcast/when-the-facts-change/we-all-need-to-cut-75-of-our-personal-carbon-emiss

  2. Marc if we start very rapid decarbonisation or if we don’t, the September 2019 climate protests will appear tiny. The latter protests would be near term, the former late this decade.

  3. Whatever we do on climate is irrelevant as far as climate change. It is proven that we have zero impact on the big carbon-emitters like China, USA and India. The issue is not selling oil, gas and coal, it is the use of these fuels in factories, transportation, etc. So why would we burden our nation with these extra costs? Total utter madness. It seems logical to sell
    as much of these resources as possible globally whilst taxing them hard and using the cash to pay for a carbon-less infrastructure and build reserves when the climate crisis smashing our economy?

    1. Hi Ed,

      In response to your statement on zero impact, It comes down to social responsibility. Looking at our contribution per country is one way of looking at it, but it is clear the ethical responsibility lies with us when you consider our contribution per capita is at the top of the charts on the world stage.

      But even if you look at it through the emissions by country lens like you have, I have seen it before where someone likened this to the NZ contribution to previous world issues. For example; New Zealand’s contribution to the allied forces in WW2 was a much smaller fraction than our current contribution to global carbon emissions, yet we were seen as instrumental to the war effort and are still recognised to this day on the sacrifices that were made by NZ. Countries that make up less than 1% of global emissions (like New Zealand) add up to 25% of total world emissions. We’re all in this together and it is not in anybody’s interests to enter into this game of chicken.

      On your point of extra costs to transition; this is a common misunderstanding. The cost of energy from solar/wind plus battery is already lower than that of fossil fuel generation and is dropping rapidly with exponential change in technology (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-solar–battery-price-crushes-fossil-fuels-buries-nuclear/?sh=f29298d5971f). Not to mention the indirect costs to the nation (i.e. impact of particulate matter on health). The money we pay for fossil fuel energy goes overseas. The faster we transition the sooner we see the economic benefits of self sufficiency in energy and the perception of a leader in sustainability on the world stage.

    2. Ed, you accurately describe the so-called ‘tragedy of the commons’. Any person (or indeed any five million people) can claim that any efforts they make are a drop in the bucket, and come at considerable personal sacrifice with no tangible reward – and quite possibly no benefit to society unless many more people follow them.
      You rightly mention the costs of rapid decarbonisation; however the costs of failure to do so will be worse.
      https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/03/aggressive-action-to-address-climate-change-could-save-the-world-145-trillion
      https://thebulletin.org/2018/06/benefits-of-curbing-climate-change-far-outweigh-costs https://i.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/300823928/failing-to-take-decisive-climate-action-could-shrink-economy-by-44-billion
      https://i.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/132910664/auckland-could-be-111-billion-better-off-by-eliminating-carbon-emissions
      https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62892013
      As a nation with a temperate climate, we may escape the fate of our major trading partners such as Australia and China, both of which may find themselves catastrophically impacted by global heating. That is likely to hollow-out their middle-classes – and hence wreck their their ability to pay for our primary produce.
      Global heating could kill up to a billion humans in the lifetime of our kids, and render another couple of billion homeless.
      https://phys.org/news/2023-08-climate-changing-human-billion-deaths-century.html
      https://phys.org/news/2022-04-billion-people-increasingly-exposed-extremes.html
      https://phys.org/news/2022-10-heatwaves-regions-uninhabitable-decades-red.html
      https://www.pnas.org/content/118/41/e2024792118
      https://phys.org/news/2020-05-potentially-fatal-combinations-humidity-emerging.html
      https://phys.org/news/2023-07-extreme-heat-occurrences-humidity-china.html

      Ultimately it’s a moral dilemma: do we care about our kids, or not? Do we (at least the affluent among us) have the moral courage to take a lifestyle hit and get political? Kiwis like to claim that we ‘punch above our weight’. Can we show leadership – in the full knowledge that others may or may not follow? It seems the right thing to do.

    3. Ed, what do you mean by ‘we’? If you’re talking about New Zealand collectively, then as a small country with a small population, ‘we’ can only make a small impact. But, as individuals we each have a much greater output than individuals in countries where the per capita output is low. As Graham Townsend points out, the NZ average footprint is about 7 tonnes of CO2e per person, which needs to drop to about 2.3 tonnes per person. Counting our contribution now at a country level is hiding our individual impact, which I think is dishonest. Countries are comprised of individuals and we should all make an equal contribution to cutting GHGs if possible.

      I’ve had a look at the changes I would have to make to go to 2.3t and it would be difficult. But at the moment, we are freeriding on the poorer countries of the world that consume a lot less than we do. That’s not fair.

  4. I am a strong believer in the disaster that climate change is about to wreak upon us. Morally there is no doubt we should be taking the strongest stand possible and I wish we could – and would. But Ludbrook has a point that needs to be thought through carefully. If every New Zealander began taking the maximum possible steps today to reduce their carbon footprint, we would have an immeasurably low impact on the world. What if instead we ploughed ahead with exploiting our resources but with a carbon tax on everything? Those carbon taxes would have two beneficial effects. (1) they would make the worst offenders (producers and consumers) pay (2) by doing so that would incentivise change no other actions could achieve and (3), as Lubrook suggests, it would build a fund to help alleviate the affects of the storms and heatwaves we are dooming our great grandchildren to cope with.
    Instead of seeking ways to drop the price of petrol and diesel we should be taxing it harder. If petrol goes up 20%, instead of screaming about it drivers could drop their maximum speed by 20kph (on motorways) and they’ll more than compensate by lowering their consumption. And the truth is, average driving times across Auckland, for example, would hardly be affected – may even improve because of smoother traffic flows and fewer accidents.

  5. As someone now in my 80’s who took part in the 2019 Climate strike. with my daughter, granddaughter and great grandsons because I was son concerned about the sort of world, if there is one, that mt great grandsons would face when they reached my age. Now, with what has happened in the last 5 years it is not what the great grandchildren will face but whta my daughter will face when she reached 80. It is interesting to see that Labour are having second thoughts on a Capital Gains Tax, when will they have second thoughts on climate change and the worship of GDP?

Leave a comment