Climate Change: National cheats the world

Back in 2022, Aotearoa joined the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance, a group of countries dedicated to fighting climate change by phasing out fossil fuels. Because our oil and gas ban was only partial, affecting only new offshore exploration, with no phase-out date for existing permits, we were only an associate member. But it was an important symbol of our intent and direction of travel, something to build on for the future.

But now, National has cheated our partners and withdrawn from the alliance:

Christopher Luxon’s Government pulling out of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance is just the latest sign they care little for the climate crisis or cost of living it’ll exacerbate, says the Green Party.

[...]

“Yesterday, we revealed that it took the Government just six months to breach a trade agreement they themselves signed up to with a $200 million handout to the fossil fuel industry. Today, we wake up to news that they are pulling our country out of an alliance to support nations’ transition away from dependence on fossil fuels.

...which is I guess a signal of their intent: to destroy the climate and make the earth uninhabitable for us and our descendents.

The good news is that what this regime can do, the next government can undo. And this fact is already deterring the polluters the regime hopes to attract. The problem is that the damage National does to our international reputation with its climate denial and grovelling to polluting sunset industries may be hard to undo.

Investing in a stranded asset

In 2021, RefiningNZ, the owners of the Marsden Point oil refinery, took a hard look at its future, and decided that it didn't have one. The refinery was shut down and dismantled. But now Chris Luxon wants to build a replacement:

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the coalition Government is considering whether to build a new oil refinery amid the country’s energy production challenges.

It comes as the Government’s report investigating New Zealand’s fuel resilience, including the potential re-opening of the Marsden Point oil refinery, is expected to be released in the coming weeks.

[...]

Asked if he would build a new refinery, Luxon said: “Well, we’re going to go look at that, that’s something we’re going to look at”.

This is simply madness. The underlying reason for Marsden Point's demise - collapsing demand for fossil fuels - has not gone away, and if anything, has got worse. When banks are refusing lending to petrol stations because they're a long-term credit risk, you know that petrol and diesel just don't have a future. And while Channel Infrastructure projected continuing demand for jet fuel, that's just one technological shift away from a similar collapse.

Basically, Luxon is proposing that we spend $8 billion to build an asset which will likely be immediately stranded upon its completion. This is what Luxon calls "better economic management". And that's not even considering the emissions impact, which will be significant enough that the next government will have to cancel it to stay within our emissions budgets. But clearly Luxon doesn't care about those, despite meeting them being officially on his government's KPI list.

If the government really wanted to invest in fuel resilience, it would be investing in electrifying our vehicle fleet as quickly as possible. Because we don't need to import electrons from unstable foreign despotisms; they're produced right here in Aotearoa, from the wind and the rain and the sun. Every EV we use saves the country money, and is a boot in the nuts to the petro-tyrannies. It means cleaner air, lower health costs, and higher living standards for kiwis. But how does that help Luxon's rich mates?

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.

Climate Change: More arson

The planet is currently burning down around us. So naturally, Shane Jones has decided to grant another fossil fuel exploration permit to make it worse:

Only a single onshore petroleum exploration permit has been granted through the Block Offer 2020 competitive tender process.

Greymouth Gas Turangi had been granted a permit for an area covering about 70 square kilometres, north-west of Stratford in Taranaki, the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) said in a statement.

The permit was for a period of 10 years commencing 1 April 2024 and was subject to work programme conditions.

And today in Parliament he was gloating about his plans to restore offshore drilling, adding oil spills on top of emissions.

This flies in the face of the International Energy Agency's 2021 advice that there can be no new fossil fuel development. And in the face of that advice and the current crisis, it is simply arson.

As for what to do about it, the next government needs to pass legislation to sunset fossil fuels, revoking all permits and consents and prohibiting new development. There's an outline of the required legislation here; I look forward to some party adopting it as a member's bill.

Climate Change: Not just phase-out, but criminalisation

As the climate crisis has worsened, there seems to have finally been an understanding that we need to phase out fossil fuels. Twelve countries, including most of our Pacific whanau, have endorsed calls for a fossil-fuel non-proliferation treaty. But the talks at COP28 in Dubai have failed to get the message, producing a draft with only vague talk of "reducing both consumption and production" rather than a full phase out. Which is what happens when you get an oil executive to run your climate change conference.

