A political commentator says Green Party co-leader James Shaw was a “friend of the Pacific”.

Shaw, who was previously New Zealand’s climate change minister for six years, announced this week he will be stepping aside as party co-leader in March.

Political commentator Thomas Wynne told RNZ Pacific that Shaw was unashamedly focused on climate change.

“If one is realistic, one can do one job really, really well and Parliament can put you across a whole range of work and sometimes you don’t do at all well because your focus is somewhere else,” Wynne said.

“But James was really clear about what he wanted to do and what his focus was, I think his legacy around climate change will be long lasting.”

Wynne said Shaw supported Vanuatu seeking an advisory ruling from the International Court of Justice on climate change and human rights.

He said Shaw’s legacy around climate change would be long lasting in the Pacific.

“In the Pacific everything is around relationship and James had a good relationship with the nations in the Pacific.

“I think locally, our younger Pacific voter really leaned into the principles and values of the Green Party.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As New Zealand’s former climate change minister James Shaw prepares to step down from the Green Party’s co-leadership role, the space has opened for a new contender.

Speaking after today’s announcement, co-leader Marama Davidson refused to guarantee she too would not step down before the election but said she would stay on for at least the next 12 months.

Numbering 15 MPs, the team is its largest ever but also largely inexperienced. Among the mix in the co-leadership possibilities is the party’s first MP with a Pasifika whakapapa — Teanau Tuiono.

Shaw announced earlier today he would be stepping down as Green Party co-leader in March.

“It has been the privilege of my lifetime to serve as New Zealand’s Climate Change Minister for the last six years and as Green Party co-leader for nearly nine,” Shaw said in a statement.

“I’m very proud of what the Green Party has achieved over the last eight years.”

He said he would remain in Parliament to support his Members Bill, which would insert a new clause into the Bill of Rights Act stating that everyone has a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

The bill was introduced to Parliament in December and is yet to have its first reading.

He said the Greens had become party of government, with ministers, for the first time and had made political history by increasing its support at the end of each of our two terms — “a feat no other government support partner had achieved”.

Following Shaw’s exit from Parliament, two-thirds will be fresh-faced first-timers and just Davidson and Julie Anne Genter will have any experience of sitting in opposition.

So who are some potential contenders for the leadership?

Chlöe Swarbrick (Auckland Central MP):
Ranked third on the party list, the Auckland Central MP appears to be the popular choice.

After losing the mayoral race in 2016, she joined the Green Party.

Winning the Auckland Central seat in 2020 and becoming the country’s youngest MP in 42 years, she has proven her popularity from early on.

She is the first Green MP ever to hold on to a seat for more than one term after winning again in the 2023 elections.

Swarbrick denied leadership ambitions in 2022, when more than 25 percent of delegates at the party’s annual general meeting voted to reopen Shaw’s position.

Still, she commands the highest profile of all Green MPs, regularly registering in preferred prime minister polls ahead of the party’s co-leaders.

Recently, she had to apologise to Parliament a week after saying in the debating chamber Prime Minister Christopher Luxon had lied — a breach of the rules.

If selected for the co-leadership, the 29-year-old would also become the youngest to co-lead the party.

Teanau Tuiono (List MP):
Teanau Tuiono (Ngāpuhi and Ngāi Takoto) moved to the fifth ranking on the party’s list after Jan Logie and Eugenie Sage retired in the 2023 elections.

As the party’s candidate Palmerston North, he became a list Member of Parliament — the party’s first MP with Pasifika whakapapa – in the 2020 general elections. And again was re-elected as a list MP in 2023.

He spoke of how he believed swearing allegiance to the Queen was outdated, and said that it should be to Te Tiriti o Waitangi instead.

In 2022, as Shaw battled to keep his co-leadership role, Tuiono publicly contemplated contesting.

Last year, his Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill was introduced in Parliament. The bill would restore the right to New Zealand citizenship for people from Western Samoa who were born between 1924 and 1949 — a right promised to them and found owed them by New Zealand’s then highest court.

In December, Tuiono was appointed as the third assistant speaker — the first Green Party MP to become a member on the speaker team.

He recently expressed concern over the lack of Pasifika voices in the government.

Julie Anne Genter (Rongotai MP):
The MP for Rongotai currently stands in the fourth rank on the list. Since 2011, she has been elected to each Parliament while on the party’s list.

In 2017, Genter put her name forward for the Mount Albert byelection, but she came in second after Jacinda Ardern.

Genter served as the minister for women, associate minister for health and associate minister for transport from 2017 to 2020.

