Environmentalists sometimes have an uneasy relationship with cities. Because they concentrate a lot of people and economic activity in relatively small places, they also concentrate a lot of negative environmental effects. All that concrete, all that energy being consumed, the kilometres of malls and highways and subdivisions! It can’t possibly be good, can it?

As it turns out, cities can be quite environmentally friendly. The same factors that make cities economically efficient – the ease of interacting with others in a dense environment and the economies of scale that arise in large, well-connected places – can also make them environmentally efficient.

However, there are large variations in environmental efficiency within and between cities. Cities which offer better housing and transport choices tend to have much lower per-capita carbon emissions – a fact highlighted by a 2011 study of carbon emissions in 100 cities:

  • In the United States, the emissions per person in Denver are double those of people in New York, which has a greater population density and much lower reliance on private vehicles for commuting.
  • In Toronto, residential emissions per person in a dense, inner city neighbourhood with a high quality public transport system are just 1.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, compared to 13 tonnes in a sprawling distant suburb.

Auckland’s Low Carbon Action Plan presents some of this data in a fascinating infographic:

Per-capita emissions in cities

Interestingly, Auckland doesn’t come out too bad on this comparison. We’re nowhere near as efficient as Vancouver, Stockholm, or Copenhagen, but we are in the same ballpark as moderately efficient North American cities like New York and Seattle. This is probably down to our high share of renewably generated electricity, as well as our relatively short commutes.

But can Auckland become more environmentally efficient, or will it grow in a way that causes it to lose its edge? In order to get a sense of this, I took a look at variations in carbon emissions from commutes within New Zealand’s three largest cities.

The maps below presents some preliminary estimates of carbon emissions. They’ve been calculated using the Census journey to work data presented in my recent Location Affordability Index paper, which allowed me to identify how far people were travelling to work and what mode of travel they were using, as well as some supplementary assumptions and estimates from several sources (e.g. EECA, NZTA). [I will put together a working paper on the analysis when my work at MRCagney permits!] Lighter yellows reflect lower average annual carbon emissions from commute trips, while darker blues represent higher emissions.

Annual CO2 emissions per commuter DRAFT v1

A few first thoughts about these findings:

  • These maps really show the power of proximity. People near the centre of the city tend to travel shorter distances to work, on average, because they’re closer to more jobs. This is obviously good for commuters – which is why house prices are so high in Ponsonby and Mount Eden – but it’s also great for the environment.
  • They also demonstrate the importance of transport choices. Commute emissions in Wellington suburbs tend to be much lower than in similarly-situated Auckland suburbs, because many Wellingtonians can choose between driving, an efficient electric train system, a frequent bus network, and relatively good walking and cycling.
  • Lastly, these maps highlight the perils of urban growth. Suburbs at the fringe of the city are much less environmental efficient than suburbs closer in. For example, moving from Mount Eden to Flat Bush could be expected to raise your commute emissions by one ton a year. (And leave you sitting in traffic for that much longer!) This is a particular challenge right now in Christchurch, where satellite towns with long commutes have absorbed households displaced by the earthquakes.

Of course, as a coastal city Auckland has some strong incentives to reduce its carbon emissions:

Paddleboarding on Tamaki Drive
Paddleboarding on Tamaki Drive may be fun for a day… (Source)
Share this

57 comments

  1. IIRC, expanding on your comment about renewables and short commutes, the Auckland low carbon plan highlights that we are unusually heavy on transport emissions compared to other cities.

    Essentially, the real challenge in reducing carbon emissions in Auckland is critically dependent on what our future transport behaviours are.

    1. Almost all of Australia’s power comes from coal, thats why its so high there.
      And the other day that fact was also given by Audi as to why they won’t release their new Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) there. And are instead launching it in NZ first.

      Not that its particularly cheap for what it is (about 20k more expensive than a comparable petrol or diesel only powered unit).

      Still, gives those Audi drivers something else to feel superior about as they park and drive all over the place right?

  2. Good old Stonefields, along with St Heliers – the two dogs in the low CO2 emissions manger for the Isthmus. Real shame given how close they are to the CBD and elsewhere.

    Of course, as you say driving is not in itself the problem, for example if all those Stonefields and St Heliers residents drove modern PHEV’s on electric mode to and from their jobs, they’d emit a heck of a lot less CO2 than the other suburbs do that use the regular PT more than these two areas do.

