Climate Change: Hope is not a plan

One of the purposes of the Zero Carbon Act was to break the bad old cycle of announcing targets and then doing nothing to meet them. Instead, governments would have regular carbon budgets with relatively short deadlines - meaning any failure would happen on their watch - and be required to state what, specifically they would do to achieve them. And if the numbers didn't add up, the courts would (in theory) force the Minister to come up with a different plan. But National's second Emissions Reduction Plan released today throws all that out the window, and we're back to the bad old days again.

Labour's first ERP had gaps - notably around agricultural emissions - but for everything else it had actual effective policy, which was working spectacularly. National repealed all that out of pure spite. Instead, they've replaced those proven, working policies with a reliance on unproven and speculative technologies like carbon capture and storage (a fossil industry PR scam), methane inhibitors (always a decade away, and with no plan to force their adoption when developed), sustainable aviation fuels (another PR scam), and "non-forestry removals and nature-based solutions" (accounting fraud, unless sources are included as well as sinks and baselines are adjusted accordingly). Together these scams and wishful thinking account for more than half of their "planned" emissions "reductions". And of coures they're not counting the effects of their proposed expansion of the gas industry, which would destroy any chance of meeting our future emissions budgets.

National has made its numbers add up - barely - but as Rod Carr points out, that's not enough. It doesn't understand the uncertainties involved in measurement, technology and behaviour, and leaves no margin for when things inevitably go wrong. Most obviously: National's plan is based on the current emissions budget numbers, but He Pou a Rangi has recommended that those be lowered to account for methodological change, to ensure that the numbers are consistent and that we're not comparing apples and oranges. National won't want to follow that recommendation, of course - they like accounting fraud as a substitute for real action - but that will inevitably mean legal action. What are they going to do if the court forces them to accept the recommended changes?

And of course there are other uncertainties. We could have a dry year, meaning we need to burn more gas for electricity. National's attack on EVs and public transport could result in even higher transport emissions. One or more of their hoped-for technologies could fail to arrive on time (or just not be adopted, because of insufficient regulation to force it). Any of these will sink their plan. Skin-of-the-teeth budgeting may work in the corporate world, where all you have to do is tick the box on next quarter's targets and then move on to another job. But IBG YBG is not an appropriate philosophy for government. Unless their plan really is to be a one-term government, and leave someone else to clean up their mess (and criticise them for doing so). In which case, I wonder: has anyone told their backbenchers, who will lose their comfy political jobs under such a plan? I wonder how they will feel about it?

A bad joke

That's the only way to describe National's announcement today on replacement Cook Strait ferries. A year ago they cancelled iRex, which would have given us two new, rail-enabled ferries in January 2026 for $551 million (plus port costs). Today, they're promising two smaller, non-rail enabled ferries sometime in 2029, and the cost is secret. But it was leaked last night: $900 million. Excluding port costs, of course, plus contract break fees , and the costs of setting up a new SOE to shift them off KiwiRail's books. Once you include the contract break fees, we're paying twice as much to less, later.

This is not a competent government. Instead, it is one driven by spite and penny-pinching. And this is a perfect example of how this ends up being more expensive in the end. The quicker we throw this bunch of muppets out on their arses, the better.

Bringing the House into disrepute

Last month we all thrilled to see Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke's haka in parliament in response to National's racist, anti-constitutional Treaty "Principles" Bill. Of course, the targets of that haka did not like someone speaking so forcefully and well against them - so they had Maipi-Clarke named and suspended from Parliament for a day. And now, National's Speaker has sent her and three other MPs to a kangaroo court for further punishment:

Four opposition MPs who left their seats as part of the haka at the end of the Treaty Principles Bill debate last month have been referred to the privileges committee.

They include Te Pāti Māori MPs Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, Rawiri Waititi, Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke and Labour's Peeni Henare.

Speaker Gerry Brownlee said the haka was "disorderly and disruptive".

