Why it is important that we all act to address climate change impacts - and some types of action we can take
New Zealand Climate Crisis: Blog 5
[3010 words – a 15 minute read]
This, longer than usual, blog, provides information on some climate change features that inhibit action, a discussion on actions in terms of mitigation and adaptation and discusses some types of actions (rather than lists of specific measures) available to us; advocacy and influencing, working with a community or other climate change influencing group, and direct action - here including making lifestyle choices to reduce our carbon footprint,
Background:
By releasing increasing amount of “greenhouse gases” (GHG) into the atmosphere as a consequence our industrial and other activities over the past two hundred years or so, humans and especially those of us privileged to live in developed countries such as New Zealand, have set an earth-changing, climate change process running.
As it progresses this, climate change, process will have major impacts on our lives and those of our children and grandchildren and their descendants – and their communities - in New Zealand and elsewhere, over the coming decades and longer
We have known what to do to prevent the worst impacts from coming to fruition for some decades and some progress has certainly been made towards addressing the problem over the past decade or so. In essence though, here and elsewhere, we have failed to act with enough urgency or courage to protect us (and the planet on which we and other species we depend on live) from the devastating impacts that climate change will have, in the coming decades and longer, on many parts of the world.
By virtue of a fluke of geography, New Zealand, comprising a few small islands in the Pacific Ocean with its current temperate climate, will likely, not be as badly impacted as many other countries. The impacts will, however, be much more than minor and will hugely disrupt a large number of lives and communities. We must reduce the magnitude of the future impacts of climate change, and our actions (or inactions) over the coming decade will be critical to the success of this
In particular, we must achieve a steeper trajectory of GHG emissions than is currently occurring and we need to understand that the suite of actions necessary to achieve this will come at some cost, including to our lifestyle and our love affair with petrol and diesel powered motor vehicles.
This article considers some of the barriers that can impede people acting actions to address climate change concerns and the types of action that people can take.
Not knowing what to do about a problem is a barrier that hinders support being turned into action in a number of areas - including climate change.
The climate change process that is running has several confounding features that hinder action:
Firstly, the full impacts are decades and longer away. The defining effect of this climate change process (i.e. an increasing global temperature) is not yet problematic here nor are consequential effects such insurance withdrawal and the financial impacts of this widespread. While some recent adverse events such as Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023, were made worse by climate change (as will be other, severe, weather events in future), most New Zealanders are yet to experience any adverse effects from climate change at first hand.
Secondly, climate change is perceived as a problem that is both very wide-acting in its effects – making effective action more challenging – and/or as intractable – making it appear as if any actions that people could take (especially in New Zealand, which is a very small global emitter of the “greenhouse gases, GHG” that are at the root of the climate change problem) as being ineffective. That the framing of the problem and around the solutions, albeit with a flavoring of traditional knowledge, is often in ‘science speak’ and that can be couched in terms of probability (often with associated uncertainties), makes it even more difficult for many to digest.
Thirdly, not all the commonly known actions by which individuals can significantly help address climate change are available to everyone. For example, emissions from internal combustion engined (ICE) vehicles that burn petrol and diesel, are a major contributor to New Zealand’s GHG emissions. However, despite much better environmental outcomes (i.e. reduced emissions) and lower operating costs, the capital cost of both EV and PHEV vehicles is higher than equivalent ICE vehicles and so remain beyond reach as an action for many people.
Lastly and most importantly for some, economic conditions in New Zealand have been (for a few years now), and continue to be, very difficult for many families, businesses and even communities to manage. For a good number of people, acting on climate change concerns is not a priority in the face of more immediate and important life problems such as keeping a roof above your family’s head and having enough food on the table.
[Despite this, last, constraint, there are many New Zealanders, perhaps even a majority of adults, who are well enough insulated from immediate financial concerns for this particular issue to not to be relevant to their life choices.]
At its heart though, climate change is a simple problem, both in its cause and its solution.
The problem:
Human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and other industrial activities including, in New Zealand and elsewhere, the development of industrial cale farming have, by increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations (such as carbon dioxide and methane), disrupted the energy flows that have kept Earth’s temperature at a stable level for thousands of years. If this situation is not addressed, there will be potentially crippling impacts (on us, our businesses and communities and the other species that we share our planet with and depend on) that will play out over the coming decades and longer.
New Zealand faces a number of climate change impacts in future including:
Higher temperatures. The average annual temperature in Aotearoa New Zealand was 10.7°C in the 1995-2014 period. By 2090, annual average temperatures across the country are projected to increase by up to 3.7°C. These increases will have significant impacts on areas that include our health and our environment[1].
Global sea level is expected to rise about 0.5 metres by 2100, for substantial parts of New Zealand it could be closer to 1 metre in some areas where land is also sinking at the same time[2]. Sea level rise related hazards (coastal erosion, groundwater rise and flooding, storm surge inundation, and aquifer and soil salinization). The NZ physical assets and people impacted include five airports, 200km of road, 43,000 residential buildings with a replacement cost of $19 billion and 133,000 people[3].
