The government isn’t alone in thinking it must do something, and it’s also not alone in thinking that something is better than nothing.
But something isn’t better if it’s not doing good.
Take the government’s ban on oil and gas exploration that was done without a cost-benefit analysis, consultation and environmental assessment for example:
. . . “I am not aware of a cost-benefit analysis using the Treasury’s CBAx tool being undertaken in relation to the decision to grant no further offshore oil and gas exploration permits,” Megan Woods said. . .
No formal consultation was undertaken with PEPANZ in relation to the decision to grant no further offshore oil and gas exploration permits. However, I have spoken publicly about the Government’s direction to transition away from fossil fuels and my office has had open dialogue with PEPANZ before this announcement.”
There’s also been no estimates on whether global greenhouse gas emissions will fall as a result of the decision.
“No specific estimate has been provided to me. I have been advised by officials that the effect on global emissions depends on the response of New Zealand’s large gas users.” . .
The goal is to reduce carbon emissions but there is no plan for how that will be done.
Ending oil and gas exploration here will merely mean we are more reliant on imports and lose export income.
It’s putting the cart before the horse at Greg economic, environmental and social cost.
This is doing something but it’s not doing good and not better than doing nothing.
This government has initiated more than 70 groups and committees to look at policy in its first six months. But as Rodney Hide points out that’s not all bad. At least while they are deliberating, the government isn’t doing something that will do no good or worse do bad.