Written By:
- Date published:
11:31 am, March 11th, 2026 - 90 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, covid-19, Economy, energy, uncategorized -
Tags:
With more time to plan than the Labour government had with COVID, a responsible government should be planning the whole of New Zealand for 91 petrol at $4 a litre and potential supply constraints beyond existing supply on shore and within the EEZ.
In the short and medium term, what should this government do as a plan?
And in the long term, what should a future government do?
Clearly they need help forming a plan because they don’t have one, so let’s set down our suggestions.
1.pay their rates to councils for provision of services.
2.allow congestion charging with the move to RUC (after removing the excise tax).
3.allow councils to levy an excise tax on petrol of their own.
4.toll the new highways.
5.protect the roads (and bridges) from large trucks (or charge extra tolls for repair and replacement cost).
6.adopt basic first world standards for cars on the roads (rather than some sort of 3rd world dump for high petrol use vehicles).
7.think about strategic reserves (before the next pandemic of stupid@low IQ emperor)
Under
Lie down with those who do not care about global warming and this is what the world looks like. Cheap tramp coalition, stop flaunting your shameless pandering to mammon.
Why do you think that imposing more tax on poor people (who have no option but to use cars) – and who will already be under economic pressure from close-to-doubling petrol prices – is a winning strategy?
Or do you hope the government take your advice, so they increase their unpopularity at the ballot box in November?
Why .. etc, straw man based accusation.
The above was about the medium term plan (you know the future time when the RUC is in place of excise tax), and thus is unrelated to policies this year.
Are you supportive of the importing of cheap imported cars that require the use of larger amounts of petrol as something good for the poor (they have to pay for the inefficient use of petrol)?
Who do you think should pay for the Paris Accord cost of that petrol use (as per emissions) on our government (which taxpayers), or do you oppose the government meeting its international obligations?
How is it as straw man….
Virtually everything you suggested was an additional tax or levy on petrol.
Which are regressive taxes – impacting poor people to a greater extent than wealthy ones.
If petrol prices virtually double – that also has a knock-on-effect on everything else which is created or shipped using petrol or oil.
So, people's cost of living just had a massive tick upwards. Why would you think increasing government taxes on them, is a good idea?
Poor people don't own EVs – they can't afford them. NZ has one of the oldest (and therefore most petrol heavy) car fleets in a first world country. Poor people aren't going to magically have the money to sell of (or junk) their 15-year-old toyota in order to buy an EV.
Nothing in your suggestion list addressed this at all.
The conflation of a nation managing risk with a winning strategy for an election was all your own work.
And the same old "we" cannot manage GW because of poor people is not the topic.
If you want "us" to manage global warming, then you have to address the elephant in the room. Or simply have your proposals dismissed as unworkable in the real world.
Not abiding by the Paris Accord commitments because they are unaffordable in the real world will have consequences as per (farm) trade with Europe.
A Labour government’s
1.increases in the MW
2.pay equity
3.Industry Awards (Fair Pay Agreements)
provide the income gains the C of C denies to more than cover costs of fleet transition.
Coalition of carbon dependency has no plan but low cost labour and kicking for touch the consequences of that, for short term re-election purposes (and to keep their capital wealth from being taxed).
How is it as straw man….
Poor people who have no choice but to use cars are "straw men". These are people you have put up simply to make an argument. We don't know that they exist, or if they do, that they can't receive welfare assistance.
Well, you may not know they exist. But, meantime, in the real world.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/maori-and-the-poor-stung-by-auckland-fuel-tax-says-report/VMMTSXWZXZBVUBLEFH4NSKOTM4/
Pretending that the people most affected by a suggested policy don't exist is morally reprehensible.
The handful of people affected can probably be helped through social welfare, as I suggested in my previous post. In the meantime we should not be prevented by targeting those better off just because some poor people may be adversely affected.
Poor people aren't even given enough via social welfare for food. Owning a car is a luxury for many, and don't forget those of us medically banned from driving.
A huge investment in public transport is now necessary, not a nice to have, especially in regions that have bugger all transportation options. Even in Auckland, there's a petrol price point that greatly increases passengers.