The Ombudsman twice investigated a letter she sent to then Transport Minister Phil Twyford during pre-consultation on the Let’s Get Wellington Moving indicative package draft Cabinet paper.

National had accused her of convincing Twyford to push back construction of a second Mount Victoria tunnel for at least a decade.

After the next transport minister released the letter in full, Genter said she stood by her comments and that the contents clearly reflected the Green party’s position.

Much like Swarbrick, Genter was not interested in contesting for the party’s leadership in 2022.

Rules and voting
Nominations will open on 31 January and close on 14 February.

Members will attend local meetings and vote, with a new co-leader to be announced on March 10.

Each branch is entitled to a certain number of votes proportionate to the number of members who live in that electorate.

The party’s rules were changed in 2022, removing the requirement for a male co-leader. Instead, members voted to mandate one female leader and one leader of any gender. One leader must also be Māori.

As Davidson meets both the female and Māori criteria, the vacancy can be filled by any Green member, in or out of Parliament.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Former Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman — a leading voice in Aotearoa New Zealand’s Parliament for human rights, an independent foreign policy, and justice for Occupied Palestine — was subject to “pretty much continuous” death threats and threats of violence, says party co-leader James Shaw.

She has resigned as a Green Party MP after facing shoplifting allegations.

Ghahraman said in a statement today stress relating to her work had led her to “act in ways that are completely out of character. I am not trying to excuse my actions, but I do want to explain them”.

“The mental health professional I see says my recent behaviour is consistent with recent events giving rise to extreme stress response, and relating to previously unrecognised trauma,” she said.

She said she had fallen short of the high standards expected of elected representatives, and apologised.

In a joint media conference with Green co-leader Marama Davidson, Shaw said Green MPs were expected to maintain high standards of public behaviour.

“It is clear to us that Ms Ghahraman is in a state of extreme distress. She has taken responsibility and she has apologised. We support the decision that she has made to resign.”

Party ‘deeply sorry’
The party was “deeply sorry” to see her leave under such circumstances, he said.

Shaw said that Parliament was a stressful place for anybody.

“However, Golriz herself has been subject to pretty much continuous threats of sexual violence, physical violence, death threats since the day she was elected to Parliament and so that has added a higher level of stress than is experienced by most Members of Parliament.

“And that has meant, for example there have been police investigations into those threats almost the entire time that she has been a Member of Parliament, and so obviously if you’re living with that level of threat in what is already quite a stressful situation then there are going to be consequences for that,” Shaw said.

“And so I have a lot of empathy for you know the fact that she has identified that she is in the state of extreme mental distress.

“Ultimately Golriz is taking accountability for her actions, she’s seeking medical help and she is in a state of extreme distress, that’s where we are at and we support her decision.”

Asked whether the Greens should review how they should support and select MPs, Green co-leader Marama Davidson said the party had a high quality and very robust selection process.

MPs ‘are still human’
“It is also understandable that all MPs across all political parties are still human when they come into politics.

“We will continue to support Golriz through a really distressing time that she is having at the moment and that is a Green Party responsibility also.”

Ghahraman was clearly distressed, Davidson said.

“We know that this is a decision for her to apologise and to resign from Parliament, for her well-being, for her to be able to focus and our responsibility is to make sure she has the support she has needed and to continue to give her aroha and compassion.”

Asked why the Greens did not front up to the situation earlier, Davidson said the Green Party co-leaders needed to seek clarity about the situation before making statements and Ghahraman was still overseas.

“I think people can understand how important it is to have face-to-face and in person conversations with such allegations.

“Also to allow her to have the support that she needs to be able to discuss those allegations.”

Once the co-leaders had received advice and worked out a course of action, Ghahraman returned “at the earliest possible convenience”, Davidson said.

Treatment of women of colour
Davidson said there had been conversations in recent times about the particular treatment of women and women of colour who had public profiles.

“It is incumbent on all political parties and the parliamentary system to be able to support everyone under the pressure of political profiles and the Greens certainly have always taken that seriously to make sure there are avenues for MPs feeling that stress to be able to communicate and seek help.”

Asked whether the co-leaders were aware that Ghahraman was experiencing mental distress before the allegations came to light, Shaw said it would not be appropriate to comment on the mental health condition of one of their colleagues.

“Professional support is available to all of our MPs and we do know that people do access them and we encourage people to access that professional support,” Shaw said.

Davidson said it was a sad day and she was losing a friend and colleague who she had worked with for six years.

“We are here to give aroha and hold her leadership in the portfolio work, kaupapa work that she has often been a lone voice in,” she said.

