By Jen Purdie*
The government’s announcement this week that it would move ahead with plans for a new facility to import liquefied natural gas (LNG), potentially as early as next year, was framed as a way to shore up energy security.
But the decision instead marks another major step backwards for domestic efforts to decarbonise.
Notably, it comes as communities across the North Island – including Mount Maunganui – are recovering from just the kind of extreme weather events climate change is projected to intensify.
With the United States now withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, and New Zealand simultaneously weakening its own climate settings, it is easy to feel a sense of drift.
Despite 89% of people globally wanting stronger climate action, the erosion of the international rules-based order risks pulling more countries away from cooperative solutions.
But the energy transition now has real momentum. So how much difference does the US withdrawal from Paris – and New Zealand’s turn back towards fossil fuels – actually make?
A setback, not a stop
Before the US withdrew, 93% of global emissions came from countries with net-zero policies in place; that figure has now fallen to 83%. The drop would have been larger if not for pledges by 24 US states, along with many cities and corporations, to stick to Paris Agreement targets.
So, while the US exit might be a massive blow, it is far from the end of global climate action. Current Paris Agreement pledges and targets would see global emissions peak in the next few years, if countries follow through.
Many states – including the US, United Kingdom, China, Australia and Canada – are already recording declines. New Zealand’s emissions have flatlined since 2008 but it is still doing less than its fair share on a per-capita basis.
Globally, the race is now on between avoiding dangerous climate tipping points and fostering self-reinforcing momentum in clean energy, which is already at an all-time high.
This is important, as around 70% of the emissions cuts the world needs to make will likely come from the energy transition. Despite more than half of New Zealand’s emissions coming from agriculture, energy remains a strong focus of the government’s emissions reduction plan.
All the while, solutions to renewable intermittency – the problem of wind and solar not always generating power when it is needed – are expanding.
In hydro-heavy systems like New Zealand’s, dry periods can be covered by pumped hydro, biomass, battery storage and overbuilding cheap wind and solar. Importing LNG to “firm” electricity instead undermines these options and puts the brakes on clean investment.
Worldwide, solar and wind capacity has doubled every three years for the past two decades, with each doubling of solar cutting prices by about 25%.
China installed half of all new solar last year and its emissions have now peaked. The European Union now generates more power from renewables than fossil fuels, and Pakistan has imported solar panels equivalent to 40% of its total demand.
Electric vehicles have reached price parity with internal combustion engines. Globally, 25% of new car sales were electric last year, rising to 96% in Norway and 59% in China, with 39 countries now above a 10% sales share. In China’s heavy truck fleet, around half of new sales are electric.
Fossil fuel use is already declining in the developed world: oil use in the OECD peaked in 2005, and coal in 2008. While consumption is still rising in poorer countries, many projections see global oil demand peaking in the next few years. And there is broad agreement coal use will begin to fall before 2030.
As fossil fuel use declines, shipping emissions will fall too. And using existing technology to stop methane leaks from oil and gas wells – which is profitable – would cut emissions by more than all global air travel.
Geopolitics is accelerating the energy transition
Geopolitical tensions are driving a push for energy independence, accelerating the growth of renewables. As Canada’s prime minister Mark Carney recently noted, as the international rules-based order and multilateralism fray, countries are realising they must build greater strategic autonomy, including in energy.
When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, disrupted gas supplies drove prices higher, leaving Europe paying about €650 billion more for fossil fuels than it otherwise would have – around 40% of the cost of building a 95% renewable power system for the continent.
In 2022–23, the EU built 37% more new renewable capacity than the year before, stepped up energy efficiency and electrification, and set out a strategy to cut reliance on Russian gas.
There is strong global momentum for emissions cuts, and renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels while offering energy security. New Zealand should also be strengthening its own energy independence, while moving quickly away from importing fossil fuels.
As the US steps back from multilateral climate action, New Zealand must work with other countries to keep momentum growing: holding to existing treaties, and joining new agreements such as the “roadmap” away from fossil fuels put forward at COP30 in Brazil last year.
At the very least, New Zealand should shoulder its fair share of per-capita emissions reductions if it wants to leave a liveable world for future generations.![]()
*Jen Purdie, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Sustainability, University of Otago.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
22 Comments
Thanks Jen, remarkably restrained comments for a proposal that appears is an absolutely terrible waste of resources
Read it and weep.
