No decision on congestion charging; no cash-for-clunkers scheme for two years; Only $2.9b of $4.5b fund allocated; Most early money allocated to climate finance overseas; No political risks taken
Very disappointing, though not unexpected response from the Government. So much for "nuclear free moment".
It's hard not to feel incredibly depressed about the future for our children, when the grown-ups haven't got the guts to do what needs to be done.
James Shaw says in the Green Party's email communicating the Plan "This is the last possible moment before the window of opportunity for meaningful action closes forever."
If that's true, then it's too late for New Zealand, and probably the rest of the globe too.
Was this the plan that the government delayed releasing last year? I can't really understand what the hold up was for. I'd thought there must have been some large policy that was taking longer than expected to cost. But even the cash-for-clunkers plan doesn't have any details, so I'm not sure what the extra time was needed for.
The Beehive press release says "addressing climate change now means we can bring down the cost of living", but I don't see how this adds up. Surely addressing climate change has to increase household costs? I know in the context it means not paying for fuel, but "decrease your household costs by making a major purchase of an EV" isn't credible right?
The messaging needs to be preparing folks for the reality that no matter how much we mitigate it with "just transition" measures, addressing climate change is going to cost us.
Your intro said it all Bernard; I'd be a tad more cutting and label it a Lame, dated and politically expedient plan. I wasn't planning on voting for Labour or the Greens again and this seals it for me. What a waste of political capital.
The most disappointing part of the plan is the weakness over agricultural emissions. These account for about half of NZ's total emissions and there is (probably not unexpected) nothing concrete in the plan. There is vague mention of research possibilities, but in the short to medium term there is no real prospect of advancement. The only thing that will work is to ban nitrogen fertilisers for all livestock farming, with instant reductions in soil nitrogen toxicity and a reduction in cattle numbers which will reduce methane production.
And we all know that very few farmers will vote for Labour or Green anyway, so presumably the omission of agriculture is to keep National happy and stay in the accord. I think that Labour and Green should bite the bullet, legislate for the nitrogen ban now with the knowledge that eventually there will be a National government, and then let National feel the heat if they try to reduce this important Climate change action.
People seem to be pretty keen to get the infrastructure and support they need to make changes and have those investments made in NZ not offshore via payments elsewhere. Many have been bitten by making changes on “announcements” but then finding the policies and practices are not in place on the ground. So it’s a shame there is no leadership on the transition for the average people who are keen to be given opportunities to adapt and mitigate rationally rather than taxed to support the financial and big business end of town.
Whoever heads the government relations team at Fonterra needs a payrise! The Labour and Green Party policy is for us plebs to pay for new boilers for billion dollar companies and coops who are currently printing money through record high commodities prices? Corporate welfare at its best! I thought we left this picking winners nonsense in the 80s. The revolving door between Spads @ the beehive, senior civil service roles and Fonterra still working a treat.
Incredibly weak on agricultural emissions. I never want to see farmers protesting the Government again with the gifts they are given.
We now have a sector that makes up 50% of emissions that is not only being protected from having to pay for their externalities, but being additionally subsidized by the the other sectors who are now having to carry the entire emissions reductions burden alone. And even if the ETS backstop kicks in come 2025, the sector will still be subsidized to the tune of 95%.
Yes why farmers aren’t Jacinda’s biggest fans baffles me, so let’s send our animal farmers broke which paying for 100% of their emissions will probably do and how do we make up for the loss of overseas revenue? If you have a problem with farmers fine. But we need an alternative low emission income source, ideas?
The agricultural sector is mindlessly shortsighted when it comes to, you know, saving our kids from burning and/or starving, but within that frame they’re not fools. They know perfectly well they’ll always do better under National. Any gains they get from being too scary for Labour to touch, they bank, and then use as the starting point for their next round of orchestrated outrage.
I agree, but since when has shooting the goose that lays the golden egg been so appealing? I don’t engage with farming organisations they’re full of shit. They’re doing there best they can to hang on to the “way things have been” as long as possible.
Did this plan have cross-party support? I'm wondering if this is basically the minimum product that can deliver continuity and certainty to the public on what our plan going forward is. Then on Thursday we could see Labour additions for climate change from this $6b of new operational funding, such as public transport reduced in cost, financial incentives for consumers taking up new energy?
I'm probably just being hopeful - but I hope this is the case. I feel like people have been screaming about how great the half price public transport is. But instead, we see a majority governments answer to a nuclear free moment being to replace cars... with a different type of car.
Every time a moment like this arrives my naive inner child hopes to discover I've been wrong about this government all along. But basically: they managed Covid well overall for two years, and that aside they're caretakers. We now need to survive the next center-right government, while praying for an "only Nixon could go to China" surprise from them on climate change policy. Most likely, the 2028 general election will be our next real chance to elect a government that might possibly do something about a situation that by then will be even harder to treat as a comms challenge. Though I imagine any survivors of this Labour caucus will do their best.