“We just have aroha and sadness for the value of her kaupapa and for her as a person and she was a part of our team.”

Green caucus support
Shaw said Ghahraman was getting a lot of support for her colleagues in the Green caucus, other Green Party members, as well as from other communities that she is well-connected to.

“And of course most importantly, she’s got professional support as well.”

Davidson said that they would continue to support Ghahraman by ensuring she continued to know “that our aroha and compassion that we are holding that as colleagues, as friends, as women in politics, and that’s really important to us”.

Shaw said Parliament had improved in terms of making support available to MPs over the last few years.

“We strongly encourage our MPs and our staff to access professional support if they feel that they need it and we will continue to do so.”

Shaw said Ghahraman was not looking for an excuse by disclosing her mental health issues and she said she wanted to take full accountability for her actions.

“She’s not looking for an excuse here, she’s trying to sort of seek a reason to explain her behaviour, not to justify it and I think that’s really really important,” Shaw said.

Shaw said pressures on MPs were discussed as a caucus including at monthly staff meetings of senior MPs and staff, at a quarterly weekend meeting, as well as working closely with parliamentary security, police and IT.

Davidson said losing Ghahraman was a big loss but the party would continue to uphold her portfolio areas, legacy and mahi.

Ghahraman was elected on the Green Party list, ranked 7th. She held 10 spokesperson portfolios, including Justice, Defence, and Foreign Affairs. She has not been charged.

Her resignation allows the next person on the list to enter Parliament — former Wellington mayor Celia Wade-Brown.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Green Party co-leader James Shaw has compared the language of New Zealand First leader Winston Peters to former US president Donald Trump, saying it may be emboldening violence against candidates in Aotearoa NZ’s election campaign.

It comes after several candidates from different parties have spoken out about being targeted, including a home invasion on Te Pāti Māori’s youngest candidate, an assault on a Labour candidate, and another Labour candidate saying she has faced the “worst comments and vitriol” this campaign.

Te Pāti Māori candidate Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke, whose home was ram raided and invaded, put the blame on what she called race-baiting from right-wing parties.

Peters told Newshub Nation that notion was wrong, and accused Te Pāti Māori of being a racist party.

But Shaw — who himself was assaulted in 2019 — suggested Peters could be empowering and emboldening extremists.

“It makes me really angry. Because political leaders, through the things we say create an air of permissiveness for that kind of extreme language and now physical violence to take place and it’s not too dissimilar to what we saw in the United States under Donald Trump,” he said.

“Half of the argument about Trump was whether he personally intervened to make those things happen and at one level it doesn’t matter, he created an atmosphere where these extremists felt empowered and emboldened to kind of enact their kind of crazy, racist, misogynist fantasies.

Lead to physical violence
“And that did lead to physical violence there and it’s leading to physical violence here too.”

However, Shaw told RNZ he was not surprised given the “misogynist and racist rhetoric”, which he said had been at least in part been given permission by political parties in this election campaign.

“[It] has created a situation where that kind of online hate and violent language is only one or two steps from actual acts of physical violence and now you’re starting to see those manifest. It is really worrying.

“I think all of us have a responsibility to try and create an atmosphere for democracy to take place, which is respectful, where people can have different opinions and for that to be okay.

“And I think that at the moment we’re seeing a rise in this kind of culture or language which is imported from overseas, that is not just unhelpful but downright dangerous.”

Te Pāti Māori said the break-in at Maipi-Clarke’s house was yet another example of political extremism in New Zealand.

Co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said some right-wing politicians were emboldening racist behaviour and needed to take responsibility.

‘Harmful inciting’
“We have seen a harmful inciting, a very harmful emboldening of extremism, this is an example of that.

“We’ve had it with our billboards – they’ve been so destroyed that we haven’t been able to afford to replace a lot of them now. It’s just been disgusting, the extent of racism.”

This year’s election had brought some of the worst abuse Te Pāti Māori had ever experienced, she said.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters claimed of Maipi-Clarke’s incident that “it couldn’t have been a home invasion” and he would answer more questions about the case when he knew all the facts.

“As for the first one [alleged assault on Labour’s Angela Roberts], violence of that sort is just not acceptable, full stop.”

He believed the time for candidates was worse was during the Rogernomics period of the 1980s.

“With respect, I can recall during the period of Rogernomics, there was a full scale fight going on inside the Labour Party convention.”

Minorities persecuted
Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins — who has vowed to call out racism — said a number of parties were deliberately trying to persecute minorities and it was reprehensible.

Assaulting candidates or threatening their safety “shows total contempt for the very principle of democracy”, he said.

