Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern gave an interview to the Guardian newspaper recently about her new book, in which she says she succeeded in “removing the politics from climate change” with the Zero Carbon Act.
So, how does this claim stack up? Was she able to remove the politics from climate change, and was the Zero Carbon Act the mechanism?
The Ardern Government did introduce some impactful climate policies, such as the ban on new permits for offshore oil and gas exploration and rules to protect freshwater from dairy cattle pollution, which stopped and slightly reversed the expansion of the dairy sector. These policies were meaningful steps in cutting emissions from fossil fuels and agribusiness, the two largest climate-polluting sectors.
But here’s the thing, these policies were highly political and controversial at the time, and still are today. These policies were and are attacked by fossil fuel companies and dairy companies, and the current far-right New Zealand government is trying to reverse them.
So for these climate policies, policies that had real impact, the politics and controversy were never removed, and it remains today.
On the other hand, the Ardern Government did introduce some climate policies, such as the Zero Carbon Act, that had bipartisan support and were not party ‘political’. The Zero Carbon Act set up an elaborate system of carbon budgets and climate bureaucracy.
But the aspirational targets in the Zero Carbon Act are not binding on the Government. In fact Ardern’s Climate Minister, James Shaw, went to court to defend the non-binding ‘aspirational’ nature of the targets against attempts by activists to make them binding. And of course, the Ardern Government famously backed down on introducing a price on agribusiness emissions, fully half of New Zealand’s emissions, and consequently proposed to meet its Paris target by delivering two-thirds of the emissions reductions through purchasing offshore carbon credits!
Since Ardern’s Government was voted out in 2023, the new far-right Government has introduced at least 50 different policies which increase climate pollution, including a $200m subsidy to fossil fuel companies. It is a shocking list for any government, let alone the government of a country that prides itself on its environmental credibility and support for multilateral climate action. And yet it seems that the Luxon Government is not in breach of the “Zero Carbon Act”, which suggests the Act is of limited value as a mechanism to cut emissions.
The current Prime Minister Chris Luxon happily tells anyone who will listen that he is committed to the Zero Carbon Act, while simultaneously trying to restart oil and gas exploration, approving new coal mines, cutting cycling funding and increasing motorway funding, removing incentives to low emissions vehicles, and most importantly expanding the dairy herd. And so much more.
The Zero Carbon Act may not have done much to cut emissions but it sure has been a useful tool in the current government’s climate greenwashing.
So my conclusions from this are twofold.
Firstly, policies that seriously cut climate pollution will be opposed by the polluting industries and their political representatives. The politics will not be removed.
Secondly, be very suspicious of climate policies that are not opposed by climate polluters and their representatives. Ardern backed down on introducing policies that would cut agribusiness pollution by pricing it, and then called it a victory for consensus. But I think it would be more accurate to call it a capitulation.
The role of politics is to deal with the issues that are inherently conflictual, to try to resolve issues about which society is divided. And climate policies will always be conflictual because while we have a collective interest in a stable climate, there are powerful companies who have a private interest, profits, in continuing climate pollution. And they and their political representatives will consistently oppose real policies to cut emissions.
So if you really want to protect the habitability of planet Earth, if you really want to protect a stable climate, then you’re going to have to fight for it. The good thing is that civil society is willing to fight for it, and oil and gas exploration has not restarted in Aotearoa because the oil and gas companies are leery of regulatory uncertainty and civil society resistance. Let’s keep it that way.
By stopping gas exploration before an alternative was sorted was a bad move and while the effect on NZ is going to be severe the World is no better of.
The hundreds ,maybe billions ,the government wants to give the oil and gas industry, for free,could be given free to every home in NZ to install solar there buy generating more power than every gas powered generator in nz .This would be generating power long after the fake gas reserves have run out .What was the goverments big plan? We will build a terminal in Taranaki and import gas for about 100 million .Once they started looking at the cost and logistics ,deathly silence so my guess it came out over Willis magic $3 billion where once it reaches that cost it is scraped .