Many countries are refusing to sign a death certificate for small island states, which is good. We should also note that this isn't just about small island states - while they're on the front line, and may be first to drown, ultimately all of us are at risk. If climate change is not stopped, we face fires, floods, famines, sudden and large rises in sea-level, mass-migration, and ultimately a collapse in global agriculture and the civilisation it allows. And fossil fuels are the weapon which is causing this.

I use that word – “weapon” - deliberately. We think of fossil fuels as just an energy source, something to run the car or a factory. But like tobacco, every ton of fossil fuels we use is doing us damage. That damage is global, indiscriminate, and - if not stopped - promises to be every bit as destructive as global nuclear war.

Current models for a fossil fuels treaty use the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a model, adopting its pillars of non-proliferation, phase-out, and a just transition. But the use of nuclear weapons is a crime, and those who use them are criminals and terrorists, and we need to start adopting that thinking for fossil fuels as well. So we need a fourth pillar: criminalisation. We have models here too: the chemical weapons, anti-personnel mines, and nuclear weapons treaties all require their parties to criminalise violations on their territory or by their citizens (so e.g. its a crime for a kiwi anywhere in the world to develop, trade, use, or facilitate chemical weapons). We need to adopt such measures for fossils fuels after they have been phased out - or outside of a phase-out program (so e.g. in countries which refuse to be a party).

Obviously, not every country will sign such a treaty - the criminal petro-states won't. Which is why we need a fifth pillar: financial sanctions against fossil fuel companies and executives and their enablers, so that criminals who remain outside the phase-out regime cannot openly sell their climate weapon or enjoy the profits of their crime. we have a useful model here too: the current sanctions against oligarchs and companies supporting Putin's criminal invasion of Ukraine. If the fossil fuel industry won't phase down, that's how we need to treat them.

People might object to the framing of fossil fuel executives and traders as criminals, but these people are deliberately and knowingly trying to kill us for profit. They are deliberately and knowingly trying to burn our homes, drown our cities, and starve and bake us to death. What else should we call them?

Climate Change: Fossils

When the new government promised to allow new offshore oil and gas exploration, they were warned that there would be international criticism and reputational damage. Naturally, they arrogantly denied any possibility that that would happen. And then they finally turned up at COP, to criticism from Palau, and a "fossil of the day" award. And that's just the first few days!

Meanwhile, in more evidence of the government's denier trend, yesterday they refused to sign the Global Renewables and Energy Efficiency Pledge, which would have committed us to work with other countries to triple renewable energy and double the rate of energy efficiency improvements. These are global targets, with a big "national circumstances" clause - which for us includes the fact that ~90% of our electricity generation is already renewable. Many of the specific commitments are things like easier permitting, which are strongly aligned with the new government's program. So you'd think signing up for it would be a no-brainer, what MFAT calls an easy win: a reputational boost with no downside (and supporting global collective action as well). But apparently not. The hostility of the new government to anything "green" is such that they won't even sign up for the easiest, most obvious, least-cost action. Instead, they'd rather shred our international reputation and risk trade sanctions with a purely ideological call to keep on drilling in the face of global apocalypse. And then they wonder why people think they're fossils...

Climate Change: Stopping oil

National is promising to bring back offshore oil and gas drilling. Naturally, the Greens have organised a petition campaign to try and stop them. You should sign it - every little bit helps, and as the struggle over mining conservation land showed, even National can be deterred if enough people take action.

That said, if the Greens and Te Pāti Māori are serious about killing this, there is one simple action they can take: promise that the ban will be immediately reinstated when they have influence over a future government, and that any permits granted will be immediately revoked as part of a wider move to sunset all fossil fuel permits. Offshore gas exploration is expensive and has long investment timeframes. Foreign companies need certainty to engage in it. Take away that certainty, and they won't do it. National has effectively deterred business decarbonisation in this way, by spewing climate denial and promising to roll-back action; its time we used it too to send a clear message: if you invest in pollution, you won't make money.