He had made it clear to all Labour’s candidates that if they thought their physical safety might be at risk, they should not do that activity, Hipkins said.

“I think there has been more racism and misogyny in this election than we’ve seen in previous elections.”

Hipkins said he had respect for women and Māori who put themselves forward in elected office, but they should never have to put up with the level of abuse that they have had to in this campaign.

National Party leader Christopher Luxon told reporters his party had referred several incidents to the police too.

Luxon said he condemned threats and violence on political candidates, or their family and property, as well as all forms of racism.

Number of serious incidents
“It’s entirely wrong. We’ve had a number of serious incidents that we’ve referred to the police as well, over the course of this campaign.

“I think it’s important for all New Zealanders to understand that politicians are putting themselves forward, you may disagree with their politics, you may disagree with their policies, but we can disagree without being disagreeable in this country.”

He would not detail the complaints his party had made to police.

He said political leaders had a responsibility not to fearmonger during the campaign.

“Running fearmongering campaigns and negative campaigns just amps it up, and I think actually what we need to do is actually everyone needs to respect each other. We have differences of opinion about how to take the country forward, we are unique in New Zealand in that we can maintain our political civility, we don’t need to go down the pathway we’ve seen in other countries.

“It’s just about leadership, right, it’s about a leader modelling out the behaviour and treating people that they expect to treated.”

Asked if National had a hand in being responsible for fearmongering, he said it did not, and their campaign was positive and focused on what mattered most to New Zealanders.

Worry over online abuse
Shaw was worried for his candidates, having seen the online abuse they were subjected to.

“It’s vile, it is really extreme and it is stronger now than it has been in previous election campaigns and like I said I don’t think it takes much for a particularly unhinged individual from whacking their keyboard to whacking a person.”

But it was worse for female candidates and Māori, he said.

“Not just a little bit, not just an increment, but orders in magnitude, from what I’ve seen my colleagues be exposed to. It is just unhinged.”

There has been increased police participation in this campaign, Shaw said.

“Parliamentary security have got new protocols that we are observing. We have changed, for example, the way we campaign, the way we do public meetings, or when we’re out and about, we’re observing new security protocols that we haven’t had in previous years.”

Hipkins said where there might be additional risk, they have worked with Parliamentary Service on a cross-party basis to ensure there was additional support available for some MPs.

All parties have an interest in ensuring the election campaign was conducted safely, he said.

What has happened?
This week, Te Pāti Māori candidate Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke’s home was ram raided and invaded, with a threatening note left.

Police said they were investigating the burglary of a Huntly home, which was reported to them on Monday.

Te Pāti Māori issued a statement saying it was the third incident to take place at Maipi-Clarke’s home this week.

Also this week, Labour candidate for Taranaki-King Country Angela Roberts said she had laid a complaint with the police about being assaulted at an election debate in Inglewood.

Hipkins said he had great respect for Roberts, and he told her she could take any time off if she needed to, but she has chosen not to.

“She’s an incredibly staunch and energetic campaigner and I know it knocked the wind out of her sails a little bit, but I know that she’s bouncing back.”

On Thursday, Labour candidate for Northland Willow-Jean Prime told reporters she has faced the “worst comments and vitriol” in the seven campaigns she has been through – two in local government and five in central government.

“I was being shouted down every time I went to answer a question by supporters of other candidates primarily, there were not many of the general public in there,” she said of a Taxpayers Union debate in Kerikeri.

“Whenever I said a te reo Māori word, like puku, for full tummies, lunches in schools, I was shouted at.

“When I said Aotearoa, the crowd responded ‘It’s New Zealand!’. When I said rangatahi, ‘stop speaking that lanugage!’ that is racism coming from the audience, that’s not disagreeing with the gains I’m explaining that we’ve made in government.”

She said she noticed that type of “dog-whistling” in other candidate debates, but not whilst out and about with the general public.

“What is really worrying is that they feel so emboldened to be able to come out and say this stuff publicly, they don’t care that other people that might be in the audience, that might be listening or the impact that has on us as candidates.”

The New Zealand general election is on October 14, but early voting begins on October 2.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The New Zealand government has committed $15 million to support Solomon Islands provincial administrations to strengthen climate resilience at the grassroots level.

Deputy Prime Minister Carmel Sepuloni, who is on a three-country Pacific tour, made the announcement in Honiara today, with the funding coming out of the $1.3 billion climate finance commitment for 2022-2025.

The money — guided by the Tuia te Waka a Kiwa, New Zealand’s international climate finance strategy — will go directly into the existing Solomon Islands Provincial Capacity Development Fund that assists with developing climate adaptation plans and managing climate adaptation projects at a local level.