I use the phrase "kangaroo court" because that's exactly what the privileges committee is: a bunch of MPs, on which the government has an automatic majority, which decides cases on partisan lines and which can impose arbitrary punishments. And when the government are white supremacists, its difficult not to see this as just another racist organisation, upholding white supremacy under the guise of "decorum" and "civility" (because, remember, reminding people they're being racist and responding appropriately to their racism is uncivil) - not to mention just an outright abuse of process, a politicised pretence of "justice" which is really just an exercise of power by the majority to silence and discipline the minority. And that seems like it will have a significant effect on the public legitimacy of parliament.

If Maipi-Clarke and the others are "convicted" by this sham-court, it will be a badge of honour. It will also be a badge of shame for parliament. The entire process brings the House into disrepute. And there's a name for that: contempt. Maybe Brownlee should report himself to his own kangaroo court for it?

Climate Change: An alternative plan

The government is supposed to release its second Emissions Reduction Plan any day now, and if its anything like the draft, it will be a pile of false accounting and wishful thinking, which will do nothing to actually reduce emissions. The central problem here is that national is legally required to have a plan to meet the emissions budget, but they have repealed virtually all effective policy, leaving them with a carbon capture fantasy and an ETS that doesn't work because it excludes our biggest polluters and is full of pork. Meanwhile, their plans to increase the gas industry will increase emissions, in a way that is wildly incompatible with all future emissions budgets.

So, what's the alternative? The Greens have just released one. He Ara Anamata: Alternative Emissions Reduction Plan is exactly what it says on the label. The core of it is a return to the successful policies of the previous Green-Labour government: public transport funding, the clean car standard and discount, the GIDI fund to reduce energy-sector emissions, a coal phase out, and the offshore gas exploration ban. But in addition to that, it goes further, by bringing agriculture into the ETS, immediately eliminating industrial allocation, and kicking forestry out (as recommended by He Pou a Rangi). Plus a "green jobs guarantee" to ensure a just transition, more regional rail, a sinking lid on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, and direct government investment in renewable electricity. Together this will reduce emissions by 35% by 2030, and 47% by 2035 - setting us up nicely for a rapid shift to net zero and negative emissions.

Can we do it? I think so. Bringing agriculture into the ETS at the processor level is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, with He Waka Eke Noa modelling estimating that its worth an 8% cut in total emissions by 2030 alone (which was far more than the bullshit they eventually came up with). The rest puts us at least back on to the He Pou a Rangi demonstration pathway. Of course, these numbers are if the Greens were in power now; we don't know what impact three years of lost progress will have.

Finally, its good to see this development. Climate change is the core policy of our era, and parties should be offering alternative plans for voters to choose between. So far we have spin, bullshit, and denial from National, and a real plan from the Greens. The question is "will Labour offer anything"? Or is this an area of policy where they are happy for the Greens to do all the heavy lifting?

Climate Change: Sabotaging the Climate Commission

Throughout its term in government National has been annoyed by repeated unwelcome advice from He Pou a Rangi Climate Change Commission to move faster, do more, or even just do something. But Rod Carr's term as commission chair expired over the weekend, as did those of two other board members. And National has taken the opportunity to remove this source of irritation by replacing them with three new people who will not challenge the government's "do nothing" stance:

Former Governor General Dame Patsy Reddy has been appointed as the new chair of the Climate Change Commission, replacing Rod Carr whose term ended last week.

[...]

Watts also appointed Felicity Underhill and Devon McLean as climate commissioners, replacing Catherine Leining and Professor James Renwick.

The most noticeable point here is that unlike those they are replacing, none of the new appointees are climate change experts (Leining was a policy wonk from Motu, Renwick is a climate scientist who had been a lead author for the IPCC, and Carr had an interest, took the role seriously, and learned on the job). The new people have plenty of governance experience, but only tangential interest in climate change (Reddy has none, Underhill is interested in hydrogen, and McLean has conservation credentials). So its a very real deskilling of the Commission, which will almost certainly impact on the quality of its advice.

The second point to note is that a former Governor-General is the ultimate safe pair of hands. Reddy may bring mana to the role, but fundamentally will not challenge anything or rock the boat in any way. Backing this up, she was previously chosen to review New Zealand's spy agencies, a review as usual saw them given greater powers. So no threat of recommending anything which might change things or see anyone forced to do things differently - unlike Carr, who very much rocked the boat and said loudly "we have to change!"

