Driving Out Petrol Stations in New Zealand: Do we Really Need More?
BY HANNAH TALBOT
In the face of an ever-escalating climate crisis largely caused by greenhouse gas emissions, the necessity of new petrol stations needs to be debated more than before. It has long been established that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the main causes of climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions are caused by the burning of fossil fuels - namely, petrol and diesel - which in turn places the use and sale of these at the forefront of the climate change discussion. Despite this knowledge, more and more petrol stations continue to be built, with little consideration of their impact on climate change.
The North Shore District Council is currently facing an application from Gull to build a new petrol station along Dairy Flat Highway. The application has been made despite the existence of stations already along the Highway, and is being framed as a way of creating competition within the local market. While economic interests do not need to be undermined completely in the face of climate change - particularly where the impact of climate change falls disproportionately on those in poverty and low-income households - our true commitment to mitigating climate change is tested in cases such as these. New Zealand’s commitment to the battle against climate change is codified in the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill, which incorporates the Paris Agreement targets into New Zealand law. In turn, New Zealand has committed to halve net emissions by 2030 and reduce our net emissions to zero by 2050.
In New Zealand, road transport is one of the most significant contributors to our overall emissions. The Climate Change Commission (“CCC”) projects that in order to achieve our initial targets, transport emissions alone would need to be reduced by 64%. To even start to make that kind of reduction, more environmentally friendly modes of transport would need to be widely adopted - for example, walking, biking, electric vehicles, increased use of public transport, and even the electrification of public transport. This begs the question - if we need to move away from fuel-based modes of transport, why are we still building more petrol stations? As a major driver of our emissions, decision-makers should not be so freely allowing the construction of new petrol stations without due consideration of its impact on New Zealand’s emissions targets.
Decision-makers do often take a holistic approach to cases such as these, considering the environmental impact equally to the economic and social impact. Though there is good reason to consider impacts equally, the risks to each sector are not equal; climate change poses a much more extreme risk than pure economic interest. Thus, public involvement becomes increasingly important in order to advance the debate about whether we should be creating new outlets that source our emissions. The public is only engaged in resource consent applications where the local council decides to publicly notify the application, allowing any member of the public to make a submission voicing their concerns about the proposed activity. Those who make a submission may have a hearing before the council and also acquire rights to appeal the final decision to the Environment Court. However, if a resource consent application is not publicly notified, then there is no ability for the public to submit nor appeal. If there is no public involvement, there is no ability for us as a community and as a nation to properly debate whether or not the construction of new petrol stations is truly appropriate and responsible.
In regards to Gull’s resource consent application to build a new petrol station along Dairy Flat Highway, the Upper Harbour Local Board has the power on behalf of the North Shore District Council to recommend whether the application be notified to the public or not. This means that significant power rests with local boards when it comes to activities that impact the environment. However, engagement with local boards is a more accessible way of pressing for public participation in cases involving proposed new petrol stations. They are the first step in reducing the number of new petrol stations and, in turn, cutting out one of the main sources of emissions in our country.
Petrol stations also have other effects that necessitate public consideration. Auckland in particular is facing a housing crisis and a need for more resourceful land usage. Through public involvement, the community is able to indicate how this land might best be used to meet their needs, which is unlikely to be the construction of a new petrol station. The issue may be also considered in light of New Zealand’s intention to phase out fossil fuel vehicles. The CCC has recommended fossil fuel vehicles should be banned by 2032 at the earliest, and that electric vehicles need to be widely adopted shortly afterwards. The Government also needs to “provide support and incentives to make this happen.” It is not implausible, then, to consider phasing out petrol stations simultaneously.
There are, of course, other factors to consider. An increasing population will naturally increase vehicle ownership and the demand for fuel. The CCC highlighted that New Zealand’s overall “growing population […] is a key contributor to increased transport emissions in Aotearoa.” However, it is at least a more responsible argument that with a growing population, we should be encouraging better habits and a shift in mindset rather than perpetuating both the habits and mindsets that have led us to the climate crisis today. This is particularly so when the population is estimated to increase by another million by 2050.
The question raised is not the first of its kind. The construction of new petrol stations was recently banned in Petaluma, California. The Petaluma City Council unanimously passed a new bill that effectively cements an existing moratorium on the construction of new petrol stations, in place since 2019. The Bill comes as Petaluma City commits itself to a more combative plan to become carbon neutral by 2030. As the Council simply puts, “prohibiting new gas stations serves the public interest by preventing new sources of pollution that adversely impact environmental and human health.”
In any case, the problem remains that creating new sources of emissions are clearly not the way to achieve our emissions targets. The battle against climate change is often characterised as the battle of our generation, and it is one that we can win. However, our success depends on our ability to adapt and shift decision-making processes and legislation at all levels. As the CCC puts it, “every investment, every decision, every action, needs to consider its emissions contribution and impact on our progress towards a climate-resilient society.”
The views expressed in the posts and comments of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the Equal Justice Project. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the author. No information on this blog will be understood as official. The Equal Justice Project makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The Equal Justice Project will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.
Featured image source: Michael Gaida on Pixabay.