I wonder if the powers that be regret they took away an excellent trolley bus system in Wellington, and we still don't have the electrified fleet we were promised.
Definitely would require a big increase in public transport – preferably electric.
In Auckland, it depends where you are travelling to as well and how much time you've got.
I'm currently looking at travelling to a place out west by public transport. Allowing for delays in trains & buses, it'll probably take me a half hour longer than by car. It's a fairly easy car journey.
I'm frequently having to travel from Auckland airport to Pukekohe (yes, I do understand the irony of confessing on this thread to flying a lot but I literally have no other option) and it's bus-train-bus-walk, 1.5 hours without any delays, longer that the flight from Welly. Occasionally I can get a ride, which is only 45 mins.
At least it is possible for me to get there by public transport- most of the time, they love closing the train lines- but as you point out, the distances in Auckland, including to the nearest public transport, are more conducive to driving and if that's an option, I don't blame you.
I think Auckland is beyond help in that respect, ever since they prioritised motorways over PT decades ago and ran down the PT, on top of the city forever expanding.
To clarify, I will be getting a train & bus to the west of Auckland, and not driving. I have the time. And there will be some walking involved as well.
But I can see why some people choose to drive, especially if they don't have enough time.
Is this statement really coming from someone on the Left?
https://www.inequality.org.nz/
https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/16-08-2022/the-side-eyes-two-new-zealands-the-table
A(t)las, the CoC is 'govt' by and for the sorted – wrecking is their plan.
I'm not a straw man and I know plenty of others who aren't either. I drive a 1994 toyota starlet that cost me 500 bucks a few years ago. Are you seriously suggesting that welfare assistance will help those on low incomes buy an electric vehicle???
While there is no actual data on the topic, I would suggest that the vast majority of New Zealanders never have and never will be able to afford to purchase a new car. Where are all the sub $10,000 second hand electric vehicles coming from?? (Ones that can travel more than 100km on a charge? A ten year old nissan leaf costs $20,000 or more.
Anybody that has to carry tools or materials daily, or needs to be mobile during the day, etc, etc needs a car as public transport and or cycling aren't viable (not that that should matter anyway). Do you even realize how massive (in terms of distances and land area) and hilly Auckland is???
Let me guess, you work from home? Or do you cycle to work on a nice flat road for 15 minutes and sit in your office all day not needing to be out on the road? There's a reason why you never see a single cyclist on the ridiculous waste of time and money cycle lanes all over South Auckland
A lot also depends on how much a person uses their car and what they need it for.
I own a small 2008 petrol car. I don't use it a lot and walk and/or use public transport for most things. Sometimes a car is the best option eg at night or for carrying fairly big loads. It would not be cost effective, as a retired person, for me to buy an electric car.
I fortunately filled up with petrol just before the current bombing of Iran by US-Israel. It should last me for a few months.
I doubt my car use amounts to as much pollution and road wear & tear as someone who uses an e-car or hybrid a lot.
None of those would be fast to implement.
Lovely medium-term moves, but:
1. Willis has ruled that out before
2. Congestion charging actually requires quite a lot of investment in road-spanning catenary vehicle photographing to id and then bill, at multiple points across any city. Also requires legislation since it's a tax. It's medium-term at best.
3. Best of luck with that one; this government is gutting local government powers at every turn
4. New highways will take at least 4 years each to build, and then require legislation for tolling.
5. Heavier RUC for very heavy vehicles would be possible, and probably just need an Order In Council to alter a RUC tariff schedule
6. Great yes. Unfortunately they have now removed all emissions standards for all imported vehicles.
7. Reserve oil containers will take a year or two to build and would need to be in the Fast Track legislation because they will contaminate the land they are on. Not easy and definitely medium term.
There is this statement of the governments position.
https://archive.li/tMiPP
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/360964660/what-government-doing-secure-our-fuel-supply
Aramco said it will soon divert five million barrels a day of oil via its East-West pipeline (it did send seven million barrels of oil a day via the Strait of Hormuz) to the Yanbu port on the Red Sea – and asked tankers to reposition.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/business/360964732/saudi-aramco-ceo-warns-catastrophic-iran-war-fallout-reroutes-5-million-barrels-oil-day
The thing is, the Houthi were armed for the purpose of blocking this option.
