Morgan Godfery: Shaw 'a good guy', but compromises put him at odds with party base

Wednesday, 27 July 2022

Of James Shaw, Andrew Gunn writes: “We could do with more politicians in the decent-but-unexciting mould, even if you’re also difficult to poke the borax at.”

Morgan Godfery is a senior lecturer in the department of marketing at the University of Otago. He has a background in journalism and public policy, including as a parliamentary staffer with the Labour Party. He is a regular opinion contributor to Stuff.

OPINION: Everyone agrees that James Shaw, who until last week was the co-leader of the Greens, is a good guy.

Everyone seems to like him too – especially press gallery correspondents who argue that without his deal-making skills, business background, and genial manner the Greens risk an electoral disaster.

That seems quite plausible. Shaw is an incredibly effective consensus-maker, convincing climate change slowpokes like Fonterra and the National Party to support key elements in his emissions reduction plan. That achievement alone is worthy of recognition, and it possibly means that the goal to reach net-zero emissions come 2050 is a durable one. After all, if National agrees with the plan, the chances of its reform or repeal are slim. Climate change is, for the first time, locked in.

But that analysis feels, at best, naïve, and at worst, superficial. As Greenpeace argues, the price of locking in that climate change consensus is too high.

* James Shaw likely to co-lead again, but worth remembering lessons from Green School fiasco

Morgan Godfery: Luxon’s position is ‘’a strategic and tactical departure from the approach of his predecessors’’.

* James Shaw says climate transition must avoid sparking 'yellow-vest' protests

* The secretive auction designed to cut our climate pollution

* Time to consider petrol and diesel car import ban, says climate change minister

* What would a new climate change minister mean for climate action?

In April Shaw told Parliament that he agreed with the farming lobby that New Zealand doesn’t need to reduce its national dairy herd. This is, of course, the sensible thing to say. If he agreed that New Zealand should reduce the size of one of the most important components of the export economy he might find himself in the (figurative) slaughterhouse.

The question, though, is whether it was the green thing to say? Perhaps not. Agriculture contributes almost half of New Zealand’s emissions and, absent clever and possibly fanciful solutions like a burp mask, a device to capture methane from belching cows, significant reductions seem far off, absent a decrease in livestock numbers.

But this is the price of Shaw’s compromise.

If he is to retain the support of farmers and their political wing, National, in his fragile coalition he must concede on – forgive the pun – certain sacred cows. The trouble is that the compromise or the concession is lining Shaw up against Greenpeace, advice from the Climate Change Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (who warns technological solutions are no quick fix), and his own party base.

Environmental justice is at the heart of the green movement and waving the white flag on agriculture risks alienating the very people who voted Shaw into the party co-leadership and Parliament.

And so here we are. The Green Left Network, the intra-party group behind the move to reopen nominations for Shaw’s vacant co-leadership position, were successful, and the climate change minister must undertake a humiliating campaign to retake the co-leadership role.

Dissatisfaction with Shaw’s leadership was strong enough for a not insignificant number of delegates to reopen nominations. This isn’t due to one act. Shaw’s agreement that the national dairy herd isn’t in need of reduction was hardly fatal. But it represents a pattern of compromises that are, at least to the most principled parts of the party, unacceptable.

Even when Shaw stands his ground, arguing that the Government must reduce emissions in accordance with the Zero Carbon Act’s goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, he is overruled. After making that comment the Government’s own lawyers told the High Court that this goal was merely “aspirational”.

That doesn’t suggest Shaw is duplicitous. Everyone would agree he is an honest broker on the matter. But it does illustrate the unease within the party. On the most important goals of the green movement – like limiting warming to 1.5 degrees – the Green Party must bow to the Government’s position. That is, the Labour Government’s “aspirational” position.

From this perspective the price of government and the brief, limited power it confers is too high. And the chief advocate for that price and the brief, limited power it confers, is Shaw. This is why, from the left, dissatisfaction with Shaw’s leadership runs so hot. We cannot waste a day in the fight against climate change.

Winters seem to bring a country in semi-permanent flood. It seems every subsequent summer is hotter than the last. Vulnerable species across the world struggle to survive wildfires, increasingly acidic oceans, and temperature extremes.

The science explaining these changes is settled. Carbon emissions, especially in industrialised countries, are the cause. But the politics are still in play. Whether we properly commit to reductions using every lever available, or whether we dawdle, is open. A significant minority of the Greens want to pull every lever available. If James Shaw is to survive beyond the next election he may need to begin pulling more of those levers.