The funding has been made available though the Local Climate Adaptive Living (LoCAL) Facility designed by the United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF).

LoCAL builds on the existing Solomon Islands Provincial Capacity Development Fund by providing performance-based climate resilience grants to cover costs of adapting to climate change — particularly small projects at a local level that reach the people who need help the most, such as women and youth.

NZ’s Deputy Prime Minister Hon @CarmelSepuloni is leading the first mission to the Pacific since 2019, landing in Solomon Islands on Sunday evening. 🇸🇧🤝🇳🇿

The delegation is welcomed by Solomon Island’s Foreign Minister Manele and traditional performances. @RNZPacific pic.twitter.com/iozhdGfjSa

— Susana Suisuiki (@SanaSuisuikiRNZ) April 16, 2023

Sepuloni said effective climate actions requires partnerships.

“Climate change is a global challenge that requires global and collective action,” Sepuloni said.

“That’s why we’re stepping up to provide climate finance to support provincial governments to build climate resilience at the grassroots.

“At the heart of this mission and our shared focus as a Pacific region, is the importance of supporting local and indigenous-led solutions to support effective climate action.”

She said the support delivered on that and doubled down on Aotearoa’s focus to tackle the threat of climate change in the Pacific.

Empowering provincial governments to integrate climate change resilience and adaptation into their planning, as well as accessing additional sources of climate finance to respond and adapt to climate change at the community-level is a priority of the Solomon Islands government, Sepuloni said.

She said the support was also an immensely practical investment in building climate resilience in the region.

Climate Change Minister James Shaw said most Solomon Islanders lived in rural, low-lying coastal areas of the country, where provincial governments, churches and other community groups deliver essential services.

“These communities are among those on the frontline of the climate crisis – but are those who have contributed the least to climate change,” Shaw said.

He said the support package was aimed at reaffirming New Zealand’s efforts to ensuring the response to the climate crisis is inclusive and supportive of local leadership and support communities’ right across Solomon Islands.

“We also welcome the opportunity this creates for others to invest in Solomon Islands provincial government programmes to respond to climate change,” he added.

Meeting with PM Sogavare
Sepuloni’s first stop on the Pacific tour marks the return of the government’s regional visits which, prior to the pandemic, had been undertaken annually.

She was scheduled to meet with Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare and Foreign Minister Jeremiah Manele later today.

Her delegation of New Zealand MPs, government officials, community leaders and journalists will also attend various presentations and events led by the local community with a focus on early childhood education, climate change, youth development and labour mobility.

Over the course of the week, Sepuloni will also be visiting Fiji and Tonga.

These annual Pacific missions are described as an integral part of the New Zealand government’s commitment to maintaining its relationship with Pacific Island countries through consultation and helping them respond to ongoing challenges.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Thousands of people turned up for climate strikes across Aotearoa New Zealand today — and briefly staged a sit-in at Christchurch City Council.

School students and others around the country protested for climate change action from the government.

School Strike 4 Climate Christchurch spokesperson Aurora Garner-Randolph, 17, said she expected between 15,000 to 20,000 people to participate.

After the fallout from the Auckland floods and the devastating effects of Cyclone Gabrielle across the North Island, the organisers of the protest have five demands, including no new fossil fuel mining or exploration and a rebate for e-bikes.

Other demands include greater marine protection, funding a transition to regenerative farming and lowering the voting age to 16.

Earlier this evening in Christchurch, young climate activists breached the doors of the city council offices and staged a sit-in.

One of the organisers for School Strike for Climate Ōtautahi, Aurora Garmer-Ramdolph, said the group had been planning to protest at the council’s office for a while.

‘Strike protests a long time’
“We feel that we’ve been having these strike protests for a long time now.

“Young people, people of all generations have been showing up in the streets to protest for climate action and we’re not seeing the change that we need, so we’ve decided to step it up this time. We decided to come directly into the Christchurch City Council.”

Garmer-Ramdolph said the group’s key demand is that the council retracts its support for the proposed new international airport at Tarras in Central Otago.

More than 1000 people of all ages joined the Wellington march, which arrived at Parliament in the afternoon.

Speaking after the march to Parliament, Te Umanako Waa said the horrific weather events of the last few weeks should be a wake-up call for those in authority.

“I feel like the facts are in their face. The students, the people, everyone is telling them what needs to be done.

“If the response for covid can happen this quick surely the response for a worldwide disaster, a natural breakdown, can happen too.

“It’s really important that we hold our leaders to account.”