So its viability depends on cutting off intelligence (Russian and Iranian) to them as well
(tankers can come south down the Red Sea and back to Europe)(but going into the Red Sea from the Arabian end and back to supply Asian markets and onto Tasman would be an insurance nightmare).
Perhaps the Saudis are looking towards dealing with the Houthi?'
Their economy *depends* on oil exports. I don't see them taking this lightly. And Iran is in no position to arm Yemen – as they did in the last conflict with Saudi Arabia.
Given the civilian death toll from the last war – this is not an outcome to be welcomed.
War seems to beget war.
For those who did not read the link
Thus this
https://www.thepost.co.nz/business/360965050/nz-fuel-stocks-plump-moment-and-supply-not-issue
Immediate options, not that the Government will like them, they canceled most of them. Labour and Greens should go hard on this and just start governing from opposition.
1- Free urban public transport. Might run into capacity constraints quite quickly but some scope to spread demand. Could happen tomorrow.
2- Legislate to enforce Work from Home and Glide Time. Will reduce need to travel and ease burden on public transport. Could happen yesterday, did through covid so we know it works and how to do it.
3- Subsidise current inter city / town public land transport options and extension of these services wherever possible. Both road and rail. Could happen pretty quickly, expansion might have plant constraints, but there will be plenty of spare capacity from tourism sector by next month.
4- Encourage / subsidise adoption of roof top solar and EVs. Might run into supply constraints as everyone else in the world will be trying to do the same. Also lead time issues so more med term
I do like the idea of subsidising solar in some way.
Perhaps an interest-free loan – over 5-7 years.
If we go back to subsidizing EVs for the wealthy – then I think that should be tied to home EV solar with batteries for re-charging overnight.
I don't really think that free public transport is going to make a difference. If the cost of petrol goes up, then PT (if it's at all possible for the individual) already becomes more attractive.
Work from home is only really possible for the middle class and upwards. You don't get to do it if you're a nurse, retail worker or in hospitality. And lets not forget the disaster that remote schooling was for pupils. Most people aren't really invested in making life easier or cheaper for bureaucrats.
If the cost of air travel is really going to accelerate – I would indeed like to see investment in regional rail. However, it's not going to be quick or easy.
ATM, the flagship is the Te Huia service between Auckland and Hamilton. Running once a day – and not heavily used (it hasn't met it's usage targets – although it's been given an extension to try and get there). Auckland is OK – Britomart is central – but the Hamilton end dumps passengers at Frankton – with limited PT options to get anywhere further. It's pretty much designed as a park and ride.
Rail into regions like Gisborne – is going to be hugely costly – and I can't see it happening under any government TBH.
Agree totally Graeme!
And some of those like huge public transport subsidy, and Work From Home are exactly what Labour did in the last crisis.
The Te Huia train Hamilton-Auckland is actually doing good numbers now.
When you have a moment come and check out the Frankton Bus Hub under construction which is going to be 2.5 times as big as the current one.
I go through Frankton regularly and have been watching progress. Looks like they are just about ready to switch to the temporary round about. Will be interesting if the temp layout improves traffic flow any, but the works haven't really made things any worse than they were, traffic through Frankton was fucked anyway, that's why the intersection is being redone. Hopefully PT patronage steps up from it's already solid levels to make all this work.
The Te Huia concept should be trialed from Wangarei and Tauranga, along with commuter rail around Christchurch. The old Auckland diesel units are sitting in Christchurch already, just need approval ,and I presume funding.
On a more local focus, commuter PT between Cromwell and Queenstown must be viable now, surely.
I’m not sure what you’re after, claiming that “they don’t have one”. Recent articles in the media in relation to the war in Iran mentioned existing plans that are in place, AFAIK.
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-generation-and-markets/liquid-fuel-market/fuel-security-in-new-zealand/fuel-security-plan
https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/strategy-capability/plans-strategies/national-plans/national-fuel-plan
The faster we lower petrol use, the longer our medium (and later long term) reserves will last.
Not only that, the easier it will be to afford (the then lower) the penalty payments under Paris Accord obligations.
Well, there’s a plan for that.
