The Luxon Government claims they are serious about climate change. They say they are simply taking a different approach to cutting emissions, such as using price signals rather than regulations. <\/p>\n\n
And yet, week in and week out, Christopher Luxon and his band of climate extremists seem to be putting out new policies to increase climate pollution.<\/p>\n\n
So what\u2019s the truth?<\/p>\n\n
I\u2019ve gone through every week of the 18 months of the Luxon Government to pull out their climate policies and laid them out below. And, spoiler alert, it is a comprehensive plan to increase climate pollution, and the claims that they take the Paris Climate targets seriously are just greenwashing deception.<\/p>\n\n
So let me take you on a little journey through the last 18 months, focusing on the climate policies and skipping some of the other anti-environment policies, which I have documented elsewhere as Luxon\u2019s War on Nature<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n The Luxon Government was sworn in on November 27, 2023.<\/p>\n\n On December 3rd, six days later, they announced they were cancelling <\/a>the Big Battery project. The Big Battery Project was designed to provide the security to simultaneously move to close to 100% renewable electricity while electrifying transport and industrial processes. It was to provide long-term storage to underwrite the transition to a largely zero-carbon energy system, while managing the risks of dry years.<\/p>\n\n On December 6th, the first ETS auction under the new government failed <\/a>to attract a single bid. To be fair, the previous Labour\/Green Government didn\u2019t do much better because their climate policies did not include pricing agribusiness emissions, but the difference was that National was betting on raising $900m from ETS auctions to fund tax cuts, and it got nothing.<\/p>\n\n On December 11th Cabinet abolished <\/a>the $650m Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry fund, as part of the mini budget. GIDI was used to support NZ Steel and Fonterra (and others) to cut emissions in industrial processes. Officials estimated that removing this fund would result in ten million tonnes of extra emissions by 2050. The oil and gas lobby group celebrated <\/a>the end of the fund. Luxon said he didn\u2019t want to subsidise business to cut emissions, however as we found out in the 2025 budget, he is happy to subsidise oil and gas companies to increase emissions.<\/p>\n\n On December 13, Nicola Willis cancelled <\/a>the new interisland ferries, which were not only more carbon efficient but underpinned the future of rail freight across the country, which is the most carbon efficient form of freight. The Government is still working <\/a>to fix this cancellation at much greater cost.<\/p>\n\n On December 14, to the joy of agribusiness, the Luxon Government announced <\/a>the beginning of the process to repeal the national policy statement on freshwater management, one of the most important policies to cut climate pollution, as it was keeping the national dairy herd size in check. Without freshwater rules (or a price on dairy emissions) dairy herds are likely <\/a>to grow again. Dairy is the country\u2019s most climate polluting industry and Fonterra is by far the single biggest climate polluting company.<\/p>\n\n Transport is the country\u2019s second biggest source of greenhouse emissions and measures to cut transport emissions were next on the chopping block.<\/p>\n\n On December 17, they killed <\/a>off Wellington\u2019s low emissions transport plan.<\/p>\n\n They began 2024 by killing <\/a>off the clean car discount on January 1st, resulting in a collapse <\/a>of sales of low emission vehicles.<\/p>\n\n On January 14 they cancelled <\/a>Auckland\u2019s light rail.<\/p>\n\n They rounded off the month on January 30 by reversing <\/a>New Zealand\u2019s position on restrictions to bottom trawling seamounts, to the joy of the fishing industry. Bottom trawling releases masses of carbon stored on the ocean floor.<\/p>\n\n On March 4th they announced <\/a>the draft government policy statement on land transport which slashed spending on cycling and walking and increased funding to motorways. These decisions will increase emissions and hence it was no coincidence that they removed <\/a>climate change as a consideration in transport funding decisions.<\/p>\n\n On March 6th they cancelled <\/a>the Auckland regional fuel tax which was funding the expansion of the Eastern Busway which then had to be cancelled<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n On March 7, former tobacco lobbyist and current Minister Chris Bishop rejected <\/a>officials\u2019 advice to include \u2018sustainable management\u2019 in the purposes clause of the fast track law. The absence of any kind of environmental purpose in the bill meant the fast track law can be used for any climate bomb they like such as new coal mines and irrigation expansion.<\/p>\n\n March 14 saw them announce <\/a>that they would suspend the requirement for councils to identify significant natural areas so they could be protected – these remnant areas of native vegetation are an important reservoir of carbon and biodiversity.