Solutions to the climate change problem
The three possible solutions to the climate change problem we humans have caused are equally straightforward:
Reduce our activities that produce GHG - the cause of the increased temperature - and so minimise future impacts. [Mitigation.]
Make communities more resilient to the future impacts that the current, increased, GHG levels have already “locked-in” such as sea level rise noting that we can still influence – by mitigation actions - the rate at which the rise occurs [Adaption.]
Develop, at the necessary scale and pace, technologies to actively remove carbon dioxide. [Carbon Capture, Utilisation or Storage, CCUS]
How amenable are the solution pathways to action by us as individuals?
Reducing our GHG emissions – “mitigation”:
This area provides the most opportunities for most people (and also by businesses and groups) to take action because:
There are a large number of ways - see below - in which we can all contribute to this goal, from minimising the household/business rubbish we generate and send to landfill or changing out gas appliances for electric ones when they need replacing, to using our petrol/diesel engined cars less (or, if it’s affordable, buying an EV or PHEV).
While most of our individual actions in this area may appear to be insignificant this is not in fact the case because everyone’s actions contribute and are additive so the effect is cumulative.
Any reduction in atmospheric GHG levels will act as a brake on global temperature increase for decades and longer and will benefit not only us in New Zealand but will have a global impact. This will help the many countries (including in Africa and the Pacific) that will be bearing the brunt of future climate change impacts despite having contributed very little to the cause of the problem and who are much less able than we are in New Zealand to manage the effects.
Developing more resilient communities - “adaptation”:
While providing less opportunities for individual action than mitigation, there are two activity areas that we can all consider:
The first relates to understand both in what part of the country our house is located and in the geologic and geographic features (e.g. hillside, coastal, floodplain) that determine if and how properties respond to and will be affected by adverse events generated or aggravated by climate change. These features or amenity values – which may be a reason why we live in the property – may also see our home vulnerable to future climate change impacts or, should the worst happen, unlivable.
Home owners (indeed all property owners) should by now be aware that a property’s vulnerability to a wide range of natural hazards, including those generated or aggravated by climate change, is an area of increasing scrutiny by insurance companies as they look to manage their future exposure to climate related risk – with potentially major implications for premiums or even future insurability.
A second potential action area is to be aware of, and participate in, any climate change adaptation related work undertaken by your local (City, District or Regional) Council or Unitary Authority.
Because adaptation related work involves possible changes to physical structures and infrastructure – including what types of buildings can be built and where - with the outcomes potentially affecting where people can live work and play, local Councils/Authorities (and have a critical role to play. The public/ratepayer consultation processes that are integral to the work these organisations do provides opportunities for engagement.
Community consultation is also an integral part of the adaptation framework that is operative in New Zealand. Decisions that will shape the framework about how New Zealand manages climate change driven adaptation (and where the costs will sit relating to this) are yet to be made, with the current Government to replace the Resource Management Act and Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee having recently completed its cross-party inquiry into climate adaptation.
Carbon capture and utilisation or storage - “CCUS”:
There is work underway to develop this technology including in New Zealand. The process is intended to capture carbon dioxide from large point sources (such as a power station) that typically use biomass or fossil fuels. The gas is then either used as a raw material for (e.g. plastics manufacture) or stored underground as an inert material
The New Zealand Government has recently made decisions on the key elements of a CCUS framework - businesses that capture and store CO2 will be rewarded through the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) - designed to enable carbon capture and storage in New Zealand, with legislation expected to be introduced this year.
Excluding research and /or commercial activities that may be underway, this space provides very little (if any) opportunity, at this time, for individual action, though it is likely that any developments in the area will include some opportunities for public consultation as part of the process.
[A recent new item has noted that the issue of commercial viability around development of a New Zealand CCS initiative has emerged. As well as any impact on the project itself, the article notes that this may impact the ability of the Government to meet its 2025 – 30 carbon savings.[4]]
What types of actions are available to us as individuals?
This section is focused on the types of actions that we can take primarily in the area of mitigation, although some of the measures are also applicable to adaptation related actions. [The CCUS area is not discussed further here.]
When deciding what to do, as well as considering what specific actions are doable, there are two things it is worth taking into account.
Firstly, all the actions that we take collectively, are to be applauded. People’s circumstances differ and some people will have less and some people will have more opportunities (e.g. time, money) than others to make changes.
Secondly, whatever our circumstances, the onus is on us all to do what we can, irrespective of what these may be.
Actions can take a range of forms:
Using advocacy and influencing skills
This typically involves engaging either verbally (e.g. attending a meeting) or in electronic form (e.g. writing a submission or sending an email) with an organisation that is involved in influencing or making a decision, or the development of a proposal or policy on a climate change issue. [For example, the NZ Ministry for the Environment is currently consulting on proposed amendments to waste legislation.]