Climate Change: Ecuador keeps it in the ground

Ecuador went to the polls over the weekend in presidential elections, which look like they will go to a right-left runoff. But alongside the elections was another battle: a referendum on banning oil drilling from the Yasuní National Park. And when given a choice, Ecuadorians voted to keep it in the ground:

Ecuadorians have voted in a historic referendum to halt the development of all new oilwells in the Yasuní national park in the Amazon, one of the most biodiverse regions on the planet.

Voters opted to safeguard the unique biosphere by a margin of nearly 20% with more than 90% of the ballot counted – with more than 58% in favour and 41% against, according to Ecuador’s National Electoral Comission. Voting took place in the first round of presidential elections on Sunday.

The move will keep about 726m barrels of oil underground in the Yasuní national park, which is also home to the Tagaeri and Taromenane people, two of the world’s last “uncontacted” Indigenous communities living in voluntary isolation.

That's around 312 million tons of carbon which will be kept out of the atmosphere and which won't contribute to destroying the planet. Or about five years of Aotearoa's emissions, in one decision.

Now all we need is for other countries to do the same. We can't afford to burn the oil we have discovered - not if we don't want to burn ourselves. And the sooner we start legally locking it away, the better off we'll be.

Labour will allow offshore drilling

Last month I noticed that Todd Energy had applied to turn its sole remaining offshore gas exploration permit - which it had sat on for twenty years after discovering gas in 2004 - into a mining permit. The application is permitted under current loopholes in Labour's offshore drilling "ban", but the government has a bill on the order paper which would close that loophole permanently. Which raised the obvious question: was Labour going to let this happen?

Sadly, it looks like the answer is "yes". The House is currently in urgency for the end-of-term wash-up, and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, which would close the loophole, was not in the urgency motion. Which means that its unlikely to be passed before the election, giving Todd Energy a good couple of months to slip their application through and get a mining permit. Which in turn will enable them to extract that gas and burn the planet.

"Climate emergency"? Yeah, nah.

So, if you believed that Labour was doing the right thing about offshore drilling, ha ha, they fooled you. Cynical arseholes in Wellington who see everything as a PR stunt played you for a sucker. If you're angry about this, the best revenge is to vote for a party which takes the issue seriously and which will follow through on its policies. Which means voting for the Greens or Te Pāti Māori.

Will Labour allow more offshore drilling?

Offshore gas exploration permit 38602, held by Todd Energy, was due to expire today, and I was looking forward to announcing its demise. First granted in 1993 to Todd Energy, it was apparently the site of a gas discovery in 2004. But rather than exploit it, Todd sat on it for twenty years, repeartedly extending the permit for "appraisal" to ensure they could claim the value of this "asset" on their books. The most recent extension was in 2019, and was one of the first signs of the emptiness of labour's offshore gas ban. But when I checked today, it looks like Todd have applied to convert it into a mining permit.

This is perfectly legal, thanks to Labour's chickenshittery. While they banned issuing new offshore petroleum permits, a sneaky little transition clause buried in a schedule ensures that reapplications must be determined "as if the Amendment Act had not been enacted". Because we wouldn't want that "ban" to actually mean anything, would we? But the new Crown Minerals Amendment Bill (currently waiting for its committee stage) seems to fix this, with a new transition clause saying that existing applications will be determined in accordance with the amended Act (which of course includes the offshore ban). The question now is whether Labour will actually pass this before the election, or whether by cowardice and chickenshittery they'll effectively enable a continuation of offshore drilling, in violation of their own "ban". And if they do, will voters tolerate that gutlessness at the ballot box?

[For the curious, I'm tracking petroleum permits here. The next expiry after this isn't until December next year, though if we're lucky we'll see some surrenders as a result of "drill or drop" clauses]

Climate Change: Labour is trying to kill us

The science of climate change is clear: we need to stop burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible, and we cannot burn even a fraction of those already discovered. So naturally, Labour is offering oil companies more exploration permits:

The Government is offering companies another opportunity to search for new reserves of oil and gas, despite scientific warnings the world has enough.