Time for politicians to take notice
Waa said it was time for politicians to take notice of what their citizens were telling them.

The crowd of protesters, who were mainly young people, stretched half the length of Lambton Quay, with shoppers stopping in doorways to watch them pass, some breaking into spontaneous applause.

In Auckland, the march began at Britomart Station and went to Victoria Park, where a concert continued until 7pm.

Addressing the crowd at the Auckland march, the co-president of Unite Union Xavier Walsh said the government had failed to deliver the radical change needed to tackle the climate crisis.

“Plans by the opposition, such as to reopen deep sea oil drilling, would make the situation even worse — and that is a shame.

“So I say to the Labour and National parties, I can smell the fossil fuels on your breath!”

Walsh said real change will only come from ordinary people standing together and refusing to accept injustice.

Auckland Transport warned of delays
Auckland Transport said more than 1000 people were expected to march in the city. Public transport users could also expect detours, cancellations and delays.

In Wellington, the protesters marched down Lambton Quay before gathering at Parliament.

Student Breeana was among them.

She told RNZ it was important to protest for a better future.

“Most people in the older generation assume we do it … well, I’ve had a lot of people say you’re just doing this to get out of going to classes.

“We have to grow up with this. This is our future that we’re trying to prepare for and our planet. We don’t have another option.”

Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau was also among them.

She used the opportunity to tell the crowd in order to get climate justice, the right politicians needed to be voted into central government.

“Now I know that your Minister for Climate Change is listening. I know he backs the kaupapa. So my message to you, this year, it is election year.

‘Vote for environment parties’
“So if you can vote, make sure you vote for the parties that put the environment at the top of their priorities.”

Students also gathered near Nelson’s church steps as part of the global climate strike calling for change.

Garin College student Nate Wilbourne said they were demanding transparent and meaningful climate action from decision-makers.

He said the evidence of climate change was clear.

Nate Wilbourne said teenagers had many concerns about the environment.

Climate strikers wanted to see real commitment to achieve climate goals from policy and decision makers, Wilbourne said.

They marched to the Nelson City Council buildings this afternoon to present a letter to Mayor Nick Smith calling for free public transport, he said.

‘This is going to be a climate election’ – Greens co-leader
Labour will have to commit to stronger climate change policy if it wants the Green Party’s support come election 2023, Greens co-leader James Shaw said.

Shaw made the comments to reporters on Parliament’s forecourt after speaking to climate inaction protesters.

“Frankly, this election is going to be a climate change election and it is clear from the experience that we’ve had over the course of the last month that we’re now living in an age of consequences,” he said.

“I think if any political party wants the Greens’ support they’re going to have to come to the table.”

Shaw said he could not imagine a scenario where he would choose to work with the National Party over Labour.

“If you look at National’s track record in the last 20 years on climate change it’s frankly appalling and while they say that they’re committed to the targets we’ve committed to, they’ve actually voted against every single policy we’ve put in place to meet those targets without proposing alternatives.”

Shaw said he hoped everyone, including politicians from all parties, would support stronger climate policy in the wake of terrible weather events.

Cyclone ‘wake up’ call for politicians
“I really hope that if anything, the experience that people have had of the cyclone and the floods in such close proximity will cause politicians to wake up and start to take it seriously and treat it at the level of emergency that it actually is.”

Speaking from Christchurch on Friday, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said the government was making a lot of progress on many of the topics students were striking about.

“Climate change has been at the forefront of the government’s agenda for the past five years and it will continue to be so,” Hipkins told reporters.

“If you look at the emissions reduction plans that we’ve already set out, you can see that we’re making significant progress — of course we’ve still got some heavy lifting to do though, there’s no question about that and the government’s absolutely committed to doing it.”

There was no question we were seeing the effects of climate change here and now, Hipkins said.

“What’s happened with our flooding, with the cyclone, we’re going to see more of these sorts of events, and that just I think underscores to New Zealand how important it is that we do two things: one is that we do everything we can to reduce climate change, the human-induced effects on the climate,” he said.

“The second is that we also look at how we can be more resilient and how we can make sure that we’re adapting to accept that actually there are going to be more of these sorts of events in the future.

‘It doesn’t happen overnight’
“Many of the things that are going to make the biggest difference to our emissions are going to take some time, so when we think about transitioning to more renewable energy use … that doesn’t happen overnight, it requires some hard work and some ongoing work to make that happen.”

On the voting age, he said people should expect to hear something further on the government’s intentions on that soon.