<\/p>\n\n March 21st saw the announcement <\/a>about higher speeds on roads, which not only increases fuel consumption and carbon emissions, but by making it more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians will reduce cycling and walking, further increasing emissions (and deaths and injuries).<\/p>\n\n April 6th saw them announce <\/a>a hand-picked review of the country\u2019s methane targets, based on the \u2018no additional warming\u2019 metric being promoted <\/a>by the global and domestic livestock industry. This metric is at odds with the IPCC science, the Climate Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Federated Farmers applauded, and the review was chaired by a former director of Fonterra. Methane has so far contributed <\/a>30% to global heating.<\/p>\n\n April 8th saw cuts <\/a>to Ministry for the Environment staffing.<\/p>\n\n But April 9th saw new money <\/a>to subsidise agribusiness research into magic methane reduction technology- the same research that has failed for two decades.<\/p>\n\n April 18, MBIE officials told <\/a>Resource Minister Shane Jones that his proposals to reduce the liability of oil companies for cleaning up their mess, would mean that New Zealand had weaker liability laws for oil companies than other countries. But he ignored them and carried on.<\/p>\n\n The Luxon Government rounded out April by abolishing <\/a>public transport subsidies for young people.<\/p>\n\n May 23 was a red letter day with the first Resource Management Act amendment bill being introduced<\/a>. It removed Te Mana o Te Wai, the requirement for resource consent decision makers to prioritise ecosystem health and human health when making decisions about freshwater allocation. Henceforth, dairy companies were given the same priority as ecosystems and human health in freshwater allocation. The bill also removed the rules keeping cows out of mud. And it removed the RMA block to new coal mines. This all means more cows and dirty rivers and coal mines and climate pollution.<\/p>\n\n Budget Day 2024 was on May 30. MfE officials who normally vet the climate impacts of the budget were kept out of the loop but Treasury did some rough calculations to show <\/a>the Budget would increase emissions by about 2.8 million tonnes. They cut <\/a>about $2.4billion out of programmes designed to cut emissions.<\/p>\n\n On June 9th Shane Jones announced <\/a>that the Government will amend the Crown Minerals Act to overturn the ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration permits. They aim to change the purposes of the Act to promote <\/em>oil and gas exploration. And they aim to reduce the liability for oil companies cleaning up their mess. Laughably he said this will align with international best practice even after officials told him the opposite. <\/p>\n\n And then we get to June 11th and agribusiness biological emissions, half of all New Zealand\u2019s emissions. Under lobbying from agribusiness, the government announced <\/a>that agriculture and fertiliser companies will not face a price on emissions in 2025. Treasury and MfE said <\/a>the government\u2019s approach would not work in cutting emissions (surprise). The Government also removed the reporting requirements on large meat and dairy processors so they don\u2019t even need to disclose their pollution.<\/p>\n\n And with an audible sigh of relief from agribusiness, the government disestablished <\/a>He Waka Eke Noa, which was the joint industry-government process to develop a pricing mechanism for agricultural emissions. Of course, everyone knew that in fact, He Waka Eke Noa was simply to delay emissions pricing until after the election. Agribusiness <\/a>fought against climate action and won.<\/p>\n\n On June 19th, the ETS auction failed <\/a>to attract any bids.<\/p>\n\n Then, on July 9th, the Government announced <\/a>its carbon capture and storage (CCS) framework. CCS is a failed <\/a>technology promoted by the oil and gas industry to block calls to cut fossil fuel use. Officials\u2019 advice <\/a>was that the CCS strategy would actually increase emissions because it would reduce incentives to cut them. As it turned out, the main CCS project, storage in empty gas and oil reservoirs off Taranaki, was not cost-effective and is now stalled (see later). No surprises there.<\/p>\n\n On July 10, the Climate Minister Simon Watts announced <\/a>their five-point climate plan. It is so vague and thin as to be not worth the time even detailing here. You can read it yourself, it will only take a couple of minutes.<\/p>\n\n They followed this up the next day by announcing <\/a>they were weakening carbon efficiency standards for imported cars (like Trump<\/a>), which will increase emissions by about two million tonnes. The Transport Minister at the time, Simeon Brown, directed officials to consult only with motor vehicle lobby groups that wanted to weaken the standard and to not consult with low-emissions vehicle sellers, which resulted in misleading information in the cabinet paper. When Ministry for the Environment officials saw the misleading information, they tried to add corrections, but they were told they couldn’t because it had already been lodged. It transpired that it had been lodged early <\/a>by the Minister at the request of the motor vehicle lobby.