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-generation-and-markets/liquid-fuel-market/fuel-security-in-new-zealand/fuel-security-plan/focus-area-3-supporting-domestic-alternatives
That plan is for replacement of petrol, rather than a lower rate of use so the reserve lasts longer.
There is now concern that South Korea may ban energy exports.
Half of our refined oil is from there.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/360965352/iran-war-ministers-meet-amidst-report-south-korea-could-halve-nz-fuel-supply
Well, that is covered in the other plan I linked to earlier, both by voluntary and mandatory measures.
I cannot read your lovely links to The Post, but at this stage I think that’s scare mongering.
Yes, there is, by voluntary and mandatory measures, to manage a decline in supply to eke out more days.
But if petrol use was managed down by policy (as to the vehicle fleet profile), then the current capacity to hold x number of days supply would then extend for longer still.
Is not the thread topic, developing more resilient medium to longer term plans?
The plans in place were developed in 2023 by a government that had a policy to make the fleet more fuel efficient and abide by the Paris Accords.
The National Fuel Plan was introduced by Megan Woods in 2022.
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/fuel-markets-become-more-resilient-sustainable-and-competitive
Although Shane Jones seemed to claim it for the Coalition:
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/fuel-security-plan-provides-assurance-kiwis
It was released late last year.
The Fuel Security Plan part of the New Zealand First Coalition Agreement with the National Party.
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/marsden-point-oil-refinery-reopening-be-investigated-fuel-security-study
So, plenty of plans/planning, despite the counter-claim made in the OP.
This also in 2023
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2023/257/en/latest/#d14465304e168
The point of this, what has National done?
Then what it has done, is not consistent with greater resilience.
I must amend my previous comment to state that on 9 Nov 2022 Megan Woods introduced an update of the National Fuel Plan.
Clearly, the Coalition has not been short of plans, as I noted before (but the penny seems stuck).
https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/documents/publications/guidelines/supporting-plans/National-fuel-plan/SP-04-24-National-Fuel-Plan-Final-2024.pdf [Foreword; August 2024]
The National Fuel Plan replaced the National Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Fuel Plan implemented by Chris Tremain of the National Party in 2012.
What do you mean by "our reserves" here? NZ has no medium to long term reserves of petrol. It's all imported. And to assume that because our drop-in-the-international-bucket use declines, the price will also decline, and that usage won't be diverted elsewhere, is a very long stretch.
Are you that stupid?
How is that a sentient reading of my post?
When you resort to abuse, it's clear that you have no actual argument.
1.You did not know about our requirement for there to be so many days of reserve supply (here or at sea).
2.And you conflated the reduction of use of petrol with a different vehicle fleet so we could extend our days of reserve within existing storage capacity – with trying to lower the price of petrol (that was all in your own head to invent some grounds for a critical reply)
Dumb or malicious, pick a lane.
Troll.
The 'in country' reserve – can only be regarded as a short term mitigation (it's less than a month): This post was about – and your comment claimed to be about – medium to long term mitigation.
If you wanted to address short term – as well – then you should make that clear, in your argument.
This particular comment didn't address the car fleet, at all.
Again with the abuse – when that's your reflexive 'go to' response – you probably need to do some reflecting on the way you engage with other people.
Yeah right.
You make your own choice to go off on your own direction, for your own purposes, then claim the person did not make it clear enough for you – when challenged.
You expect, not to be called on this when you do it? Again and again?
This refers to a different vehicular fleet. As this changes we have, using existing storage, more and more days of reserve than now in the medium then longer term future.
How you went on to talk about lower petrol prices from that, I have no idea.
At some point we will have to powerdown. At the moment, transition is a choice with all the advantages of fossil fuels. But the FF economy will be the death of us when it collapses if we don't transition. It can't last forever, and there is no alternative fuel source that can replace the power of fossils. We can have good an meaningful lives post-carbon, but we need to transitions carefully and with thought, not wait for collapse.
https://thestandard.nz/powerdown/
Just unpacking this a bit.