Climate activists said the move was “disturbing” and “completely irresponsible” – and vowed to fight efforts to search for and dig up fossil fuels.

The Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment has invited parties to apply for oil and gas exploration permits in Taranaki.

The announcement comes a week after climate scientists issued an urgent warning to the world: to leave fossil fuels in the ground to avoid dangerous levels of planetary heating.

Oh, and they've granted another offshore exploration permit as well, despite their 2018 ban. And while they'll claim this decision was forced on them by a judicial review, the fault is still entirely theirs, for not including an appropriate transition clause in the ban legislation ensuring that it extinguished all rights and applied to any outstanding application. Because that's what we need to do to solve this problem - we can't grandfather existing polluters. Instead, we need to legislatively extinguish their permits with no compensation, and do it as quickly as possible (allowing some time for transition to cleaner fuels). Anything less is a death sentence, and a government which fails to act are murderers.

Climate Change: Another baby step to decarbonisation

In 2018 the government banned issuing new offshore oil and gas exploration permits. It was the first baby step towards decarbonisation, essentially cutting off part of the pathway to new supply, gradually phasing out the industry. And it has worked - there were 22 offshore exploration permits in 2018, and now there are only four (the number of onshore permits has also reduced from nine to six). The fossil fuel pipeline is being slowly closed off. So now the government has announced the next baby-step: banning onshore exploration:

In a continuation of the Government's staged phase-out of fossil fuel exploration in New Zealand, Energy Minister Megan Woods will pause the issuance of any new oil and gas permits until after next year's election.

[...]

The fate of the next onshore block offer has been uncertain for the better part of a year, amidst mounting evidence that the world cannot exploit most known fossil fuel reserves without blasting past the 1.5C and even 2C temperature goals.

Now Woods said she will pause any further block offers until the next Parliamentary term.

"“I am not committing to any further block offers now. Decisions will be made early in the next Parliamentary term when there will be a better evidence base of future demand," she said.

Which is good, but before anyone gets too enthusiastic, this is basicly an extension of the existing policy (which has seen only three new onshore permits issued since the ban, and no new block offers), and it is only until the election (meaning that they might reverse it afterwards). In other words, rather than actually doing something, they're playing the usual mealy-mouthed chickenshit game and not actually committing. And this is a policy they need to commit to. If we are to survive the climate crisis, that means no new gas, oil or coal, which means cutting that pipeline now. But more than that, it means phasing out existing fossil fuel production and banning imports of these destructive, environmentally damaging substances. And that means setting a date or dates to kill this industry. Sooner is better, but the mere act of setting a date will give us all certainty about the need for change and let us move forward.

Instead of doing what is necessary, Labour is trying to cling to the past and trying to pretend that nothing needs to change. And this makes them little different from the dirty climate deniers in National and ACT.

Submit!

The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has called for submissions on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. Submissions can be sent using the form here and are due by Monday, 23 January 2023.

The main thing the bill does is fix this problem, where the purpose of the Crown Minerals Act to "promote" mining means that nothing miners want to do can ever be refused and major environemtnal issues like climate change cannot be considered, even when another law says they can be. Which is a good thing, and its probably worth telling the committee that. But weirdly, despite this being absolutely urgent (especially given that there are mining permits up for extension soon), it won't take effect until July 2023.

This is likely because of the other thing the bill does - strengthen consultation requirements with iwi and hapu. Obviously, that's something which takes time to set up, and so a delay for that is reasonable. But there's no reason the bill has to come into effect all at once, and the vital change to the purpose clause should not be delayed. Instead, it and the related changes (part 1 and sections 7,8,9,17 and 20) should come into effect the moment the bill becomes law. That way, the problem will actually get solved, rather than NZPAM having another 6 months in which to rubberstamp permit extensions. So, if you're planning a submission, please add a few words urging immediate implementation of the change to the purpose clause.

Writing a submission isn't hard - basicly "I support this bill, but this is what I'd like to see changed". Mine was all of 189 words, which is about a hundred words shorter than this post. So please, fill out the form and send yours in today.

Climate Change: Fixing the Crown Minerals Act?