<\/p>\n\n Then on July 17, the Government published <\/a>its draft Emissions Reduction Plan premised on magic. Magic technology to cut methane emissions and magic CCS. Neither of which has any likelihood of appearing in the real world, but made it seem like New Zealand is doing something about climate change. Still, the plan showed New Zealand missing <\/a>its targets in spite of a biblical commitment to tree planting.<\/p>\n\n They cut <\/a>the funding to climate science (like Trump<\/a>). <\/p>\n\n August 8 saw <\/a>one in five jobs at the Environmental Protection Authority cut (like Trump<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n August 9, the Government said <\/a>it would overturn court decisions on sections 70 and 107 of the RMA, court decisions which restricted water pollution. The Minister for Agriculture, Todd Maclay, said they would legislate over these decisions because the \u201ccourt decisions could result in more discharges needing consents, more consent applications being declined, and consent conditions becoming more restrictive\u201d. And in an epic piece of Orwellian doublespeak he concluded that these court imposed restrictions on water pollution would result in \u201creducing the ability to improve freshwater quality over time\u201d. He may actually believe this oxymoron, who knows?<\/p>\n\n After vigorous lobbying by agribusiness, on September 3rd 2024, the Government announced it was \u2018pausing\u2019 <\/a>the rollout of freshwater farm plans. Which means more water pollution, more cows, more climate pollution.<\/p>\n\n It followed this up on September 4 with the announcement <\/a>of the second wave of resource management reform that would not only stop the rollout of freshwater farm plans, but would weaken drinking water standards and indigenous biodiversity protection rules. More climate pollution. <\/p>\n\n The September 4 ETS auction failed <\/a>to attract a single bid.<\/p>\n\n On September 11 the carbon-neutral public service program was put <\/a>on the chopping block. I\u2019m not sure where that one landed!<\/p>\n\n The Government also pushed <\/a>an amendment to the Companies Act to remove the references to Directors\u2019 ability to consider environment, social and governance issues when making decisions.<\/p>\n\n The start of October saw the leak <\/a>of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade advice that the decision to restart oil and gas exploration was likely to breach the free trade agreements with the EU and UK. Amusingly, this part of the MFAT advice was inadvertently included in the physical briefing paper even though it was redacted online. They tried and failed to hide their climate malfeasance.<\/p>\n\n On October 6th, the government was finally forced to release the list <\/a>of proposed fast track projects. It included coal mines, irrigation projects, which will increase emissions by facilitating dairy expansion. The government crowed about the handful of renewable energy projects in the list, without mentioning that the previous government\u2019s RMA fast track law also included <\/a>a string of renewable energy projects but, because environmental protection clauses were retained in that fast track law, there were no coal mines or dairy expansion projects.<\/p>\n\n Then on October 11th, the Government removed <\/a>the renewable preference and renewable energy targets from the Government Policy Statement on electricity – and with a word which seldom passes the lips of Simeon Brown he said he is \u201cfuel agnostic\u201d <\/em>ie he doesn\u2019t care if energy sources cook the climate or not. <\/p>\n\n October 22nd saw them blocking <\/a>regional councils from rolling out regional freshwater plans, as some regional councils had the temerity to want to implement the existing law – this means more cows and more climate pollution.<\/p>\n\n And tragically, as a result of the government\u2019s fast tracking of seabed mining, on October 25, the offshore wind developer Bluefloat pulled <\/a>out of New Zealand. Offshore Taranaki is a great place for cheap renewable baseload wind power, but not if seabed miners are digging up the ocean floor, destabilising turbine foundations and electric cables. Bluefloat clearly did not donate cash to the governing parties (unlike the seabed mining shareholders<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n Regulations for low emissions buildings were chopped <\/a>on November 6, to be replaced by a voluntary approach, because we all know the building industry will do the right thing if left unregulated, as we all saw with leaky houses.<\/p>\n\n Company carbon disclosure was delayed <\/a>for another year by the External Reporting Board on November 14. And the Otago regional council had to cancel <\/a>its meeting to approve new freshwater plans due to central government intervention to stop them.<\/p>\n\n On Nov 21 the Southland regional freshwater plan was overruled <\/a>by central government.<\/p>\n\n December 4 saw the publication <\/a>of the report into what methane targets would be like if New Zealand adopted the livestock industry’s preferred way of measuring methane warming, as opposed to using the IPCC science. In doing its work the review group’s complete list <\/a>of consultations was with a Groundswell-aligned climate denier group and one other commercial entity. Predictably, the outcome was to suggest weaker methane targets!<\/p>\n\n The ETS auction that day failed to clear, but 22% of credits sold and the government put out a release <\/a>about it. It was to be a short-lived victory as the March auction attracted zero bids.