    But freight is the big kicker here – thats what hikes our overall CO2 and along with agricultural based CO2 emissions is why NZ’s worldwide share of CO2 emissions is on the climb no matter which way you measure it (absolute or per-capita) – when most of the 1st world countries we like to compare ourselves to are lowering theirs and have been for years.

    1. Not sure on Peter’s source, but if the data collected is from before the development and then appended to 2013 boundaries, Stonefields is likely an outlier due to it’s low population in relation to other area units. i.e. from 2013 meshblock data set, in 2006 it included 75 households, whereas the adjacent St.Johns meshblock had 1047 households.

      1. The CO2 emissions were extrapolated from the Travel to work and other Census data. Whether it was the 2006 or 2013 census, (more likely 2013 as all that data has been available for months), the fact of the matter is that the CO2 emissions of Stonefields is higher than adjacent suburbs/meshblocks because they invariably drive everywhere.
        Whether there is a big difference between 2006 and 2013 travel to work data for Stonefields I doubt it very much.

        Even if St Johns was an outlier, it doesn’t explain why St Heliers is as well – thats an established suburb with a fairly average growth rate so why call out Stonefields and not St Heliers?

        1. The point I was trying to make is that comparing data with drastically different populations can give some unusual results. Areas with a greater population will tend to a normal distribution and the mean will give you a good representation of the area. Whereas the mean of low populations are more affected by the individuals that travel significantly more (or less).

        2. Yeah, that’s odd. The area is fairly well served by busses – I remember catching the 767 and 769 to University from St. Heliers/Glendowie, and found them to be frequent and reliable enough during peak hours. Maybe bus lane right along Tamaki Drive could help get people out of their cars?

      2. Hi Thomas, Peter used 2013 census data. Stonefields is an area unit made up of 8 meshblocks – you may be looking at just one of them. The Stonefields area unit is very similar to the boundaries of the Stonefields master planned development (there are some slight differences). There were 2,238 people living there at census date, with 744 households. As such, the data should be relatively robust.

  3. By far the lowest hanging fruit for this or any government in NZ is to vastly improve the country’s Carbon emissions is urban transport investment and urban form policy. And it is all about driving. Stop incentivising sprawl, stop incentivising driving; invest in the alternatives: Public and Active Transport systems. Get smarter about dwelling provision: ‘where’ matters critically.

    There is absolutely no risk in this, we know it’s what the vast majority of the public in cities want, we know that when quality alternatives are available we will use them, actually flock to them. Two million new rail trips in Auckland over the the last year, similar growth on the Northern Busway. Build it well and we leap at it.

    And it comes with all those great additional outcomes; improved economic performance through agglomeration economies, significant public health improvements and savings, increased efficiency in use of existing infrastructure including roads, lower congestion, especially for freight traffic, decrease in reliance on imported fuels, decrease in household transport costs, increased happiness.

    But it does mean breaking some habits in our institutions, expectations of some well connected people, and disappointing some big vested interests…. who’s got the guts?

    1. To clarify: the emissions from the agricultural sector are more difficult to address, the next biggest source is transport and in a big proportion of those come from urban driving. This is the carbon source that can be profoundly altered through changes in policy and investment at local and central government without negative outcomes for the economy, in fact the reverse. But in particular that means central government as they hold the money and the power as shown by the way the massive State highway plans are not even up for debate in the recent funding discussions.

    2. Well Patrick considering that until recently we had a lot of people in the Government and their advisors who were pretty much denying man-made climate change existed at all – even though its been well covered by the UN IPCC for decades now and the evidence is undeniable.

      So if they don’t see there is a problem, then there is no need to change their mode of operation is there? (well at least not until everyone else out there on the planet does too)

      So if there wasn’t even a problem, why would there need to be a solution? And even if there is a problem, they don’t see the link between those matters you raise and emissions or economic efficiency.

      Thats why is still Business as Usual (and it is “Business” as usual – the people/consumers are voting with their feet, even if not at the ballot box).

      But we still see the Government presenting “moar roads” and “moar houses at the end of these roads” as the only solution to any problem.

