Written By:
- Date published:
10:19 am, June 12th, 2026 - 12 comments
Categories: climate change, economy, Environment, ETS, national, public transport, same old national, science, transport -
Tags:
National claims that it is the better economic manager and attacks Labour every opportunity it can.
How many times have you heard Luxon or Willis accuse the last Government of “wasteful spending”?
This reputation is not deserved however. And three events from this week clearly show why.
On Tuesday the Government announced that it was not going to levy power users to build its $2.7 billion LNG terminal.
When I heard that my initial impression was “great”. That project is potentially a ridiculous waste of money that would increase the country’s dependance on carbon emitting fuels at a time when there are much better alternatives. It never made sense, unless the intent was to get support from climate change deniers and cock a snook at a science consensus that we have to wean ourselves off greenhouse gas emitting fuels and fast.
But then it struck me. They were not canning the deal. They were just ruling out the only way they had to fund it. They were still going to build it but fund it by other means.
And in the absence of a huge lotto win or the discovery of a magical money tree it will be funded either by us as consumers or us as taxpayers.
The deal made no sense. Investing in solar panels would have been a much more fiscally and environmentally responsible thing to do.
And it made even less sense after the Iranian war started and Natural Gas fields in the Middle East were attacked.
And to top things off it looks like there was an attempt by the Government to hide advice suggesting that putting to one side the extraordinary cost of the terminal the need was low.
From Radio New Zealand:
As part of the ministry’s analysis of options, [the Government] commissioned Concept Consulting to model the impact of an LNG facility on New Zealand energy prices in a range of scenarios.
The redacted version, reported on by RNZ in April, provided a description of how the modelling was done, but redacted crucial slides summarising the outcome.
The newly released summary of the analysis states: “Modelled need for LNG is low, even in scenarios with less other security resources.”
It identified one extreme scenario with a higher LNG requirement. Other scenarios in the modelling “require much less LNG – none at all in some cases”.
There were several reasons for that finding, the analysis continued.
It was cheaper to burn coal in one of Huntly Power Station’s Rankine units than LNG in a gas turbine, and the country had made progress on building more renewable energy since the last dry year crisis of 2024.
There was less domestic gas to burn since 2024, but that was offset by a better supply and demand balance, the document said.
You would think that good economic managers would run a million miles away from such a stupid idea. This could be the biggest white elephant the country has invested in since the time of Muldoon’s think big.
And the numbers being relied on look pretty rubbery.
Originally it was claimed that the availability of LNG as dry-year insurance cover is expected to reduce forward electricity contract prices by at least $10/MWh, saving consumers around $400 million annually. That figure was from the Cabinet Paper presented in February of this year.
But magically now and even after the price and scarcity of LPG has increased the terminal will apparently save us up to $800 million a year.
The media need to get onto this. The justification for the LPG terminal gets weaker and weaker.
But I get the impression that through obduracy and a need not to be seen to be doing anything for the climate the Government will try to push the terminal through.
Which brings into contrast Labour’s recent announcement yesterday of a new policy to cap public transport fares.
The policy is really good. It is simple to explain, it will help a number of ordinary people who rely on public transport, it will reduce congestion and improve Public Transport usage. And it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel dependancy. All at once.
It is also relatively cheap. One cancelled Road of National Significance project could fund this policy for a decade or more.
This did not stop National from going to town on the policy. And Chris Bishop asked how the policy would be funding and what would be cut, even though National has never said how the much more expensive Roads of National Significance were going to be funded. And then mused about how the $450 million slush fund the Government established in the budget could be used to provide more public transport.
From Radio New Zealand:
[Chris] Bishop said details were unclear.
“What ones, and when? … It’s not good enough to stand up in front of New Zealanders and say, as the alternative Prime Minister, ‘yeah, we’re going to spend $65 million from the National Land Transport Fund, no idea what that actually comes at the expense of’,” he said.
It was pointed out the government had not explained how it would pay for Roads of National Significance, but Bishop said it had been upfront about that because they were long term projects still being worked through.
The government had looked at a range of fare subsidy options in response to the fuel crisis but officials advised against it, preferring investment in services instead, Bishop said.
It would “possibly” consider using the $450 million emergency fund set aside in the Budget to put on more trains and buses during peak periods, he said.
Imagine going through a budget process, announcing nothing for public transport, then seeing Labour come out with innovative policy and pivoting furiously to try and counter the announcement using a slush fund set up for the purpose. You have to hand it to National.
And National’s refusal to do anything about climate change is going to cost each of us a thousand dollars by the end of the decade. And it is still refusing to even make allowance for this liability in the books even though the likelihood that we will have to buy credits now looks almost inevitable.
