 |
|
7 October 2005 Why the Greens' Charm Offensive Failed Last week the Green Party invited
representatives of business to a briefing aimed at demonstrating
that there was no reason to be frightened about its influence on
the new government. The so-called charm offensive did
not succeed. Why? Some commentaries, such as a Dominion
Post editorial, wrongly put the failure down to an uncompromising
attitude on the part of business and an unwillingness to consider
green views. In fact Green policies are well
understood by business groups and some of them line up, such as
the party's opposition to the Cullen superannuation fund. However, the Greens do not have
a monopoly on environmental concerns. I have been a member of an
environmental organisation, and no one I know in business is against
sound environmental policies. All other parties have environmental
policies: the issue is which are best. While the initiative was welcome,
Green Party policies need to be examined rigorously. A common view of greens generally
is that they are well-intentioned and at worst harmless, if somewhat
utopian in their ideas. There is no basis for complacent
assumptions. Many green crusades have been responsible for human
misery and environmental damage. A classic example is the campaign
against DDT. Despite massive evidence that DDT was not harmful to
humans or wildlife, the ideological ban on its use in many countries
led to a resurgence in malaria and an estimated 50 million
deaths. South Africa has gone back to using DDT and deaths have
fallen away. Greenpeace's infamous campaign
against the disposal of the Brent Spar oil platform at sea led to
its disposal on land at greater economic and environmental cost. Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore
has written that the environmentalists' campaign against biotechnology
in general, and genetic engineering - an environment-friendly technology
in many respects - in particular, "has clearly exposed their
intellectual and moral bankruptcy". GE is an example of green ideology
at work in New Zealand in place of evidence-based policy. The Greens
refused to accept the advice of a Royal Commission set up at their
behest that New Zealand should avail itself - cautiously - of this
new technology. Other Green arguments are demonstrably
wrong as a matter of simple economics. One example I gave at the briefing
is the proposition that a natural disaster, like Hurricane Katrina,
adds to GDP because of the need to spend money on goods and services
to repair the damage. A moment's thought indicates why this is absurd
- would several Katrinas be even better for GDP? Of course not -
investment worth billions of dollars in houses, businesses and infrastructure
was destroyed, and the resources being diverted to restoration would
otherwise have been put to more highly valued uses. Another is the proposition that
reduced import protection is a cause of New Zealand's large current
account deficit, hence the Green's policy of increasing tariffs
and opposing free trade agreements. There is no empirical relationship
between a country's current account position and its level of tariffs,
which are a tax on exports as well as imports because they raise
domestic costs. Other Green policies that would
be economically damaging, especially to the poor, include 'smart
growth' restrictions on land supply that push up the costs of housing,
and a $12 minimum wage which would price many low-skilled workers
out of jobs and make them dependent on welfare benefits that are
set well below the present minimum wage. Another iconic green policy, the
Kyoto Protocol, would impose large economic costs for negligible
environmental benefits, as even its supporters acknowledge. The
Greens seem unwilling to accept that Kyoto is not going to happen
- one country after another looks set to ignore its commitments
- and that the US approach to global warming, based on research
and technology, is likely to carry the day. Too often greens were largely missing
in action in debates that economic reformers also saw as having
environmental benefits - the abolition of fertiliser subsidies,
Think Big, the ITQ system for fisheries and producer board reform
are examples. Today they are not to the fore
in pushing for economic pricing, markets and commercial operation
in water and roading. The Greens have blocked sensible reforms to
the RMA to give better protection to property rights and require
compensation for takings. They seem unwilling to engage with well-documented
criticisms of doom-mongering, such as the work of Julian Simon and
Bjorn Lomborg. Unfortunately, Green Party representatives
at the briefing did not reveal a readiness to rethink flawed arguments.
Greens elsewhere have shown more willingness to move on from outdated
positions, recognise that economic growth and environmental improvement
usually go hand in hand, and put more emphasis on market-based solutions
to environmental problems instead of central planning and regulation. Such an evolution in Green Party thinking here, better analysis and a sharper focus on New Zealand's real environmental problems would make for a more productive dialogue with business. Roger Kerr is the executive director of the New Zealand Business Roundtable. For more information, contact: Roger Kerr Web: www.nzbr.org.nz |