“The courts made a ruling, Parliament now has to consider that, that’s been referred to a select committee for consideration. How the government ultimately responds to that process is something that we will turn our minds to in due course.”

In November last year, the Supreme Court declared the voting age of 18 inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. Any change would require the backing of three quarters of MPs, or a majority vote in a referendum.

New Zealanders on average in 2021 produced 6.59 tonnes of carbon dioxide each — about 40 percent above the world average, according to the Our World In Data Global Carbon Project.

Climate Action Tracker, an international project which rates countries’ efforts towards meeting their climate obligations, ranks New Zealand’s efforts overall as “highly insufficient”.

New Zealand’s farming industry also produces a lot of methane, which though it does not remain in the atmosphere as long as CO2, traps a lot more heat.

‘No time for finger-pointing’
But the country’s small population meant it contributed only about 0.09 percent of the world’s total C02 emissions.

Garner-Randolph said it did not matter that Aotearoa only accounted for a tiny fraction of the world’s emissions.

“Now isn’t the time for finger-pointing and saying, ‘Oh other countries are producing far more emissions.’ It’s our responsibility as global citizens, as players on the global stage, to step up and do our part, no matter how big or small it is.

“And we have incredibly high per capita emissions here in Aotearoa, so although we may be small, we are high individual emitters and that needs to change.”

The last school climate strikes took place in September.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Only people power can ensure genuine enduring progress on climate and people need to know the truth if they are to act on it. For that reason greenwashing is the enemy of progress on climate and where you stand on greenwashing is the Rubicon of our times.

I have spent decades of my life as a climate activist fighting various deliberate forms of climate science denial propagated by climate polluting companies and their allied political parties, politicians, lobby groups and commentators.

The good news is that we have mostly won that battle. The bad news is that they have a new tactic, greenwashing, which is now a major obstacle to progress on climate change. Greenwashing is when businesses or politicians give a false impression, or spin, on their products or policies to give the impression that they have a positive impact on the environment when they don’t.

We now face a new landscape in which even oil companies claim to be doing their bit for the climate with “carbon offsets” and “2050 net zero goals”. Their aim is to stop real action on climate by making people think it is all under control.

One of the jobs of the government is to sort out the real climate actions from the greenwashing, to hold industry to account. And of course, one of the jobs of the government is to not engage in greenwashing themselves.

The problem with some of the actions of the current Aotearoa New Zealand government is that rather than holding business to account for its greenwashing, on some vital climate issues the government is actually a proponent of greenwashing.

This greenwashing is closely linked to a wrong-headed theory of change which we hear repeatedly from this government — the idea that climate issues can only be solved through consensus, especially consensus with the polluters and their representatives. The idea that we can’t make real policy to cut climate pollution without the consent of the polluters and their representatives is dangerous and inconsistent with the history of making change.

There are fundamental conflicts in the climate policy space — some industries will not accept that they need to cut emissions. The attempt to gloss over these conflicts and seek consensus means the government adopts policies that the polluters will accept, and which consequently do not cut emissions. This policy outcome is then sold to the public as a great victory when in truth it is a defeat — it is greenwashed.

Before getting into the specifics of the problems I want to acknowledge that this government has done some good things on climate. The ban on new oil and gas exploration permits was a win, even though it excluded onshore Taranaki and allowed existing permits to be extended.

The cap on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser was a win, even though it is a very high cap which has yet to be enforced. Greenpeace publicly celebrated these wins and congratulated the government on making these decisions, even while pointing out their limitations.

I tried to provide a transparent assessment of the environmental performance of the Ardern government back in 2020. I spent a decade as Green Party co-leader and I know there are wins and losses in politics and that compromise is a reality of politics in a healthy democracy.

But honestly admitted compromise is one thing, and greenwashing is another.

There will always be arguments as to what is an acceptable political compromise. We need to separate the issue of what is an acceptable compromise to enter government from the issue of greenwashing. Determining what is an acceptable compromise for the Greens to join the Labour government is formally a matter of decision for the Green Party and the Labour Party rather than the climate movement.

People like me are entitled to our views of the compromise, but it is the Green Party and the Labour Party that have to decide if it’s worth it. I am not a member of the Green Party or the Labour Party.

The issue of greenwashing, however, is an issue which is of direct and immediate concern for the wider climate movement. This is because when the government sells their policies as great climate advances, when in reality they are not, it misleads the wider public and the climate movement.

People can think they don’t need to push hard on climate because it is under control, when it is not. We then need to spend our time highlighting and explaining why the claimed win is actually spin, rather than campaigning for meaningful action.