From Kate Newton at Radio New Zealand:
Treasury estimates it could cost up to $5 billion to pay for the overseas carbon credits New Zealand needs to honour its Paris Agreement commitments.
An additional $1.6 billion may also be needed to pay for credits to meet a subsequent commitment, due by 2035.
Treasury said the figures did not reflect any government intentions or decisions, but was publishing them so there was transparency over possible future costs.
New Zealand has the option of meeting its pledge to halve net greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 entirely with domestic policies.
However, the most recent analysis from the Ministry for the Environment showed that there was a shortfall of 84 million tonnes of emissions, that would need to be made up by paying other countries to offset their emissions instead.
So National will spend billions on a LNG terminal that is not needed, billions on roads of National significance whose business cases are appalling, but attack Labour for a policy that is cheap, will help ordinary people, reduce fuel dependancy and greenhouse gas emissions. And fudge and hide the figures.
National is not the better economic manager. It is a party driven by feral right wing dogma that will wreck the country if it remains in power.
Nothing more needs to be said.
This CoCockups has to go. The sooner the better.
And Luxon and Willis have finally admitted that they have no intention of meeting our Climate change obligations.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/597859/government-facing-up-to-5-billion-bill-over-carbon-credits-treasury-reveals
I'm beginning to think that wreaking the country is actually their objective, so they, and their mates, can pick up assets cheap. Because that's the only way they can make any money. Can't do it of their own right, have to do it at someone else's expense.
They hate Labour because the economy grows and leaves them behind and they can't keep up.
If we did not know CoC served the gods of fossil fuels before, this underlines their priorities tribalism and servitude. Enrol and vote wisely.
Chris Hipkins should say their government will stop this, as it goes against advice, loads us with more debt and puts our trading in danger.
The growth agenda is in tatters, even with increased prices for our goods, which we have to get to the markets.
The BAU being practiced is being challenged by past agreements such as the Paris accord, and trashing our reputation for reliability is a real danger.
Seldom have we had such a government of blatant self interest.
Motivating people to vote in the face of power money and obstacles is just one of many ways they may cling to power.
So every offering by Labour needs to answer each of these problems, as the Public Transport one does. Inexpensive targetted and positive.
CoC out in 26.
I asked the LLM Gemini if there were climate change provisions in our FTA with Europe.
”Yes, the New Zealand-European Union Free Trade Agreement (NZ-EU FTA), which entered into force on 1 May 2024, includes highly ambitious and unprecedented climate change provisions embedded directly within its Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapter. It marks the first time the EU has included enforceable trade sanctions for violations of core climate commitments. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key Climate and Environmental Provisions
So if someone in Europe gets stroppy, probably France, we could be in trouble.
Well… The Standard and MS are. And as linked, RNZ are very good ( I find Newsroom same). Probably not going to get fck all from MSM The Herald….although I find Stuff does come up with some pushback…
I did smile at the
Suddenly its an Emergency?
And as far as any Rational Climate Plan? IMO they are literally making it all up as they go….such as it is, and to the absolute detriment of NZ's Environment and Future.
Ditch the pricks '26
We have a Government which is firmly in the camp of do-nothimg-about-climate-change. Far too much influence from fossil fuel supporters. The benefits of voting for Labour are now very clear
If it burns, the Coalition will support it: fossil fuels, tobacco, wood, greenhouse gasses, Luxon’s media stand-ups & interviews.
And his pants.
Why should we be good, aim higher than we can get away with think Gnfact-attack. The big boys are doing all sorts of trickery, and we didn't get to where our lot are in lux-ury without being wily and up to the play. We only will obey rules and laws that suit us, and make laws that we can circumvent if that is the Right thing to do. Follow the money is the way and the truth.
Ah I remember climate change 2017 when it was a thing in New Zealand with 10% of the population on the streets to support whatever Ardern wanted to do.
Back in the day.
Post COVID and inflation very few care about it in abstract, and only react to floods near them. Should we ever consider it, it's one disaster at a time and at best we call it resilience.
These days most of us are poorer, our economy and finally weaker, and we're just trying to hang on and not worry about all that staff.
(stuff) but, yes, that's right but a responsible, informed Government will know that despite the 'abstract", governance requires wise decision-making and "not worrying about stuff" shouldn't determine policy.
Grown-ups, in the room.
A decision not influenced by recent events.
The global cost of gas will be higher for 5 years because of damage to infrastructure in Qatar a major supply source (and as for S of H being an future outlet … ).
There is the domestic wood burn option at Huntly. And solar panel uptake reduces demand on hydro (an offshore wind farm off Taranaki).
It is going to subsidise the power system, but not the use of public transport that reduces carbon emissions.
They want the $5B hole they are deliberately creating to force a bi-partisan anti-Paris Accord policy – the consequences of that for our diplomatic and trading future is a known unknown.