Certainly not a done deal, but the default outcome is obvious at this point -- it's going to take a crisis Labour can rise to, or Luxon is going to have to self-destruct, for things to go another way. But more importantly... what would Labour do, if they won? Nothing much, on their record. They've had their chance.
I don't think anything is obvious at this point. If our post-2016 world has shown anything, it's that anything can (and probably will!) happen in the next 12 months.
I'm sure Lab didn't plan to spend the bulk of their political capital fighting a pandemic. But more importantly, there's no indication that anyone else (in NZ or overseas) has/will do a better job of it. I'm certainly willing to see how they go...
I don't accept your characterisation. Fighting the pandemic was what *gave* them their political capital, and they've repeatedly shown they lack the stomach to use it for anything they perceive as politically risky, meaning they've never had the chance to find out how much further capital they might have won going where governments never go.
I'm with you as far as waiting to see how they go over the next year; I mean it isn't like we have a choice, and Ardern certainly knows how to rise to an occasion, if not how to take lasting advantage of a crisis. But we're on a glide path to climate disaster and I'm not voting for anyone who's had the vanishingly rare power they've had, and chosen to play safe. "Safe" is not safe any more. Past time politicians learned that.
Sad to see the 1 million tonnes of imported coal is being used is set to continue. This is beyond a joke. Power produced from imported coal by a 51% Government owned power company. This power being used to charge a government subsidised Tesla in Ponsonby. How about we ban fully Electric cars until NZ has 100% renewable electricity. Put the subsidy onto Closed circuit Hybrids until NZ sorts out renewable electricity.
For good measure lets gather up a bunch of people to protest coal usage outside the Offices of Genesis Energy. I for one would be happy to spread a bag of coal across their reception area each morning.
When are we going to get with it regarding individual car ownership? Why aren't we piling money into good bus and train services instead of offering subsidies for electric cars? Pathetic.
Cars demand motorways; look at how much Transmission Gully cost. That money could have created a fast frequent fantastic train service.
I suspect this response on the part of the government is driven by the poor political polls, the government is paranoid about giving National Act any more ammunition to fire at them. Good indication of what to expect in the budget - certainly nothing to address the serious underlying issues of rising poverty.
Seems like a fair analysis of an appallingly weak response to the threat to our Grandchildren’s existence.
Very disappointing, though not unexpected response from the Government. So much for "nuclear free moment".
It's hard not to feel incredibly depressed about the future for our children, when the grown-ups haven't got the guts to do what needs to be done.
James Shaw says in the Green Party's email communicating the Plan "This is the last possible moment before the window of opportunity for meaningful action closes forever."
If that's true, then it's too late for New Zealand, and probably the rest of the globe too.
Was this the plan that the government delayed releasing last year? I can't really understand what the hold up was for. I'd thought there must have been some large policy that was taking longer than expected to cost. But even the cash-for-clunkers plan doesn't have any details, so I'm not sure what the extra time was needed for.
The Beehive press release says "addressing climate change now means we can bring down the cost of living", but I don't see how this adds up. Surely addressing climate change has to increase household costs? I know in the context it means not paying for fuel, but "decrease your household costs by making a major purchase of an EV" isn't credible right?
The messaging needs to be preparing folks for the reality that no matter how much we mitigate it with "just transition" measures, addressing climate change is going to cost us.
Your intro said it all Bernard; I'd be a tad more cutting and label it a Lame, dated and politically expedient plan. I wasn't planning on voting for Labour or the Greens again and this seals it for me. What a waste of political capital.
What party do you think is worth considering? (Honest question).
Te Pāti Māori. https://www.maoriparty.org.nz/climate_change
Ho hum. We're doomed.
The most disappointing part of the plan is the weakness over agricultural emissions. These account for about half of NZ's total emissions and there is (probably not unexpected) nothing concrete in the plan. There is vague mention of research possibilities, but in the short to medium term there is no real prospect of advancement. The only thing that will work is to ban nitrogen fertilisers for all livestock farming, with instant reductions in soil nitrogen toxicity and a reduction in cattle numbers which will reduce methane production.
And we all know that very few farmers will vote for Labour or Green anyway, so presumably the omission of agriculture is to keep National happy and stay in the accord. I think that Labour and Green should bite the bullet, legislate for the nitrogen ban now with the knowledge that eventually there will be a National government, and then let National feel the heat if they try to reduce this important Climate change action.
People seem to be pretty keen to get the infrastructure and support they need to make changes and have those investments made in NZ not offshore via payments elsewhere. Many have been bitten by making changes on “announcements” but then finding the policies and practices are not in place on the ground. So it’s a shame there is no leadership on the transition for the average people who are keen to be given opportunities to adapt and mitigate rationally rather than taxed to support the financial and big business end of town.
