EV policy has some grunt but needs more drive – Greenpeace


Greenpeace says the Government’s proposal to make clean cars more affordable in New Zealand is a good first step, but needs more drive to tackle the climate emergency.

Climate and energy campaigner, Amanda Larsson, says New Zealand should implement a timeline for completely phasing out diesel and petrol vehicles, in the same way that countries including Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands have done.

“The proposal to make electric and hybrid vehicles more affordable is a good move, especially alongside the Government’s commitment to boost rail and public transport,” she says.

“Setting emissions standards for new vehicles entering the fleet is also good news. Until now, New Zealand has been one of only a few developed countries without vehicle emissions standards, so we have a lot of catching up to do.”

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

However, Larsson questions whether the fees for high-emitting vehicles are significant enough to be a disincentive for buying polluting cars.

“It’s disappointing to see the maximum fee for highly polluting vehicles capped at $3,000. Would this make someone buying a more than $100,000 gas guzzler reconsider?”

“In France, for example, the top penalty is more than three times greater than what the New Zealand Government is proposing.

“We’re living through a climate emergency and it’s going to take more than these modest policies to tackle it. This proposal has some grunt, but it needs more drive.

“Our transport emissions have risen more than any other source since 1990, and are the main reason household emissions keep going up.”

The Labour-led Coalition has committed to net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Larsson says that for the bulk of our cars to be electric by 2050 to meet these obligations, nearly all vehicles entering the fleet would need to be EVs by the early 2030s.

“We need to follow in the footsteps of many of our European counterparts by putting a time limit on petrol and diesel vehicles, and committing to phasing out imports by 2030,” she says.


  1. What about those batteries that dont last long and the mining where they are mined from, usually impoverished countries. Buying a new ev every few years, probably has a worse carbon footprint than the vehicle that youre trying to replace if you take mining into account.
    Europe! Seriously!? The state is falling apart, why would you follow a model like that? Its a shit hole, overcrowded with tourists, the Nazi’s are coming back. This kind of Green Wash capitalism is a fraud, a scam. How about just focusing on the real enemy, Capitalism.

    • There no immisions though. Compared to a car mixing immisions with the atmosphere an EV locks it’s immisions into the product itself. It’s like saying your wasting power by leaving a solar powered light on. I mean there’s no monthly utility bill so wasting sunlight is something a Luddite would say.

  2. Transport whether it be personal, public, relies on an energy source and a means of harvesting that energy from the source.

    With current EV technology we must include energy storage which is relatively expensive and if batteries are used then, battery replacement is a very significant addition to total carbon footprint.

    Recycling current L-Ion cells adds to the carbon footprint again without contribution to supply of material for re manufacturing batteries.

    And shifting our energy source from fossil fuels to grid supplied electricity may sound OK but the extra electrical energy has to come from somewhere.

    Our mindset of getting off fossil fuels seems to ignore. the questions around why we are consuming so much energy in the first place.

    Heated towel rails in bathrooms, a myriad of electronic and electrical devices add little to our lives and collectively cost us a lot.

    During the last War (WWII) the NZ govt rationed food using food coupons so all families got a fair chance at being fed.

    It would seem we have an energy consumption crisis.

    Perhaps rationing of electricity units would be fair.

    Say a basic 3 units per person per day and any more than that would attract a progressive penalty change added per unit.

    The squandering of harvested energy really needs some urgent attention.

    Traveling long distances in daily commuting is a nonsensical approach to community and resource planning.

Comments are closed.