Is the argument that solar and wind (and other alternatives) require fossil fuels somewhere in the extraction/construction of the equipment process.
that too, but that's not what I meant. I mean that you get more grunt from a petrol lawnmower than an electric battery one. It's why ICE cars can travel further without refilling than e-cars.
https://www.eeca.govt.nz/insights/energy-in-new-zealand/the-future-of-energy-in-new-zealand/
We could overcome some of that by doing things like building nuclear power plants, but that doesn't solve the issue of density of power for the lawnmower or car.
Then there is Energy Returned on Energy Invested, which is the relationship between how much energy you need to extract energy and how much you get in return. If you burn 2 barrels of oil to get 1 barrel, obviously things are going to fall over.
EROI has been declining for fossil fuels, because we've used up a lot of the easy to access ones.
Same link.
Most people are carrying on as if we're going to find another source of energy that is dense enough and cheap enough to run BAU society. We're not. FF were
We might have been able to transition society to renewables had we started in the 70s (Limits to Growth report), or even the 90s. I doubt it's true now, because of the explosion of population and resource use at the same time as using up the cheap oil.
Our other option is to move to steady state and work with the limits of nature. Instead of building nuclear power stations in NZ (a completely nuts idea in the Shakey Isles) when we run out of rivers to dam, we could make housing uber efficient with mandatory passive solar tech. Public transport instead of buiding more roads. We could electrify if we dropped demand in other areas.
Unfortunately the idea that we could live within our means seems alien to many people. I'm old enough to remember carless days. Car you imagine how people would react to that now?
I'm old enough to remember carless days. Car you imagine how people would react to that now?
I just remember them too. Our day was Wednesday. And I don't think the reaction now would be very pretty, I can just hear "but this is an assault on my personal freedom!!! It would be political suicide for any party that supported the idea.
"with all the advantages of fossil fuels".
To name just one of many disadvantages, huge petrol tankers clogging up and destroying our roads.
How can there be a problem with petrol prices? After 5 years of clean car rebate and ute tax our fleet is mostly electric. Oh wait….
Clean car rebate only benefitted the middle and upper classes. No impact on the people driving 15-year-old toyotas.
"Clean car rebate only benefitted the middle and upper classes."
So you keep saying.
It also helps business pivot to a locally fueled fleet.
If the rebate had remained there would be just shy of 5 years worth of vehicles creating a second and third hand market.
It also helps business pivot to a nationwide network of public EV chargers, which has now stalled thanks to the Coalition.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/03/10/govt-looks-to-market-to-reach-10000-ev-charger-goal/ [behind subscription wall, for now]
I was ready to change cars by the end of this year if they had fulfilled that promise by end 2026 in the South Island. Now, it's just another year nursing the Peugeot 508 along.
EV's have got cheaper and better, with much more choice, over the last 2/3 years.
A tipping point will arrive soon/may already be here where the production of EV's will have greater economies of scale than petrol/diesel vehicles. This will result in a much faster uptake of EV's as they become cheaper than petrol/diesel vehicles.
I can think of a lot of things governments should have done in previous decades to prep for this, but now is a bit late to start. It's like that old joke about asking for directions and being told "Oh, if you want to go there I wouldn't start from here."
No point crossing your arms in a crisis and saying I told you so.
You muscle up with what you've got to hand, and you plan as best you can.
National just needs to ask Labour how to run a crisis.
After which Labour can do its own Inquiry.
Support a return to rules based order, support the international community, reject the extreme populism of the christo-fascist US and the judeo-facist Israel which has landed us in this destabilised and uncertain position.
Well that's great for the feels, but I was thinking more on the practical level since we have a Budget coming up, such as:
– Reverse the proposed 12c increase in excise tax planned for next ear
– Reverse the cuts to public transport subsidies, and push for free public transport in the first two zones
– Enable all public servants who don't have to see clients to work from home, and legislate to ensure all employers do not punish employees for working from home if they can
– Remove dividend requirement from AirNZ, so that the can reallocate and keep funding services to regional centres
– Give a tax break to any exporter who will buy their own ship
– Bring back the tax break for new electric vehicles, which they got rid of
There are so many specific moves that are in the power of the Government to do, which could form part of a plan.
Honestly wishing for the return of the old "rules based order" is no longer helpful. That's a whole different conversation, and doesn't do anything for us given how pressing the fuel crisis is about to get.