      As for any sense of urgency, the only “crisis” the current lot see is one of lack of (excessive) profits for the infrastructure and freight companies despite decades of getting their own way they still want more of everything thats good for them and bugger everyone else.

      I can’t see how there will be change of attitude in this Government while these lobby groups hold sway. So right now, no one has the guts.

  4. This is a very poor measure of whether Auckland is or isn’t “environmentally efficient”. It only focuses on the measure du jour, CO2 emissions. And if we’re concerned about our local environment it’s meaningless anyway, even as a coastal city. The CO2 emitted by people in Auckland will have virtually zero effect on the sea level.

    How about things like local air quality, pollution, biodiversity, the destruction of habitats etc? These are the things we can influence locally that will directly benefit our environment. These used to be the things the green movement focused on, before they became obsessed with the single issue of climate change.

    1. I disagree with this in two ways:

      1. Carbon emissions are a good proxy for all airborne pollution from human activity; much lower Carbon emissions will mean much lower carcinogenic diesel fumes too.
      2. This is the small country excuse, and is nonsense. The totality of emissions are all made up of small additions, all pollution reduction has to be dealt with at detail. We must reduce our emissions proportionately. Per capita our emissions are very high especially once our good fortune in have so much hydro is taken into consideration. Anyway how can we have any influence on bigger emitters when our own house is not in order?: We could and should be leading the world on this.

      1. Actually point 1 makes sense, although its still a limited measure, relevant only to some types of airborne pollution, and still ignores the majority of environmental impacts.

        But I don’t really agree with the “leading the world” approach. I can understand why people in NZ passionate about climate change might have that view and feel the principle is important, but I take a more pragmatic approach. There are many factors that might influence CO2 emissions in the USA, China, India, Russia etc. But anyone who seriously believes that NZ’s CO2 reduction efforts are one of those is rather deluded I think.

        That’s not to say we shouldn’t take steps to reduce CO2 emissions, mainly because of your first point. But doing it with the aim of “leading the world” and actually influencing climate change is misguided.

        1. It’s no delusion to observe that Chinese growth relies heavily on imitating Western models. Auckland is one of those models (and an unusually influential one at that). The CO2 we emit has an importance far outweighing its own direct effect on the climate.

        2. Nick just yesterday I was discussing this with the CEO of one of the big power cos and he is tearing his hair out that we are not taking the opportunity to lead in the post-carbon direction as he sees heaps of opportunity for his company to be able market their expertise internationally being missed because of our foolish following of nations deeply imbedded with big Carbon. We are following the US, Canada, and Australia as carbon apologists/obfuscators despite having little to no commercial interest in maintaining the status quo. Quite the reverse in fact!

          We are following those three in this [and another issue that we shouldn’t] against our own self interest which is naive and dumb, why? Just so our leaders can be flattered by the odd meeting and McCully get’s a flash post?

          We are net FF importers, price takers, we have a great deal to gain from the building post-carbon economy, but especially if we get in there and on the right side of the debate and place ourselves to market our skills under this brand… 100% what?

          Even if you accept the rather lame ‘fast follower’ idea it matters critically who we are following; and currently we have it 180 degrees backwards.

          Additionally, China, much more important to us commercially than the US and Canada, is starting to address this at a huge scale and we need in on even a fraction of that.

        3. New Zealand is one of the countries that is best placed to make serious progress in reducing its contribution to global warming. We’ve got abundant renewable energy sources, underdeveloped (but easily improved!) public transport and walking and cycling options in our cities, and loads of land that’s suitable for planting pine forests. And we’re clever and wealthy enough to accomplish these things.

          If countries like New Zealand don’t act to reduce their emissions, why on earth would China and India, which are going to have a much harder time reducing theirs, ever bother?

          Frankly, saying we shouldn’t do our bit because “it’s too hard” or “it won’t matter anyway” is sheer moral cowardice. It says a lot about the Lilliputian ethical standing of our current business and political leaders that that is the entirety of the policy response.

      2. The US and Canadian cities deal with both heat, and most especially cold weather extremes. Australian cities deal with heat extremes. This has big implications on house-hold and general building energy use. Out of all the examples shown, Auckland has the most benign climate which should give it a massive head-start in emissions per person. Add in our nation’s low population, the need to offset our dairy farming activities, and plentiful options for renewable energy and there is no excuse for Auckland not being at the head of the pack.