And thirdly, Underhill is from the fossil fuel industry (Shell, Origin) and a hydrogen quack. She is currently a director of fossil fuel company Channel Infrastructure. Which seems like a significant conflict of interest.

While none of these appointments are as bad as those National has made to the Human Rights Commission, its the same agenda at play: sabotage a key institution and effectively prevent it from challenging National's agenda. He Pou a Rangi is simply not an institution we can have confidence in going forward. Fortunately, the Greens are now producing their own emissions reduction plans, so they'll do the job it National's strapped-chicken commission won't.

National finds out

Since coming to power last year, National has viciously cut the public service, sacking nearly 10,000 public servants (to date). Those people weren't just doing nothing, and it was obviously going to have an impact on something other than the government's books. But while National's over-paid, privately-insured, and DPS-guarded Ministers may have been able to ignore growing hospital wait times and the police withdrawing from enforcing laws against domestic violence, there's finally been an impact they may have to pay attention to: it may affect their ability to deliver their agenda:

Funding cuts have been so deep at the Ministry for the Environment that it may not have enough resource to enact the Government’s resource management reforms, including the Fast Track resource consenting plans.

The current work plan is only able to be delivered because some of those losing their jobs accepted delayed redundancy, MPs have heard.

[...]

Palmer said the ministry had hit all its deadlines on the work programme set by the Government, but indicated that it may now need more funding next year as the Government embeds its reforms, including the Fast Track resource consenting regime.

“It may well be further resources are required,” he said.

This was a problem for Labour last term as well, when their ongoing austerity meant the Ministry of justice could not deliver on their promise to rewrite the OIA, and instead had to ask the Minister to prioritise (the Minister ultimately chose to prioritise reducing accountability for politicians via a four-year term instead). But this is rather more serious. RMA reform and the fast track law are National's key priorities for the portfolio, and the Ministry is basically saying that they can no longer provide the necessary advice and analysis to do it. They've been gutted so badly by National's arbitrary cuts that they're basically useless.

Given the scale of the cuts, this is unlikely to be an isolated story. Other Ministries will likely be in the same situation, even if they have not yet publicly said so. So National may have cut itself into ineffectiveness, and its agenda may now be going nowhere fast.

Climate Change: More unwelcome advice

He Pou a Rangi / Climate Change Commission has just released its Review of the 2050 emissions target including whether emissions from international shipping and aviation should be included. After noting that there have been significant changes since the target was originally set in 2019 - stronger evidence that we need to do more, stronger international action, and greater projected impacts on the world and Aotearoa specifically - they recommend that the headline 2050 target be strengthened from net-zero to negative 20 million tons (meaning: we must not only reduce and offset all our emissions, but also offset 20 million tons a year more than we emit). They also recommend a strengthening of the methane target band from a 24 to 47 percent reduction (from 2017 levels) to a 35 to 47% reduction. At the top end this almost turns our "net zero long-lived plus variable methane reduction" into a true all-gases net-zero target (we'd still be emitting ~0.2 MT net, which is well into the margin of error). Oh, and international shipping and aviation should be included. And they've done all this because they think its realistic and achievable. Not only should we move faster to reduce emissions - but we can actually do it! More importantly, we have been doing it - or were, until the current government repealed virtually all effective policy.

Its a slap in the face to National, which systematically dismantled our climate change policies, and which has just released its own strapped-chicken review of the methane target to support its position that we should do less. The problem for the government is that He Pou a Rangi's review has statutory force: the government must publicly respond to it, and the statutory presumption is clearly that the Minister will follow the advice of Parliament's expert body. If they do anything other than agree to fully adopt the recommended target, they must give reasons for any departure. And in such a case, you can expect the decision to be very closely scrutinised by the courts. OTOH, the only way to amend the targets is by legislation, and I'm not sure that the courts can actually order parliament to pass a law. But they can certainly say the Minister has acted irrationally and unlawfully in not recommending to cabinet that it do so.

Climate Change: National wants to cheat on Paris II

Back in September, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts shocked us by suggesting that New Zealand could refuse to meet its international commitments under the Paris Agreement. Now Forestry Minister Todd McClay has echoed that position:

Minister for Agriculture and Forestry Todd McClay says the Government won't be buying carbon credits overseas to meet the Government's 2030 climate targets.