You asked, "And in the long term, what should a future government do?"
I gave an opinion and you listed short term things that can be done by the present government.
Then you gave up on the international community dismissing it as not relevant to the current crisis, and more importantly to any future crisis, having asked about long term ideas.
Being in the IEA was the base plan.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cd70wzw9vqlt?post=asset%3A8f66c6af-aaab-4f8b-8c74-612a5fc53067#post
Just to state the bleedin' obvious, investment in grid-scale solar and rooftop solar, both with battery storage attached (the cost of which has halved in the last 5 years) and with the widespread adoption of EV's, NZ would not need to import much oil. We would be largely self-sufficient.
Solar is the cheapest energy on the planet and rapidly getting cheaper.
From AI: Global solar power adoption is experiencing explosive, record-breaking growth, with 2024 seeing a 33% increase to nearly 600 GW of new installations, driven heavily by China and falling technology costs. Solar accounts for over 80% of new renewable capacity added worldwide, with total capacity exceeding 2 TW. In New Zealand, solar capacity grew 43% in the past year to 665 MW.
https://architecturenow.co.nz/articles/solar-power-on-course-to-power-every-new-zealand-home/
“in just under a year, New Zealand’s solar capacity will reach 953 MW, the equivalent generation of the coal-fired Huntly station.”
Kaitaia (Lodestone) is certainly a lot more secure than it used to be.
Lodestone are also in advanced planning for a North Auckland one, one for Stratford, and a further one for Christchurch.
Christchurch Airport now has a big one.
Now all we need is for Christchurch Council to see sense and instruct Christchurch Holdings to turn its Tarras airport proposal into a massive solar farm. That would certainly take the pressure off Transpower to keep supporting the Queenstown boomtown area out of the Contact dams and also be a good peaking balance for when the Clutha dams are low.
Ojala.
Meanwhile, China has massively increased it's coal fired power generation and built 2 new coal fired power stations a week last year and has a further close to 300 in the short term planned and being built.
Not true Sam M. While I accept that China's power generation is still dominated by fossil fuels, you will see in a graph in the attached report the that things are changing rapidly in China:
Electricity Generation Capaci
2016 Fossil 4000twh WindSolar 0twh
2025 Fossil 6000twh WindSolar 2000twh
Not only this but the WindSolar element has extensive battery storage attached. The battery storage is utilised before turning to fossil, so the actual usage of renewables is higher than shown above. Fossil is rapidly becoming backup capacity.
https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/china-energy-transition-review-2025/
Anyone know tradies who are filling up all their on-site storage, and buying more storage, so they can have 5-6,000l of Diesel up their sleeves for when this all goes down?
Our neighbour is one, and I know several more.
Diesel is going to be the new toilet paper.
Hope they've got their insurance in order. Large scale on-site fuel storage is typically not covered under existing insurance policies.
And, for those playing along at home, multiple plastic gerry cans are also likely to void your fire risk insurance.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/132425497/why-you-shouldnt-stockpile-fuel-ahead-of-the-price-hike
Mainstream analysts are catching up to where this is heading fast:
It's 43 days and the countdown has begun:
43 days and counting: New Zealand’s race against time amid oil supply chokehold | Stuff
"New Zealand is in a race against time as the war in Iran continues to choke global oil supply.
MBIE data (updated four days ago), shows we had a 58-day supply of petrol, 50 days of diesel, and 47 days of jet fuel (meaning 43 days as of today).
More is on the way but, as Westpac chief economist Kelly Eckhold says, we may be down to 17-18 days of stock by the time it arrives.
He says the ships are currently in NZ’s Exclusive Economic Zone, which provides a high level of certainty that they will arrive."
And now with a Ministerial group formed to track and perhaps respond to this, here's what 5 options look like from Wise Response Society:
What could fuel rationing look like? Five options for a NZ response | Stuff
No panic, sure, but get your shit together people.
I will do a post on Wise Response's work unless you are going to?
go for it.
dark moment for nz.
rate hike a certainty now,
Once it turns into a proper crisis in a fortnight, Luxon can call Ardern to come back as Acting PM so that actual shit gets done.