Back in August, the High Court ruled that the Zero Carbon Act isn't worth shit and that the government can continue to approve new fossil fuel exploration without having to consider climate change. The core of the problem is the Crown Minerals Act, and in particular its purpose: "to promote prospecting for, exploration for, and mining of Crown owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand". Now, the government is finally fixing the problem:

The Government will change “nonsensical” mining legislation that requires it to grant oil companies permits to look for new fossil fuels.

[...]

Energy Minister Megan Woods announced that a crucial sentence about promoting mineral exploitation will be changed, so the Government can say no to companies.

This is good, of course - but the government needs to go further. We don't just need a minerals regime that allows mining companies to be controlled - we need to phase out fossil fuels. And that means not just being able to reject new permits for coal and petroleum, but banning them, while sunsetting existing permits and their associated resource consents. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's Prohibition on Seabed Mining Legislation Amendment Bill will do that for offshore mining, and Eugenie Sage's Crown Minerals (Prohibition of Mining) Amendment Bill would do it for coal. Labour opposes both. Which tells us exactly how un-serious they are on climate change.

Meanwhile, in the wake of the court decision, NZPAM has been extending gas and oil permits right, left and centre. It would be good if the legislation explicitly overturned those self-interested, politically-motivated decisions.

Climate Change: National wants to burn the planet

Last month, the National Party announced they would repeal any price on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, effectively declaring that they would do nothing about them. Today, they've followed that up by announcing that they will repeal the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration:

The National Party has reaffirmed that if elected to Government it will repeal the offshore oil and gas exploration ban, introduced by the Labour-NZ First-Green Government in 2018.

National’s energy spokesperson Stuart Smith further hashed out the National Party’s approach to climate change in the energy sector, during a speech to the Energy Trusts of New Zealand and the Waipa Networks Association in Cambridge on Thursday.

[...]

In the energy space, Smith argued that New Zealand’s 100% renewable target was costly, delivered few emissions gains and that gas should continue to be a part of the mix.

Which is simply madness. We can't afford to burn the oil and gas we have already. We certainly can't afford to burn any more that is discovered. The first step to decarbonisation is to phase out fossil fuels. But clearly, National doesn't want that.

But its not just oil and gas. While purporting to care about climate change, National opposes any attempt to reduce emissions. They oppose reducing fossil fuel emissions. They oppose reducing agricultural emissions. They oppose reducing transport emissions. They oppose reducing industrial emissions. The natural interpretation of all this opposition is that they don't actually want to reduce emissions at all, and that they want the planet to burn. Which makes them simply unfit to govern.

Climate Change: Labour's policy of murder

Floods in Pakistan have killed more than a thousand people this week and displaced 50 million, and put a third of the country underwater. Locally, Nelson has been devastated by floods. Meanwhile, the latest ice-loss data from Greenland says we're looking at at least 27cm (and maybe as much as 78cm) of sea level rise by the end of the century from Greenland alone. And while this is going on, Labour has quietly extended a fossil fuel mining permit, increasing future greenhouse gas emissions for another 13 years.

The permit is number 38159 ("Surrey"), held by Greymouth Petroleum. It expired on April 4. But its owners applied for and were granted an extension until 2035. According to MBIE, the permit produced 65,000 barrels of oil in 2021 (which means about 32,500 tons of CO2). If that rate of production continues, then the government's decision has just allowed an extra 420,000 tons of CO2 to enter the atmosphere - all of which was completely avoidable. I wonder how those 50 million displaced Pakistanis feel about that? Or the people of Nelson?

But Surrey isn't the only permit. There are two more permits (53803 and 55491) which have also recently expired, and where the owners have also applied for extensions. And based on their current behaviour, it looks like Labour will grant them. Its clear from this that they have no intention of enforcing the Crown Minerals Act against polluters, and no intention of allowing even a gradual shutdown. Instead, they're going to protect the status quo, and let them keep polluting forever. And in the current situation, this is simply a policy of murder.

Windfall tax now!

Inflation is through the roof, and "coincidentally" so is oil company profiteering. UN Secretary-General António Guterres calls it what it is: grotesque:

The UN secretary general, António Guterres, has described the record profits of oil and gas companies as immoral and urged governments to introduce a windfall tax, using the money to help those in the most need.