According to the latest calculations the Government would be more than 90 million tonnes - over a year's worth of the whole country's greenhouse gases - short of meeting its international promises under the Paris Agreement target if it doesn't buy help from overseas but the Minister repeatedly told Morning Report spending money overseas was off the cards.

"No we don't have to go and buy credits overseas to meet our obligations and we're working very hard to make sure we don't.

"The idea of sending billions overseas is not palatable to anybody in New Zealand."

McClay said that the government has a plan to meet the target without using overseas mitigation, but won't say what it is. Which is as much as admitting that there isn't one. National's upcoming Emissions Reduction Plan certainly won't do it, given that they've ripped up virtually all existing measures to reduce emissions. So what's left? Getting Lester Levy in to cook the books with an accounting fantasy of "blue carbon"? Or are they just hoping for another pandemic - or an outbreak of foot and mouth - to save them?

Meanwhile, McClay is also Trade Minister, and you'd expect him to have some idea of what the consequences are for failing to meet our Paris commitments. Not least: trade sanctions from the EU (which should target our biggest polluters, the dairy industry). But maybe he's also hoping that it'll all happen on someone else's watch, leaving National to complain from the sidelines while better politicians clean up their mess?

Climate Change: The ETS needs reform

The final ETS auction of the year was held today, resulting in a partial clearance: 4 million of the available 11.1 million units were sold, at the minimum price of $64/ton. Once you add in March's partial sale, the government managed to sell just over 7 million tons all year - or just under half of what it had planned to.

Which I guess is a strong argument that the ETS was overallocated. Polluters didn't need all that carbon, so they didn't buy it. Fortunately, the available volume is being brutally cut next year, to just 6 million tons - which should help rebalance things. Unfortunately, National has cancelled expected cuts to industrial allocations (aka pollution subsidies) - and after next year these subsidies will exceed auction volumes. Meaning the benefits of the system will accrue to those subsidised large polluters rather than the public. And the systematic overallocation of subsidies means these polluters are already making out like bandits at our expense.

I don't think this system is sustainable. For the system to work and help us meet our targets, ETS volumes need to decrease every year - and that includes industrial allocations. But beyond that, I don't think there's public support for a tool which simply operates to enrich favoured cronies at public expense - especially when said cronies are (by definition) New Zealand's worst polluters, and some of them are not lifting a finger to change that (while others are demanding that their subsidies continue, even as they take government money to reduce their emissions). If the ETS is to continue, it needs wholesale reform. And that includes ending the subsidy regime. These polluters have been receiving subsidies for 16 years now - more than enough time for them to transition to cleaner technology. If they have not, that is a poor business decision, for which they deserve to be held accountable. End the subsidies, make them pay their full social costs, and if they can't, then they were never really "profitable" anyway.

Restoring the status quo is not enough

Labour held its party conference over the weekend, and Chris Hipkins gave a speech promising to make the current coalition a one term government. Along the way he made some policy promises: restoring free prescriptions, resuming the Smokefree Aotearoa policy, restarting the build of Dunedin hospital, restoring state housing investment, reinvesting in new Cook Strait ferries, restoring public transport funding, re-enacting fair pay agreements. There was one new policy: ditching AUKUS (good). But almost all of labour's agenda can be summed up as putting things back the way they were before Luxon came to power. Or, to put it another way, simply restoring the status quo ante.

This is good and necessary, because Luxon has wrecked shit, and that needs to be fixed. But at the same time, its nowhere near enough. Because the pre-Luxon status quo wasn't exactly great - we had a climate crisis, a housing crisis, an inequality crisis, and Labour wasn't exactly moving fast on fixing any of them. We also had a government strangling itself with austerity, running down key government services out of a weird self-flagellating desire to meet arbitrary financial targets in an effort to appeal to people who would never vote for them, and who would accuse them of financial mismanagement and loose spending no matter what they did. And while Labour is talking about one of the big fixes again - a capital gains tax - they're still unclear on whether they want to actually do anything with the money, or just give it away in income tax cuts (in which case, sure, its a redistribution tool, but also makes you wonder what the fucking point is). And of course, they simply have no credibility on that issue, having promised and then backed away from it repeatedly, and there's no reason any of us should believe it will end any differently to the last time: in the party leader getting cold feet and swearing off actual effective change for the rest of their careers.