A reverse brain-drain that requires Luxon’s lobotomy first.
Luxon is so clearly not fit for the job.
He’s not fit to be PM or MP even, but he makes a fine
figureheadleader of the Coalition and Seymour & Peters won’t let go of him easily, no matter how much Hooton and the Penguin try.Just trying to catch up on what's been happening. Is this the early days of a major crisis like those weeks in the early pandemic when we knew something was brewing but most people were ignoring it?
Only this time we have Luxon not Ardern in charge
No, with respect, this looming crisis is nothing compared to the Covid-19 pandemic and it won’t be. Despite this, the Coalition’s response so far is already shambolic, as expected.
In what way isn't it like the start of the pandemic?
Completely different; the Covid-19 pandemic was a health crisis that started locally with people dying in China and then Lombardy in Italy (’dropping like flies’), etc., where the real risk was very high but with many unknowns. The current situation has medium risk, economically speaking, IMHO, with recent historical precedents of similar nature that can be used for comparison.
It depends on what you’d like to compare, e.g., the responses of respective governments/authorities, or the reaction of people, etc. These are linked, of course.
FWIW, I don’t think we’re having a real crisis yet in NZ, but there’s a growing public perception (fear) that one is coming, hence the start of panic buying of fuel.
"with recent historical precedents of similar nature that can be used for comparison." what would those be?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_crisis
none of those seem particularly comparable. Much of the current situation seems predicated on the idea that the war won't last very long. Maybe it won't. I hope you are right and that in 6 months time we can look back and it will be obvious that it wasn't a full blown crisis. But what happens if the war doesn't end in this time? this is the similarity with early 2020, we didn't know what was going to happen or how bad it was going to get.
I don’t follow why you think that those oil crises are less useful than looking at the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic other than general uncertainty about the future. With people’s lives at stake vs price increases I’d have thought that this would generate quite different responses & reactions.
The issue is the effective blockade of the Strait Hormuz, which may or may not linger long. I don’t know what it would take to break the current impasse, military force & action or a ‘diplomatic’ one – the former seems most likely but at what cost (and to whom?). It appears that time is on the side of Iran.
uncertainty was my central point. Early 2020 we weren't certain (we'd had a number of false starts on novel viruses before that), and it then it became overwhelmingly obvious. That was what felt similar.
I don't think the big risk with the oil crisis is economic, I think it's starvation and societal collapse. We already know how to adapt around global financial crisis. I don't believe collapse is the most likely thing to happen but it's the risk if the war continues between these two particular sets of sociopaths. This makes it quite different from previous oil crises.
I cannot see a straight & short path from the current blockade of the Strait of Hormuz to starvation and societal collapse, globally, I presume. Such apocalyptic scenario is more likely because of climate change, I’d have thought.
we're better off in NZ because our electricity generation is largely renewables, let's say 75%, in an emergency we could probably cut down closer to that.
But transport fuel and any number of other critical infrastructure and processes need imported oil products. That's a harder switch in a shortage. Some diesel could be switched to biodiesel, but we'd have to grow crops to do that over time.
Farming requires artificial fert, a large amount of which comes from the Middle East and is blocked by the Hormuz issues, as well as production. Spring planting is about to happen and there are fert shortages already.
This article was interesting, particularly this paragraph highlighting the complexities,
https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2026/03/fertilizer-iran-hormuz-food-crisis
the risk of collapse comes from a long war. We tend to think things will be bad, then change and it will go back to some kind of normal. Polycrisis theory suggests that return to some kind of normal becomes less likely over time because of the compounding nature of the crises. Including climate change and ecological collapse.
Humans are very adaptable and resourceful. It's possible that a prolonged regional war of this kind would push countries like NZ to transition to EVs and regenag, but a good EV public transport system needs the kind of global economy we have currently and that is dependent on oil.
I don't know what % of oil drop or fert drop would start to push systems over that might then snowball, but I wish we were talking about it.
"We tend to think things will be bad, then change and it will go back to some kind of normal."
That's the bit that confounds me.
Covid made clear what was important and what was good for us. And yet… in so many aspects – socially, politically, economically we rushed back to our lesser ways.