Speaking in New York on Wednesday, Guterres said the “grotesque greed” of the fossil fuel companies and their financial backers had led to the combined profits of the largest energy companies in the first quarter of this year hitting almost $100bn (£82bn).

“It is immoral for oil and gas companies to be making record profits from this energy crisis on the backs of the poorest people and communities, at a massive cost to the climate,” he said.

“I urge all governments to tax these excessive profits, and use the funds to support the most vulnerable people through these difficult times.”

He's right, about both the problem and the solution. These companies are making mega-profits from destroying the planet. Those profits should be taken from them, redistributed, and used to reduce the harm they cause. Not only will this improve social justice, but it will also help reduce the incentive for such destructive behaviour in the first place.

So Labour, how about it? Do you stand with the people, or the oil companies? With the planet, or its killers?

Drawn

A ballot for two member's bills was held today, and the following bills were drawn:

• Housing Infrastructure (GST-sharing) Bill (Brooke van Velden)
• Prohibition on Seabed Mining Legislation Amendment Bill (Debbie Ngarewa-Packer)

Ngarewa-Packer's bill looks likely to start a shitfight with Labour, and not just because the latter seems to support seabed mining - the bill goes rather further than that, and would immediately end all offshore fossil fuel development as well. Which is something we need to be talking about and setting a concrete date for. Hopefully this bill will provide us with a vehicle to start that conversation.

Climate Change: Betting on disaster

Last year, the International Energy Agency warned us that the world needed to cease all new fossil fuel development immediately if we wanted to reach net-zero by 2050. It was a call repeated this year by the UN Secretary General, who called new fossil fuel investment "moral and economic madness". But despite this, oil companies are continuing to invest in large projects which are inconsistent with our climate goals:

The world’s biggest fossil fuel firms are quietly planning scores of “carbon bomb” oil and gas projects that would drive the climate past internationally agreed temperature limits with catastrophic global impacts, a Guardian investigation shows.

The exclusive data shows these firms are in effect placing multibillion-dollar bets against humanity halting global heating. Their huge investments in new fossil fuel production could pay off only if countries fail to rapidly slash carbon emissions, which scientists say is vital.

Effectively, these criminal organisations are betting on disaster. They're financially supporting war, famine, plague, fire, flood, and death. Effectively, they're planning to murder not just us, but our entire civilisation. They are able to do this because it is legal. The obvious solution is to make it illegal - not just with local bans on fossil fuel development, but by banning the financing of such development overseas. New Zealand law already prohibits people and companies in New Zealand from financing things like chemical weapons or terrorist entities; we - and the rest of the world - need to recognise that fossil fuels fall into the same category. Otherwise, we are going to burn, and these companies are going to profit from it (until they burn too). And that's simply not something we should permit.

Labour lied about banning offshore gas exploration

In 2018, the Labour-led government announced they were banning new offshore gas exploration. The ban was half-hearted at best, and immediately undermined by permit extensions and changes in conditions - a policy that has continued. But now they seem to have moved beyond sneaky extensions to explicitly voiding the ban, by allowing Greymouth Petroleum to conduct new offshore exploration without a permit:

When is a ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration, really a ban?

That's the question environmentalists are asking after discovering Greymouth Petroleum has been given permission to conduct a massive seismic survey off the coast of Taranaki - with the likelihood of more activity to come.

The crown minerals regulator has allowed Greymouth Petroleum to piggyback off an existing mining permit to survey an adjacent area of more than than 260 square kilometres.

And now they've allowed Greymouth Petroleum to do this, you can bet OMV and the rest will want to do the same.

This has been allowed under s42A of the Crown Minerals Act. Note that this is a discretionary power, and the Minister could simply refuse. The fact that she did not makes it perfectly clear where the responsibility lies. And the fact that this has happened repeatedly makes it clear that it is a conscious Labour policy to say one thing and do another. Labour is lying to us about fossil fuels, trying to preserve an industry whose continuation threatens all of us. They need to stop doing that, be honest, and end fossil fuels permanently.