        New Zealand has just been voted into a role at the United Nations Security Council. While not directly related to climate change, it does demonstrate that New Zealand is an international player literally trading on a “moral mandate”.

        1. Good point Tuktuk. One of the key advantages of Auckland is its benign climate, so it _should_ be doing better. NZ houses are comparatively poorly designed for insulation, mind you. Where do our heating costs fit into the picture, or is our problem entirely transport?

  5. There is even a lower hanging fruit Patrick and that is to realise there are other potent greenhouse affecting things than just CO2. methane and black carbon aka soot are also powerful greenhouse agents. The largest source of both of them in Auckland are domestic solid fuels. The banning of them helps against climate change and has the added advantage of health benefits and lifestyle benefits. It would be cost negative to do in that benefits greatly exceed costs. It is surprising it is not policy already. But going on the stupid Herald editorials last week and the incredibly ignorant comments people,dumb people, are going to kick and scream against doing the right thing. A lot of the negative environment effects of living in the city can be addressed cost effectively. Diesel emissions are bad so electrify the rail network and look at trolley buses and trams. 2 stroke emissions are horrible so ban 2 strokes. Tobacco smoke is annoying so ban tobacco smoke. Noisy motorcycles need noise cameras. Bike lanes improve transport so build bike lanes. All cheap. All doable. All would be immensely popular, if not at first,then when people see them working. No one would go back on any of them. So why don’t things work like this already?

    1. How does banning “domestic solid fuels” help climate change? 95% of these fuels in Auckland are wood, and so CO2 neutral. While we live in a 3rd world city with major power failures such fuels provide a useful emergency source of heat.

      1. Because wood burning is not carbon neutral and is said to be only by people who don’t understand all the externalities and consequences. I’ll post links tonight. Wood burning is carbon neutral is wishful thinking and we shouldn’t base policy on fallacies.

        1. 99.8% uptime for grid electricity and hardly cold at all for when it is off doesn’t justify either the hyperbole or using the dirtiest fuels.

          1. You obviously didn’t loose your power for 3 days, and didn’t here the Chairman of Vector tell his shareholders “get used to it”. We had a wood fire for all 3 days. Wood uses CO2 to grow and releases it when it burns or rots. How is it not neutral?

          2. Our power was out for 48 hours (3am Sunday to 3am Tuesday), so I’m all too well aware of how annoying the great Auckland power outage of 2014 was for those who were affected by it. However, that doesn’t make Auckland a 3rd world city, unless you’re suggesting we would also call New York and Toronto 3rd world cities – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003

            Now if it was happening every few months, well that would be a different story…

      2. If you think Auckland can anyway be called 3rd world, you have obviously never lived in a real third world city. Quite insulting to the people who actually struggle by in those cities and deal with real life threatening problems everyday, not middle class NZers complaining about three days of no electricity once a decade – max.

  6. I suspect the comparison between cities suffers from the same problem as simple density measures. That is, a city with low per capita carbon emissions in central areas is offset by high carbon emissions in the surrounding suburbs. This is probably why Auckland has comparable emissions to New York and why Sydney comes out so badly. Just like how some of the cruder density measures have Auckland as denser than New York and Sydney. I haven’t seen the numbers but I’m sure Manhattan alone would have far lower emissions than wider New York city. Although a complicating factor is the greater wealth in central suburbs and higher emissions from flights.

  7. Peter, I must take issue with your “Auckland doesn’t come out too bad on this comparison” – it only looks good if you think that middle of the pack is all that’s needed.
    Our 2040 target is less than Copenhagen already emits. By 2025 Copenhagen will be at zero.
    One estimate ( http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/carbon-targets-for-your-footprint ) suggests we need to be at 1.5T per person per year by 2050 to have a moderate chance of keeping global warming at 2 degrees.
    The Auckland target shows a lack of vision and leadership.
    Incidentally, the Danes aren’t exactly suffering for their low carbon obsession. Vestas their wind turbine maker has a 10 billion dollar order book. Oh for an NZ green manufacturing company with scale.

  8. No one cares about Climate Change any more, if they ever did. Using it as a reason for doing anything will not work. The whole argument needs to be framed as making things easier and better for people, rather than the fire and brimstone. More trains, cleaner busses and copious bike lanes.