And don’t forget the hundreds of millions of tons of coal imported from overseas as ‘mining is bad’ in NZ…but not seemingly buying it from other countries thank you very much.
We have not stopped mining coal have we ?.We export 1.2 million tonnes per year .
That may be right, but it just goes to confirm what Russel is saying here: that the climate change actions of the Ardern government were not seriously thought through and not seriously intended.
Russell is being optimistic when he says that “The good thing is that civil society is willing to fight for it, and oil and gas exploration has not restarted in Aotearoa because the oil and gas companies are leery of regulatory uncertainty and civil society resistance”.
The fact is that the political establishment, both on the right and the left, will support the interests of the fossil fuel industry against the long term interests of humanity and contrary to the sentiments of civil society. The major obstacle to serious climate change action is that New Zealanders live in a pseudo-democracy. It is government of the people, but not by the people and not for the people.
So radical political reform is a prerequisite to meaningful climate change measures.
Meanwhile, ordinary citizens are limited in what they can do, but they should do as much as they can. Don’t fly. Don’t drive. Generate as much of your own energy needs (including food) as possible from renewable sources. Limit your acquisition of manufactured goods and foreign produced commodities.
But most importantly, emphatically reject pseudo-democratic colonialist political structures and processes, and help to build rangatiratanga.
‘By stopping gas exploration before an alternative was sorted was a bad move and while the effect on NZ is going to be severe the World is no better of.(off).’
How is it a bad move?
How do you know the effect on NZ will be severe?
Why is the world no better off?
Bob the First, Im right, Trumpet, Trevor produce these little one-liners without any supporting evidence.
No wonder the Right Wing cannot win debates.
Gas is used in many businesses and the price I crease is causing them to close due to becoming unprofitable.
We need to burn coal as a substitute which is bad for the climate so counterproductive.
NZ could stop any activity tomorrow and it would make practically no difference to the World’s climate problem.
Just because the action was taken by St Jacinda does not make it a good action
Trevor
I have told you before. If you can bring yourself to go to the New Zealand Fabian Website( yes, I know, filthy lefties who will give you socialism germs,but try) and you go into their live stream you will see an excellent lecture by leading Energy Engineer David Keat.
This expert in fuel refining and energy production is politically unaligned so his information is unbiased.
In short, it will tell you all the stuff you rant about energy production by fossil fuels is redundant.
E kati, enough said.
RESTORE STATE SOCIALISM IN AOTEAROA! DEATH TO CAPITALISM!
The poor woman left 3 plus years ago and we are still having a crack at her .Just look hoe councils and government are all jumping on the 3 waters band wagon which under the new system ,will be under white off shore ownership before too long .Then look at the great new ferries that were arriving next year that were scuttled by Willis because they were a great deal and badly needed by working class NZ .That paid for the tax hand out to landlords .Then the record number of social houses in the pipe line was scuttled because once again the national party could not work out how a large property business works .
Jacinda said on TV the other day how she felt she would be ok to return to NZ in the future ,Why the hell would she .She and her family are highly respected in other countries and NZ does not deserve her as she is way too good for this tin pot 5 million racist haters at the arse end of the world .
All too true. Politics and economic activity are inextricably linked and as long as economic activity rests on the the use of fossil fuels for energy politics and global warming are inseparable. Ditto re methane emissions from intensive dairy farming.
Adhern and her like may truely believe they are making a difference – just as Luxton and his kind believe that relaxing restrictions won’t matter. Ideologically the Right appear more sympathetic to the lobbying of big business but it’s just that it’s more transparent by nature; with the Left it’s often not.
Thanks Russel. I had not the time to read this book, but wholeheartedly agree with your analysis.
People need to see that the “voluntarism”, and “aspirational” lobbies will volunteer to do nothing. The language of benevolent overlords can be seen in every lobby, and every agreement.