<\/p>\n\n On December 5th, one government minister said <\/a>they won\u2019t be buying offshore carbon credits to meet our Paris commitments, while another said they might.<\/p>\n\n On December 6th, the government really pushed the boat out when they appointed <\/a>fossil fuel lobbyist John Carnegie to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, set up by Green Party Co-Leader Jeanette Fitzsimons to reduce fossil fuel use. Carnegie previously opposed <\/a>EECA grants that would reduce fossil fuel usage.<\/p>\n\n On December 11, the government released <\/a>its final Second Emissions Reduction Plan 2026-2030, which still relied <\/a>on magic methane inhibitors, magic carbon capture and storage and lots <\/a>of pine trees on private and public land. As would become clear soon enough, this was a work of fiction.<\/p>\n\n January 2025 brought the Government\u2019s announcement <\/a>of a new Paris target, which was pretty much the same as the old one and still with no plan for how to meet the target, suggesting they didn\u2019t really take this climate stuff seriously. <\/p>\n\n But the climate was serious for the insurance companies, which in February it was revealed <\/a>were suing councils over their flood protection schemes, which had failed to protect property from climate-amplified extreme weather events. Councils are asking central government for help. Good luck with that.<\/p>\n\n But central government is keen to help reduce the \u2018burden\u2019 of reporting on carbon emissions, as they revealed in February with a proposal <\/a>to reduce the number of companies that must disclose their emissions by half.<\/p>\n\n February 21 brought more government announcements <\/a>on the Carbon Capture and Storage scam. <\/p>\n\n February 26 found the Climate Minister telling <\/a>Federated Farmers that there was no legal obligation to meet the Paris targets, and no liability.<\/p>\n\n March 14 brought a second <\/a>offshore wind group, Sumitomo, pulling out of New Zealand because of seabed mining.<\/p>\n\n March 19 found us at another ETS auction, with not a single <\/a>bid.<\/p>\n\n Part of the reason for the tepid interest in carbon credits was revealed <\/a>by David Seymour when he said on the same day that the only reason the Government was staying in the Paris agreement was fear of trade retaliation, and they are weighing up the costs versus benefits of leaving it (like Trump<\/a>). <\/p>\n\n Is it any wonder that the Treasury <\/a>has not listed the cost of buying offshore carbon credits as a liability on the government’s books?<\/p>\n\n The ETS may also have been undermined by the government decision revealed <\/a>on March 26 to double the subsidies to Rio Tinto – free ETS carbon credits of $75m per year. The Climate Minister rejected <\/a>calls to review free allocations even when they were backed by the Climate Commission. And even when Watts said he might <\/a>review some<\/em> free allocations worth $70m a year that were no longer needed, he was stymied by the inability of the Climate Commission to provide the necessary advice, because Watts had cut its budget.<\/p>\n\n April 8 saw the government closing <\/a>the Green Investment Fund, while on April 16 Cabinet agreed <\/a>that freshwater farm plans should be well and truly gutted, which means more climate emissions.<\/p>\n\n Five days later, at an international meeting, they abstained <\/a>on putting a price on international maritime climate pollution as part of global efforts to cut shipping emissions. At this point we might count ourselves lucky they didn\u2019t vote against it.<\/p>\n\n Finally, on May 7, after 310 days of a vacant Prime Minister\u2019s Chief Science Advisor role, the Prime Minister nominated <\/a>John Roche, a dairy industry insider. Roche previously had a leadership role at the industry lobby group Dairy NZ, which lobbies against measures to cut climate pollution. <\/p>\n\n The majority of members of the government science advisory panel also had dairy and agribusiness backgrounds. But, to be fair, one of the panel members works for an energy company Genesis, which runs Huntly coal power station.<\/p>\n\n On May 19 it became clear <\/a>that the Kapuni CCS project is not feasible. This project was single-handedly responsible for one-third of all emissions reductions in the government\u2019s Emission Reductions novella. CCS is a fraud in plain sight, much like Luxon\u2019s claims on climate change.<\/p>\n\n Budget day on 22 May brought new horrors.<\/p>\n\n They allocated <\/a>$200m in the budget to co-invest in new oil and gas exploration and have signalled <\/a>that it may be more. This is a straight subsidy to increase climate pollution. This was alongside an unlimited and uncapped 20% tax write-off <\/a>for new investments, which included fossil fuel investments along with most everything else in what may turn out to be the biggest corporate welfare program since the ETS. The International Energy Agency stated <\/a>that there can be no new fossil fuel investments if we are to achieve our climate targets.<\/p>\n\n In the budget, we discovered cuts <\/a>to the predator-free NZ program. Predator control is one of the ways our native forest could absorb more carbon. <\/p>\n\n And they cut <\/a>overseas climate financing from $250m to $100m.<\/p>\n\n