The core problem is that Labour seems to have no vision of what it actually wants, other than to be in power and get the big offices and big salaries and free limos again. It has a nostalgic vision of things being great when they were in charge, but nothing beyond that. Nothing they want to change. Nothing they want to do. Nothing they actually want to use power for, other than adding the letters "Hon" before their names.

And that is simply not enough. To point out the obvious, there are other opposition parties, who do know what they want, and are working hard to persuade us that we want it too. And a Labour Party which seems to want nothing beyond "put us in charge" deserves to lose to them. While good management is useful (just look at the current clown show), at the end of the day nobody fucking cares about managers.

Subsidising ecocide

Aotearoa has long been an opponent of fossil fuel subsidies. In 2010 we joined the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform. In 2015 we reviewed our policies to eliminate subsidies following advice from APEC. In 2021 we "lead the call" for subsidy reform at the WTO. And at COP29 just last month we joined the International Institute for Sustainable Development coalition against fossil fuel subsidies. So naturally, Shame Jones wants to overturn all that and is considering directly subsidising gas exploration:

The oil and gas lobby has asked the government to underwrite the risk of fossil fuel exploration, with the taxpayer potentially taking "some or all" of the risk if new gas supplies fail to eventuate.

Resources Minister Shane Jones says he is considering options to support gas exploration, but "no decisions have been made either way".

However, Shane Jones' response to RNZ's query about the industry's request suggested the government had not ruled out some form of intervention.

I don't even know where to start with this. It's stupid. It's immoral. Its effectively subsidising ecocide. It is simply not something any government should be doing. But Jones' mind is stuck in the past, when oil and gas were the future (rather than the threat to it), and he can't see past the idea of winning the fossil fuel lottery (and those big industry donations).

OTOH, MFAT's page on fossil fuel subsidy reform provides an argument that even this government might listen to: trade. Both the UK and EU FTA's include provisions against fossil fuel subsidies, and we have literally just signed the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability with a group of other small nations which bans them - including (very explicitly) the exact policy Jones is considering.

National may want to publicly set fire to our reputation on the world stage, void key trade deals, and ensure we can never sign another one (because what fool would sign any deal with a country which is so obviously two-faced and breaks its word the moment it is given). But I don't think the rest of us would think that that's a good idea. As a small peaceful country, our foreign policy is of necessity mana-based. Jones would destroy that. We shouldn't let him.

A two-faced "apology"

Last month, the government formally apologised to victims of child torture and abuse-in-care. Part of the apology was meant to be for the state's long-standing policy of aggressively minimising its liabilities by dragging out cases, slandering its victims and ultimately denying redress. So you'd think that the state would actually have stopped that immoral policy, right? But of course not. In planning meetings leading up to the apology, it was continuing as usual:

Senior ministers raised concerns about the commitments the government made to survivors of abuse in care and the need to lower expectations, according to notes obtained by RNZ.

The comments came at a meeting on the eighth floor of the Beehive on 26 August, where ministers and government heads discussed what was needed for the formal apology for abuse in care on 12 November.

[...]

"AG [Attorney-General Judith Collins] reinforced concerns about setting precedents and being careful about what we commit to," Holsted wrote.

"Min Upston [Minister for Social Development Louise Upston] reiterated her concern about needing to lower expectations."

Because we wouldn't want to do the decent thing by properly compensating victims of state wrongdoing for the horrors inflicted on them and the damage done to their lives - that might "set a precedent". And we wouldn't want to suggest that we might, because that might led to "expectations" of both compensation, and future state behaviour.

Our Cabinet are monsters. They're doing exactly the same vicious, heartless shit which has denied victims justice and compounded the harm inflicted on them. In doing so, they've undercut the apology Luxon made, and made it clear that the state will never act in good faith over its crimes. Any meaningful apology would see these monsters gone.