    But really, when did everyone stop caring? Did we just stop talking about it? Post 2008 everyone just forgot about it? Too hard?

    1. Bullocks. I care. Reasonable people care. Political leaders not caring shows you just how useless they are. Mainstream media not caring shows poor journalism skills. Journalists are essentially idiots. Especially at the Herald.

      1. All journalists are idiots huh, that comment nicely encapsulates the quality of your post.

        davidjroos is on the right track with his comment. As a society we have reached and I believe surpassed peak concern over climate change. I believe it’s happened because what we were told 10 years ago hasn’t come true and the public has cried wolf. We also saw this reflected in the last election result where the Green Party stagnated on 10-11%. There is a core group of people highly concerned about climate change but the general public has grown tired of the concept.

        When david says the argument needs to focus on making cities better and easier for people his is on the money.

        1. Haha, if we agree I think you are misunderstanding. My point was that there is much to care about, but no one does, and how much it bothers me. I don’t think it’s because it’s ‘not come true’, it’s because it’s easier to not care. Human nature, lack of preventative measures.

          I live* in a one bedroom apartment in Britomrt, sans car. I don’t even run the heater in winter and turn the tap off when I’m brushing my teeth 🙂

          *Currently in vancouver in a 1 bedroom apartment, sans car…

        2. When a scientific illiterate journalist doesn’t bother with a scrap of research before writing an opinion piece like last week interested Herald then yep they’re being idiots. Or in the lead up to the last election one of them being obsessed with everything the ACT party did was embarrassing. As for past peak give a damn about climate change just wait for a large catastrophic weather event. Profound change is happening in the next decade. It is factored in and accelerating. The loony right won’t have a shred of credibility left.

      2. The people voted for those political leaders, that’s my concern. I care and I’ve arranged my life accordingly, but no one* else seems to think through the causes – where and how they live. If they do, they take steps towards dissonance (recycles, yet just bought another brand new SUV for communing alone in it across Auckland every day, living in a new sprawly suburb far north of auckland).

        Who (in NZ) is willing to give up a big house and fancy car to live in an apartment downtown sans car, because it’s good for the environment (ie, they’d rather not). Not many. Even the lefties just keep on the brimstone without a real big picture view. I don’t see a way out, not unless some disaster befalls everyone.

        *not literall, obviously, but i’d say the majority

    2. The reason I made this map was to show, basically, that there are win-win solutions in cities and in transport networks. There’s a very close relationship between time wasted sitting in traffic in long commutes and negative environmental externalities like carbon emissions. Measures to fix one problem will fix the other as well.

      I thought Charles Montgomery’s book, Happy Cities, did a great job pointing out this relationship.

      1. Don’t get me wrong – I’m certainly in agreement. I’m just concerned in how it’s going to become reality here – it’s a long term game but it seems to be nothing but bad news lately – NZ is not the progressive nation that I thought it was when I first moved here.

  9. Some very low hanging fruits, that I was surprised were not picked yet when I first arrived here: Emissions control on vehicles
    Maximum 3KW cap for domestic use.

  10. Does anyone know why the 7 tonnes circle for Auckland is bigger than the 7 tonnes circle for Montreal? They made it the same size as the 9 tonnes for Toronto.

  11. It is pointed out with remarkable regularity on this blog – if we live in highly urbanised cities we will be rich and enjoy wonderful amenities.

    City living creates a high concentration of time rich, financially rich people who have the widest possible array of consumer choices. City dwellers have unprecedented time and resources to engage in consumption.

    City dwellers emit less carbon than any other members of society, but this is offset by the stuff they consume that is made somewhere else.

    As a measure of solving global climate change local emissions are probably the single most worthless measurement ever invented. The failure to find any agreement on emission controls has been the greatest stumbling block in tackling climate change. Climate change is a global problem and will only be solved by a global approach.

    1. This sounds like a hard-headed realist position, but it is wrong for three reasons.

      1. At a national level, land transport emissions are our second-largest source of emissions (behind cows), and the easiest to do something about. The data that I have presented here is highly relevant to the issue of reducing land transport emissions. See http://mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/greenhouse-gas-inventory-2014/index.html for NZ’s greenhouse gas inventory.

