Diplomats at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai knew just two things about the new coalition Government when they spoke to James Shaw: Its plans to rollback the Smokefree reforms and its policy on reinstating offshore fossil fuel exploration.
Shaw, the Green Party co-leader and former minister in charge of climate change, sat down with Newsroom shortly after his return from the United Arab Emirates to share how the new Government was received.
To Climate Change Minister Simon Watts’ credit, Shaw said, he did stick to New Zealand’s ambitious negotiating mandate calling for a global phaseout of fossil fuels.
“Minister Watts never varied from the line that we do have to phase out fossil fuels. And actually [Australian Climate Minister] Chris Bowen was saying the same thing and Steven Guilbeault from Canada was saying the same thing and [American climate envoy] John Kerry was saying the same thing,” he said.
“So, it’s helpful that that group of countries who all have pretty big production sectors are signalling that the end is nigh. There are a lot of bigger fish to fry than New Zealand, so we didn’t cop as much heat, particularly because the countries that were really holding up the agreement were Saudi Arabia and others.”
From that perspective, New Zealand’s backtrack on banning offshore fossil fuel exploration wasn’t necessarily harmful to its position as a climate leader. But there’s one group of countries which cares a lot about it: The Pacific Islands.
Shaw pointed to the powerful condemnation of the summit’s outcome by Samoa’s Anne Rasmussen, the lead negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States, in the closing hours of the meeting.
“We see a litany of loopholes,” she said of the agreement, which for the first time mentioned the need to move away from fossil fuel use globally but used soft language and no hard timeframes in doing so.
“It is not enough for us to reference the science and then make agreements that ignore what the science is telling us we need to do. This is not an approach that we should be asked to defend.”
Pacific Island states, Shaw said, “feel that the world has made a set of decisions and has taken a set of actions that will lead to their total destruction as countries. It is existential. And the idea that [New Zealand] would decide that we’re going to expand oil and gas production in that context is kind of horrifying.”
While the new Government’s policy will return New Zealand to the status quo of many other nations that still produce fossil fuels, it’s still complicated by the fact that the country did take a step forward in banning offshore exploration and is now taking a step back.
“At a time when we’re expending such a huge amount of effort to get an agreement which, for the first time, specifically acknowledges that we have to transition away from fossil fuels, it’s unhelpful to have countries that are moving in the other direction.”
All that said, Shaw isn’t certain that reversing the ban will actually lead to new oil and gas exploration.
“The smart money is moving out of oil and gas. Given that the last few people who have actually had block offers and have gone looking haven’t found anything, or have actually given up and left before the end of the permit, given that the agreement that came out of the UAE did signal not the end but the beginning of the end of the industry, it would seem like an odd investment decision to put resources into going and looking for new reserves in New Zealand.”
While fossil gas will still be needed to transition New Zealand’s electricity sector, going out and looking for more fossil fuels doesn’t look like a transition to Shaw. A transition needs to have an end goal of zero fossil fuels, and industries that can move straight to renewables should do so instead of phasing from coal to gas first.
“A transition actually means there’s an endpoint, right? When the industry talks about it, they sort of seem to say it’s a transition with no end. In other words, it’s merely a continuation,” he said.
“Why would you install brand new gas burners to replace old coal burners, for 20 years, when the economic lifetime of a new gas burner is 40, 50, 60 years. That makes no sense unless you don’t intend to transition. You could just jump straight to electricity now.”
Security of supply is also guaranteed by the continuation of on-shore exploration by the previous government, he added.
“That option has also always existed. It just adds to the sense of how unnecessary this and how purely theatrical this move is.”
Is it virtue signalling? Shaw suggests another label: “Vice signalling”.
While the accusation of ‘virtue signaling’ was always intended to just denigrate positive planning, ‘vice signaling’ is more substantial in that that is what won the election for National. Remember this is The Post Truth Era where denial has become mainstream.
One aspect of recent “Vice Signaling” that could be worthy of analysis is the implied decision to abandon rail-compatible “Interislander” ferries. The only Interislander with rail now is the purpose built Aratere, rather old, subject to high maintenance, and due for retirement. Yet its function is central to the principle that NZ Rail should be a significant low carbon emission freight transporter.
The road freight industry uses a considerable amount of fossil fuel diesel. Much more the rail and especially where the North Island main trunk rail is electrified. Think of the possible future for de-carbonating an essential part of our freight system. And the now effectively cancelled new ferry system was clearly targeted at less climate change emissions. We will pay extra for that in purchasing future Carbon Credits at future times when Carbon Credits are likely to be much more expensive.
“All that said, Shaw isn’t certain that reversing the ban will actually lead to new oil and gas exploration.” Exactly. Oil companies have already rejected further offshore oil exploration around NZ. What is more pertinent is the closure of Marsden Point, which presumably was able to refine our own onshore oil deposits. If oil tankers ever fail to arrive in NZ, we have now no ability to refine our own. We are now dependant on the good will and ability of overseas interests to supply our needs. Cyclone Gabrielle clearly showed the benefit of diesel generators when power and phone lines fail. Let us hope good times continue.
Peter, my understanding that the light crude oil and “condensate” from NZ wells was and is predominantly exported for refining off-shore as it was not optimal for the processing used at Marsden Point.
See https://www.energymix.co.nz/our-resource/what-we-produce/ for example. You might like research the extent of this contention?
Personally I am confident that we have the solutions to reduce GHG emissions in development across the world. ClimateTech is advancing exponentially and traditional fossil fuels could still be used if we can create emission free energy.
For example pyrolysis of hydrocarbons can create hydrogen with a solid carbon byproduct. This process is clean, uses very little electricity or need for purified water (compare Green hydrogen with electrolysis) and is actually being funded widely across the world as turquoise hydrogen. It is cost comparable to “dirty” H2 production but has the added advantage that the solid carbo byproduct is valuable as materials for clean water filtration and battery / fuel cell construction.
It solves many of the issues we face with transportation and storage of H2 and is a onsite modular manufacturing process that can be tuned to accept any hydrocarbon (waste plastic, methane, wood slash, coal fines etc)
However it relies on a transition to accept H2 alongside electrification as a energy source.
Globally H2 is alreay used to drive turbines for electricity generation (instead of hydro) and can also be used for heating (replacing coal or gas boilers).
NZ also happens to have some incredible researchers working on this technology and need just a few million to get it to demonstration scale. (about the cost of a public toilet or a few bus stops….)
Is climate technology an area where NZ can lead if we just focussed a bit more resources. In a nutshell – absolutely.
Could it be our solution to our Paris emissions commitments – Totally, with accelerated investment.
Could climate technology become a export to rival the primary sector? – Why not!!?