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/31754-government-investment-in-dry…
A cost benefit comparison to diesel generation ( no renewables in sight) FFS....you couldnt make this shite up.
I didn't get very far. Looked very much a statement of this is a good idea cause I said so .
Captain Cindy was told emissions would increase by MBIE, but she went ahead with her bans anyway. This was covered by Interest years ago. Nothing like a bit of economic and social sabotage to get the feelz.
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/94123/documents-reveal-mbie-advised-gov…
I'm going to switch vote against this government at the next general election if they don't rapidly pull their past their use by date ignorant of modern technology heads out of pre 2000 thinking mode.
I have a problem with comparing NZ ghg emissions on a per capita basis when food production is the highest emitter.
NZ fossil fuel emissions (CO²) per capita are somewhere between 6.3 and 9.5 t/capita. Australia is over 22t, USA over 17t, Germany and UK over 12t.
My understanding is that methane is a potential but short lived ghg. And NZ has the most efficient animal production systems in the world as far as tonne production animal product relative to ghg emissions.
NZ lower figure than USA, UK, AU and Germany in part is due to hydroelectric power generation. Our lower than their emissions is not something we should be proud of, we need to act to get rapid per person declines.
Everyone, quick stop buying stuff you don't need, that's built to be obsolete.
In the drive for lower emissions, we have placed regulations on manufacturers their products need to meet. These regulations are a moving target. So, rather than have items engineered to be their very best, the emphasis is on manufacturing complex items to meet regulatory requirements, and last around as long as a manufacturers warranty.
This way rather than build something that works fairly efficiently and lasts 15 years, every 3-5 years we can just expend all the energy and resources digging the same stuff out of the ground and remanufacturing it. And then recycling stuff is less economical than making another new one so we just throw it in the landfill.
Amazing.
Why shouldn't we be proud of that status? My parents generation invested in establishing the bulk of the hydro infrastructure and geothermal. Strong planning for a long horizon future in the pre and post ww2 period.
My point is that food production is a critical human need, not a discretionary want. NZ's geographical location means we are a reliable, relatively low cost producer of animal protein, fibre, pelts and dairy. It's NZ's competitive advantage still.
For the last 50 years, commentators have been harping on about NZ diversifying it's economy away from Agriculture. In the 80s the neoliberal sect declared Agriculture a sunset industry to be supplanted by NZ becoming a 'knowledge' economy. And where has our economy ended up in 2026? Agriculture continues to do the heavy lifting in export revenue generation.
Maybe the promotion of the knowledge economy lead to an influx of university graduates. But that hasn't translated into diversifying the export revenue generation at a scale to knock agriculture of it's #1 position. It is the agricultural sector that keeps the hydro powered lights on in NZ.
I'm not at all suggesting that NZ steps away from ghg emissions reduction. Or that, personally, I support the LNG terminal being established - I don't.
Perspective is needed along with up to date animal population stats. In my local area at least 20,000 stock units have been lost to forestry plantings in the last 12 months or so. At 13kg/annum/head methane emission, that's a reduction in methane emissions of 260,000kg. Ingka has voiced that it desires to plant an additional 100,000ha of forestry. At a conservative estimate of that displacing 10 stock units per hectare, that would see further methane emission reduction of 13,000,000kg annually. It would also make a very large hole in the numbers of livestock available for slaughter and export.
NZ has negotiated favourable access for agricultural products into the UK,with expanded volume quotas. Losing that many livestock would mean those expanded quota volumes may never be realised. But hey, we can all jump with joy at the reduction in methane emissions.....and cry into our beer when the balance of payments deficit balloons.
The man knows.
We spent 50 years finding out that our most competitive advantage is agriculture.
And we generated triple the amount of Uni grads produced annually.
And have skill shortages in dozens (hundreds) of key vocations.
You will do way better doubling down on doing the basics right instead of trying to second guess and half arse a pivot.
Exactly- it was previous generation who built the hydro and I'm proud, appreciate and grateful to them, especially the men who risked and some sacrificed their lives building the dams and tunnels.
To make it clearer we should not be proud of the failure to build sufficient electrical infrastructure in recent decades that could have displaced green house gas producing technologies, and now we have a lot of catching up to do to reduce the very expensive consequences coming our way.