This area is especially important as politicians set the rules around any measures that are enacted - including who pays what and how much and they provide, or not, the financial means necessary, in many instances, to drive change. The sensitivity of politicians to ratepayer and/or taxpayer involvement should never be underestimated where there is the potential for votes to be at stake.
Nature of the action/s: To support or oppose the actions or proposals that are being considered.
Typical audience: Central Government and its agencies, Local Government or agencies or organisations acting on their behalf that include a public consultation step as part of the process they are running.
Pro’s: Flexible in terms of time involvement and the level of input, very little cost other than time.
Con’s: May not achieve the desire change or outcome.
Starting, joining or supporting a civic, community or science-based climate change group
There are a large number of civic/community and science-based groups, both in New Zealand and overseas, that are focused on addressing some aspect/s of climate change and what we can do about [For example, New Zealand groups include Aotearoa Climate Action Network and School Strike 4 Climate NZ]
Nature of the action/s: To support, passively (e.g. subscription or membership) or more actively (e.g. participation in activities) the objectives of the group.
Typical audience: Wide range of sizes, interest area/s and modes of action but many will be civic or community-based.
Pro’s: Flexible in terms of time involvement and mechanisms (e.g. attend actual or virtual meetings, communicate via social or other media), Power of collective action may make it easier to achieve desired outcomes or results
Con’s: Some groups may be focused (although not necessarily exclusively) on specific sectors of society, may not be mechanism for promotion of diverse viewpoints
Taking direct action covers a very wide range of activities, from direct physical action to stop something taking place to less confrontational measures
At one level, some people choose to take direct physical action to stop an activity that is seen to be harmful to the climate (or to draw attention to an issue that the action is a proxy for or connected to)
Taking direct, physical action against something, is an activity that, unsurprisingly, (it is a potentially high risk/reward strategy) is the exception rather than the rule in the climate change action playbook to date.
Often undertaken by a group, it can be used as a form of non-violent protest (I do not support protests involving violence) where other channels of action have been seen as unsuccessful. Both targets and activities can be selected with an eye to maximise the impact and publicity value of the activity.
Depending on the nature of the activity, the target, location and other considerations, the activity may have legal repercussions, in which case the consequences have the potential to be significant for the people undertaking the activity. [One recent New Zealand example of this is the actions taken by “Restore Passenger Rail” – now “Climate Liberation Aotearoa” – activists who disrupted traffic in Wellington in support of their key focus; decarbonizing transport.]
Nature of the action/s: Demonstrations, protests and other forms of civil disobedience such as disrupting events.
Typical audience: Corporations, fossil fuel related infrastructure and activities related to fossil fuel use.
Pro’s: Raises awareness of issues by getting public attention, can bring people together
Con’s: The effectiveness is debatable, possible legal consequences,
Another, less confrontational and more popular approach to direct action involves making lifestyle choices (at a personal, family or business level) to help address the climate crisis.
This area offers us a very wide range of activities to choose from including:
Consumer actions and boycotts – not purchasing products or services from companies that contribute to climate change (“greenwashing” can be an issue to be aware of here).
Choices that reduce our carbon footprint, such as reducing meat consumption and using renewable energy sources for travel and household/business energy needs.
Voting for candidates at local and national elections who commit to taking the necessary actions to address climate change.
A link to some of the ways in which we can reduce our carbon footprint can be found here. For those people who wish to understand more about their current level of carbon consumption and how it can be reduced, there are a number of carbon calculators available online, including FutureFit and the business focused Climate Action Toolbox.
Nature of the action/s: Lifestyle choices taken by an individual/family/business unit to reduce carbon consumption.
Typical audience: May be no audience or may extend to advising the companies etc affected about the choices that you have made in order to influence them to change their offerings
Pro’s: Directly helps minimise GHG emissions and so future climate change impacts, can influence others to act also
Con’s: May have costs, financial and otherwise (time, convenience, less choice).
What is most important is to do something – to act – to address climate change in whatever way/s we can.
The last word here belongs to Anthony of Padua, a Portuguese Catholic priest in the early 13th century who said “Actions speak louder than words. Let your words teach and your actions speak”
Footnotes:
[1] “Climate projections insights”, September 2024, Ministry for the Environment. https://environment.govt.nz/facts-and-science/climate-change/climate-change-projections/climate-projections-insights-and-publications/
[2] “IN DEPTH: New Zealand faces major sea rise much sooner than we thought”, Aspen Institute, 2022? https://www.aspeninstitute.org.nz/news/in-depth-new-zealand-faces-major-sea-rise-much-sooner-than-we-thought
[3] First national climate change risk assessment for New Zealand | Ministry for the Environment, August 2022
[4] “Carbon capture: Pivotal project for cutting greenhouse gas emissions looks shaky”, Eloise Gibson, Radio NZ , 19th May 2025, https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/561410/carbon-capture-pivotal-project-for-cutting-greenhouse-gas-emissions-looks-shaky