Whoever heads the government relations team at Fonterra needs a payrise! The Labour and Green Party policy is for us plebs to pay for new boilers for billion dollar companies and coops who are currently printing money through record high commodities prices? Corporate welfare at its best! I thought we left this picking winners nonsense in the 80s. The revolving door between Spads @ the beehive, senior civil service roles and Fonterra still working a treat.
Incredibly weak on agricultural emissions. I never want to see farmers protesting the Government again with the gifts they are given.
We now have a sector that makes up 50% of emissions that is not only being protected from having to pay for their externalities, but being additionally subsidized by the the other sectors who are now having to carry the entire emissions reductions burden alone. And even if the ETS backstop kicks in come 2025, the sector will still be subsidized to the tune of 95%.
Unbelievable!
Yes why farmers aren’t Jacinda’s biggest fans baffles me, so let’s send our animal farmers broke which paying for 100% of their emissions will probably do and how do we make up for the loss of overseas revenue? If you have a problem with farmers fine. But we need an alternative low emission income source, ideas?
The agricultural sector is mindlessly shortsighted when it comes to, you know, saving our kids from burning and/or starving, but within that frame they’re not fools. They know perfectly well they’ll always do better under National. Any gains they get from being too scary for Labour to touch, they bank, and then use as the starting point for their next round of orchestrated outrage.
I agree, but since when has shooting the goose that lays the golden egg been so appealing? I don’t engage with farming organisations they’re full of shit. They’re doing there best they can to hang on to the “way things have been” as long as possible.
Did this plan have cross-party support? I'm wondering if this is basically the minimum product that can deliver continuity and certainty to the public on what our plan going forward is. Then on Thursday we could see Labour additions for climate change from this $6b of new operational funding, such as public transport reduced in cost, financial incentives for consumers taking up new energy?
I'm probably just being hopeful - but I hope this is the case. I feel like people have been screaming about how great the half price public transport is. But instead, we see a majority governments answer to a nuclear free moment being to replace cars... with a different type of car.
Every time a moment like this arrives my naive inner child hopes to discover I've been wrong about this government all along. But basically: they managed Covid well overall for two years, and that aside they're caretakers. We now need to survive the next center-right government, while praying for an "only Nixon could go to China" surprise from them on climate change policy. Most likely, the 2028 general election will be our next real chance to elect a government that might possibly do something about a situation that by then will be even harder to treat as a comms challenge. Though I imagine any survivors of this Labour caucus will do their best.
Still a long way from 2023 election being a done deal
Certainly not a done deal, but the default outcome is obvious at this point -- it's going to take a crisis Labour can rise to, or Luxon is going to have to self-destruct, for things to go another way. But more importantly... what would Labour do, if they won? Nothing much, on their record. They've had their chance.
I don't think anything is obvious at this point. If our post-2016 world has shown anything, it's that anything can (and probably will!) happen in the next 12 months.
I'm sure Lab didn't plan to spend the bulk of their political capital fighting a pandemic. But more importantly, there's no indication that anyone else (in NZ or overseas) has/will do a better job of it. I'm certainly willing to see how they go...
I don't accept your characterisation. Fighting the pandemic was what *gave* them their political capital, and they've repeatedly shown they lack the stomach to use it for anything they perceive as politically risky, meaning they've never had the chance to find out how much further capital they might have won going where governments never go.
I'm with you as far as waiting to see how they go over the next year; I mean it isn't like we have a choice, and Ardern certainly knows how to rise to an occasion, if not how to take lasting advantage of a crisis. But we're on a glide path to climate disaster and I'm not voting for anyone who's had the vanishingly rare power they've had, and chosen to play safe. "Safe" is not safe any more. Past time politicians learned that.
Sad to see the 1 million tonnes of imported coal is being used is set to continue. This is beyond a joke. Power produced from imported coal by a 51% Government owned power company. This power being used to charge a government subsidised Tesla in Ponsonby. How about we ban fully Electric cars until NZ has 100% renewable electricity. Put the subsidy onto Closed circuit Hybrids until NZ sorts out renewable electricity.
For good measure lets gather up a bunch of people to protest coal usage outside the Offices of Genesis Energy. I for one would be happy to spread a bag of coal across their reception area each morning.
This is a climate change thread and you are promoting exporting coal??
By that theory Oil prices are at record highs so lets get back to drilling other hydrocarbons as well?
Hi Bernard
“ when governments try to kick the can of climate change down the road with both feet at once, they may fall on their ass”
Patrick Medlicott
When are we going to get with it regarding individual car ownership? Why aren't we piling money into good bus and train services instead of offering subsidies for electric cars? Pathetic.
Cars demand motorways; look at how much Transmission Gully cost. That money could have created a fast frequent fantastic train service.
Oh dear.
I suspect this response on the part of the government is driven by the poor political polls, the government is paranoid about giving National Act any more ammunition to fire at them. Good indication of what to expect in the budget - certainly nothing to address the serious underlying issues of rising poverty.