      2. The idea of carbon miles is, in a word, bullshit. Sea freight is actually incredibly cheap and fuel-efficient. I did a bunch of analysis of carbon emissions from the freight sector a few years ago and found, essentially, that shipping things from China is not too bad in carbon terms. (Producing things in China _is_ often quite bad, but that’s essentially because they produce a lot of electricity from coal.)

      3. City dwellers may earn and consume more, but you haven’t considered the mix of consumption goods. First, people in Auckland tend to spend a greater share of their income on housing services – but a house in Auckland doesn’t have a greater environmental impact than a house in Hamilton. Second, people in cities may spend more on services and less on bulky goods. Going to a cafe, live band, or public park doesn’t require a lot of carbon emissions – provided that you don’t drive there!

      1. Can someone please explain how cows can be worse “greenhouse gas” emitters than motor transport?

        Cows eat grass and turn it into methane. Methane self-decomposes into carbon dioxide and water after about 7 years. New grass grows, sucking the same amount of carbon dioxide back out of the air. A classic,sustainable bio-fuel cycle I would have thought.

        By contrast, motor transport consumes fossil fuel which has lain safely buried for millenia and liberates its carbon irreversibly into the eco-system. How can this in any way compare?

        Or is the cow-carbon, while tied up in the methane-stage for those 7 years, so much more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide that it somehow manages to outweigh the dirty and damaging one-way effects of fossil fuel burning?

        Something doesn’t quite add up to me. Any chemists out there able to clarify?

        1. The problem here is in trends. The number of cows is increasing while the amount of green plants is decreasing or, at best, static. When they clear rain forests in Brazil for new cattle ranches it’s not exactly carbon neutral.

          Now, as you say, methane doesn’t last long in the atmosphere but it is a very potent greenhouse gas. Even if it goes away after 10 years we keep adding more, year after year, so the greenhouse effect gets stronger.

          Is it a bigger problem than burning FF? No idea. Maybe. NZ consumption of FF is largely determined by NZ population size and economic development while cattle farming is only limited by the world market.

          I always thought that the big scary problem with methane wasn’t cows per se but all the methane trapped in the frozen land across the world: temperatures go up -> permafrost melts -> massive methane stocks released -> oops

          http://xkcd.com/1338/
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Atmospheric_methane

        2. Tonne for Tonne Methane has 30 times or more the “globe heating capacity” of a tonne of CO2. So 1 tonne of Methane = 30 Tonnes of “Regular” CO2 from Fossil Fuel.
          It may lie around for a shorter time than normal CO2 (7 years sounds to short to me) but it does a lot of damage in the interim.

          Thats why cows are so much worse than you might first expect.

      2. 1. Yes I agree with you, reducing local transportation emissions can be one of the most viable things we can attempt. However in Aucklands case power is generated in Huntly (gas or coal) and Otahuhu (gas), with relatively little renewable. Compared to the rest of New Zealand it is a relatively dirty city in terms of its carbon foot print.

        2. Carbon miles on sea freight is indeed very low, but carbon miles on air freight are very high. Goods that are time sensitive can be sold most profitably in markets with a high concentration of affluent consumers in close proximity – an urbanised population is needed.

        3. Urban NZers undertake international travel almost twice as frequently as non-urban NZers (OUTBOUND TRAVEL BY NEW ZEALAND RESIDENTS
        NEW ZEALAND) with Aucklanders leading the way.

        1. Things have changed fast in electricity generation recently and because the availability of so much renewable electricity and weak demand Huntly, Otahuhu and other FF stations are no longer operating as baseload, but rather are peakers now. Huntly’s days are numbered.

          And the big fat elephant in the room is Tiwai point, when that plant goes the over supply from Manapouri will kill every FF stations dead. Some clever pants ought to be setting up a huge server farm in Dunedin to suck a whack of it up, probably need a new fibre optic cable however and a work round to dodge the GCSB. rofl.

          1. Tiwai Point is a particular bugbear of mine. Judged from the pointless nationalistic emissions only standpoint of our Greens it is a large pollution source that regularly draws ire. However the best places on the planet to refine Bauxite are ports with power from nearby non-emitting generation – taking advantage of clean power and efficient sea freight. The world needs more of its aluminium refining to be carried out in places like Tiwai to prevent climate change.

Leave a Reply