Written By:
- Date published:
11:29 am, September 19th, 2026 - 3 comments
Categories: climate change, national, same old national, science, simeon brown, the praiseworthy and the pitiful -
Tags:
National’s obsession with doing whatever it can to increase the emissions of greenhouse gasses is becoming a real problem.
At the beginninng of this year, National came up with a bonkers idea. In the midst of a climate crisis and faced with the need to ensure that during dry years there is sufficient power supply, it came up with the proposal that we should construct an LNG terminal at the cost of $2.7 billion.
I thought at the time that this idea was bonkers. The cost of solar panels has recently been plummeting, and the rate of return for some systems is 16%. Some Solar Panels pay for themselves after 6 years, and then you get free power for the rest of the panel’s life. And in a dry year where the sun is shining, solar seemed to be by far the best solution to a power shortage, and it could also reduce the need to draw down water to power hydro stations.
So when it was first announced it was clear to me that the idea was idiotic.
Then the Iranian war started.
Donald Trump went all gung ho on it and decided to start bombing Iran, and ever since then the world has faced a fairly major fuel shock.
Somehow we have come through it relatively well, partially because alternative ways of moving the fuel around have occurred, partially because of a surge in electric vehicles and partially because China started letting its major fuel reserves be released, and partially because Western nations started to run down their fuel stocks in the hope that things would pick up.
But the event showed how fragile our supply system is, and showed why continued reliance on Middle Eastern oil and LNG is actually a rather stupid idea. So I thought then that the LNG terminal proposal would be ditched.
Then after that, there was a further development: the Methanex fuel plant, which historically consumes up to 40% of the country’s produced LNG, announced it was going to shut down.
So for a short time at least, there would be plenty of LNG around and no need to import it.
So I thought then that the proposal for the Terminal was even more bonkers and made even less sense than it did before.
And so I’ve been waiting for National to find a way to backtrack and announce that it would no longer proceed with the LNG terminal, or even say nothing and just let the proposal die quietly.
But lo and behold, they still want to proceed with it.
From the Herald:
Energy Minister Simeon Brown insists the coalition will deliver on a promise to sign a contract for an LNG import terminal before the election, saying “the Government is the Government until the election”.
This is despite protests from the Opposition that signing such a contract would be inappropriate given it doesn’t support the terminal.
A future Government would have to face the choice between going along with a project it did not agree with or paying a hefty fee to cancel the contract.
Even though renewable energy can more than adequately fill the gap, even though the Middle East is very fragile and supplies from there are continuously threatened, even though there’s more than enough LNG in the short term to keep us going, even though the enabling legislation has not been passed and will not be passed if there is a change of Government and even though in two months there may be a new Government National still want to proceed with the contract and are rushing to sign it.
They are wanting construction companies to commit to the construction, even though a change of government will mean that this project will be unceremoniously dumped.
They may be relying on the goodwill shown by Labour to not have dramatic changes in projects and to continue what was started, but this is really taking the piss.
I hope there is a change of government, and I hope the first thing that Labour does is cancel any contract, because this idea is not only bad for the country’s finances, it’s also bad for the environment. It is a bonkers idea. It was bonkers when it was first announced, and given all that has happened, it has descended down the slippery slope into ultra bonkers territory.
Maybe Simeon Brown does not understand the science behind climate change is are prepared to go ahead with this folly because they don’t know any better. Even worse maybe Simeon understands the science but is willing to engage in this particular culture war because it will get him support from the deluded. He is willing to spend $2.7 billion of our money so he keep telling lies that the shortage is because of Labour’s banning of new offshore oil and gas exploration. Fancy spending all that money so that you can continue to perpetrate a lie and continue to blame the other side.
Either way this shows why he should not be a Minister. Please vote accordingly.
* Excuse all the swearing but this Government’s trashing of our climate response ignites my tourettes.
The PM, DPMs, Simeon Brown and CoC MPs as a whole may be bonkers, but they know which side their bread is buttered on.
Pfft – by 2030, $ir Chri$ will be back to his CEO roots, 'earning' real money.
Anthony Ellison, in the New Zealand Listener, 18 May 2026
As always follow the money with the coalition, who profits and what kickbacks, sinecures and juicy contracts arise.
LNG is not required when we will have the gas via methanex closure AND they want to stick it virtually in New Plymouth rather than at a safe operating distance.
They have no respect for the planet, our kids future or the good folk of New Plymouth.
I see cheerleader Bridges getting a granny soapbox to disagree with experts about economic recovery.
Fkn clown school with a bank teller, an arts graduate and a history geek having energy/health, finance and our legal system respectively in their 'experienced' hands.
Credo of Natfactackacks – Live for the moment. Seize opportunities and exploit them. Come off – well off. Bugger off – to detractors, in fact run the tractors over them. (The Israeli Army fellers did that and nothing happened to them.*) Keep your powder dry. You will be fine, no matter what; we have the numbers.
Remember Voltaire 1694-1778: It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. Voltaire https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/voltaire_108412
* Rachel Corrie about : – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie.
and – Israeli Army cleared of killing Rachel Corrie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_jfagE_Sj0
An Israeli court has ruled that the state of Israel was not at fault for the death of Rachel Corrie, the US activist who was killed in the Gaza Strip by an Israeli army bulldozer in 2003.
Judge Oded Gershon stated that Ms Corrie's death was a 'regrettable accident' and that the state was not responsible. Rachel's mother Cindy Corrie said she was dismayed by the decision: "We are of course deeply saddened and deeply troubled by what we heard today by Judge Oded Gurshon. I believe that this was a bad day not only for our family but a bad day for human rights for humanity for the rule of law and also for the country of Israel." Ms Corrie had been trying to stop Palestinian homes being pulled down in Gaza when she was hit by a bulldozer. Ms Corrie's family believe the Israeli army intentionally and unlawfully killed their daughter, and that they subsequently failed to conduct a full and credible investigation. The Corries family lawyer, Abu Hussein, remained confident an appeal could change the court verdict. "I think the decision to continue the work (by the Israeli Army) at that day was far from reasonable decision. I believe that we could have a good chance to change this decision through the review by the appeal that we are aiming to issue to the Supreme Court." Ms Corrie's death made her a symbol of the second Palestinian uprising that took place roughly between the years 200 and 2005. (Second Intifada.) Thousands of Palestinians were killed and hundreds of Israelis died in suicide bombings.
Britannica https://www.britannica.com › topic › suicide-bombing |Suicide bombing | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica | Suicide bombing, an act in which an individual personally delivers explosives and detonates them to inflict the greatest possible damage, killing himself or herself in the process….. (Is that TINA when in jeopardy of the terminator, powerless against the ruthless.)