NZ is already negative per capita CO2 emissions. Tiny population, large land area, no industry - at risk of earthquakes and volcanoes - not cow burbs and the biogenic methane cycle. With a bit more post Little Ice Age inter-glacial warming we may see our historic kumera growing range again.
"...using two approaches: bottom-up methods that integrate flux estimates from land-surface models, data-driven models, and inventory estimates; and top-down atmospheric inversions based on satellite and in situ measurements.
New Zealand was a net CO2 sink of −38.6 ± 13.4 million tonne C yr−1."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GB007845
LouB,
I have the same problem. The only reason for our higher per capita emissions is the at our economy relies on primary industries to a far greater extent than most others.It's a nonsensical comparison.
Solid article Jen and what a strange and expensive decision.
In my opinion the LNG terminal will put up energy prices for everyone. It will cost more than stated, take longer than stated and my guess likely come with a compulsory volume contract where regardless of how much is used NZ will be required to pay for the full contracted volume.
As was the deal for the short lived Combined Cycle Gas Turbines which resulted in great waste as they forced hydro generation to reduce output and spill (waste) precious water.
In my opinion the coal fired "firming" unit at Huntly with the stockpiled coal along with the numerous large scale grid connected batteries (already connected and more to come) and large numbers of high capacity solar farms (being built and more awaiting approval) will be sufficient to preserve precious water in the hydro lakes during dry years.
The MBIE report is just bizarre and appears to conflate several issues. What is this even really about?
Huntly can do dry year on it's own and support grid stability. Solar, wind batteries can't provide process heat, grid balancing, inertia etc. and ratchet up transmission costs which are sneaked on to people power bills.
The country's four largest electricity generator-retailers have been given the regulatory go-ahead covering a 10-year period for a dry winter plan involving a fuel reserve and usage of the old Huntly Power Station
www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/136037/countrys-four-largest-electrici…
"...operating two of the 250 MW units at Huntly flat out for 3 months would provide enough electricity to meet the hydro shortfall in a year when hydro output is below the normal range.
...As noted in the editorial, the three low-rainfall years of 2001, 2008 and 2012/13 required in total 3,200 GWh of additional generation to address the “dry-year” issue, as shown by the orange line on the chart above. If Huntly power station had been operated purely in Security of Supply mode for that period it would have been used only three times, i.e., run 24/7 for three months on two 250 MW units to supplement hydro."
https://www.energywatch.org.nz/issues/EW84_6-2021.pdf
Nice. Thanks Profile!
This govt is in bed with the fossil fuel industry. Anyone care to dispute that?
Everybody, including you, is in bed with the fossil fuel industry. It is a fact of life, not a conspiracy theory.
A dependency that most understand the increasingly urgent need to minimize...apparently not the current decision makers...
I personally use very little fossil fuels in my day to day life. We (our family) are all EV, with solar on the roof and batteries in the shed. I use a few litres a month to run our lawnmower, but that is doing much less work now that we have purchased... you guessed it, a new electric (robotic) lawnmower. It happily mows a third of a hectare without me lifting a finger. Our expenses have dropped off a cliff since going all electric.
What about all the other things you use in your life though?
Groceries
Water
Personal effects
Your internet connection
There's usually fossil fuels involved in the manufacturing and transport of all our "stuff".
Good point. I was just commenting on the situations where I directly use fossil fuels. There's no doubt that fossil fuels still play a big part in our lives. However, that's beginning to change and I want to be part of that change, rather than just sit back and do nothing.
profile,
Precisely. I think you will like this; https://phys.org/news/2026-02-rethinking-climate-natural-variability-so…
I have recently read Climate Change Isn't Everything by Mike Hulme, Professor of Human Geography at Cambridge University and someone who has been involved in the science of climate change for many decades. He accepts the reality of the human fingerprint on climate change but doesn't believe that it represents the only or even the most important challenge to humanity.
I subscribe to Roger Pielke Jnr's substack and he is also a climate sceptic, not a denier. I have been thinking about this for a long time and have come to believe that there is a great deal of hysteria on the subject. It would be silly for us to exit from the Paris Agreement; all we need to do is ignore it and we will not be alone. Fossil fuels will be needed for a long time to come, something acknowledged in the McKinsey Global Energy Perspective 2025 which expects them to still account for between 41% and 55% of global energy consumption by 2050. The ide of net zero by then is absurd.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.