This undermines our ability to get more significant progress on climate policy because the power and leadership to get progress on climate (like all other progressive issues) comes from civil society and if civil society is disarmed by greenwashing then climate policy follows dead end paths, stalls or  stops.

But why is greenwashing the biggest challenge the climate movement faces at the moment. How did we get here?

Goals remain unchanged, but tactics evolve
As I mentioned above, the first thing to understand is that climate policy is unavoidably and irrevocably conflictual, and hence political. That is because on the one hand the enduring overarching goal of big climate polluters in the fossil fuel business and industrial agribusiness is to prevent government regulations that will force them to cut their climate emissions.

While on the other hand the climate movement aims for emission cuts to achieve a stable climate.

This is a fundamental conflict globally, and in Aotearoa, and no amount of pseudo consensus can wish this conflict away.

Big climate polluters believe, rightly, that government regulation and pricing to drive emissions reductions threatens their business models and profitability. Other sectors of the economy, such as IT, can more easily adapt to a low carbon future, but those businesses in the industries like coal and synthetic fertiliser can’t adapt, and they intend to fight efforts to cut emissions all the way.

While their goal of preventing government regulation to force reductions in emissions has remained consistent, their tactics to achieve this goal have changed. And it is understanding the way their tactics have evolved that it becomes clear just how problematic the current government’s climate policies have become.

At the beginning the tactic they used was to deny the compelling weight of scientific evidence supporting the theory of human induced climate change. Climate denial was stock in trade for many right wing parties and agribusiness and oil industry lobby groups from the 1990s through to the 2010s.

But after a while that stopped working so they changed tactics to stressing uncertainty especially in the 2000s. They said climate change might be a thing, but there is so much uncertainty so we shouldn’t do anything about it. They played up the nature of scientific inquiry — that theories are not beyond questioning because they are not religious texts — to emphasise uncertainty and the need for delay. It was really just another form of climate denialism.

Billions spent on climate denialism
The polluting industries spent billions promoting climate denialism and uncertainty in order to block government regulation to cut emissions. They bought politicians, public relations firms and sadly some scientists to promote these ideas to delay action on climate. Their ideas were reproduced widely by the conservative commentariat, and many still are.

I spent many years of my life fighting climate denialism and eventually through the efforts of millions of climate activists we (mostly) won the battle against climate denialism. There are now few major governments or corporations or industry lobby groups that rely on climate denialist arguments to block government regulation to cut emissions.

Straight out climate science deniers have been pushed to the margins like Groundswell or the Act Party.

But the goal of the fossil fuel and agribusiness polluters remains consistent — they still want to stop government regulation to cut emissions — so they need a new tactic. And that tactic is greenwashing.

These days the polluters and their representatives say, “yes climate change is a thing” and “yes we should do something about it and you will be happy to know that we are doing something about it.”

Hence, they argue, there is no need for government regulation. Even though they spent the last 30 years blocking every attempt to reduce emissions and even denying climate science, they argue that they now take it seriously and there is absolutely no need for the government to do anything.

And what they are doing is often nonsense like net carbon zero targets in 2050 or buying offshore carbon credits or an industry controlled pricing mechanism like He Waka Eke Noa, or nitrification inhibitors etc. They don’t actually cut emissions in any significant way.

The purpose of greenwashing may seem relatively retail when it is done by a single company to sell stuff to consumers, but at a systemic level the purpose of greenwashing is to head off government attempts to introduce regulations and pricing that will force emission reductions.

There are of course some corporations and governments taking significant actions to cut emissions, but there are also many corporate and government actions that are just greenwashing.

Separating out the genuine climate actions from greenwashing is something that defines the climate politics of our time. And this is why the approach taken by the New Zealand government is so very problematic. People assume that the Climate Minister, especially a Green Party Climate Minister, will not perpetuate greenwashing, and will call it out, but it has not always been the case with James Shaw, and that makes it all the more insidious.

Government greenwashes the biggest polluter: Agribusiness
Which brings us to the problem with the current New Zealand government climate policy. Climate policy in this country mostly boils down to what you are doing about agribusiness emissions (biogenic agriculture emissions alone are about 50 percent of emissions) and transport (20 percent). The rest matters too but if you aren’t tackling these two then you aren’t tackling climate change.

Transport policy has not been great from a climate perspective but here I want to focus on the bigger problem — agribusiness — particularly intensive dairy.

We have had the same Prime Minister and the same Climate Minister for the nearly five years of this government. There have been a plethora of nice sounding climate announcements — the PM said that climate was her generation’s “nuclear free moment”, we’ve had the so-called Zero Carbon Act, a climate emergency declaration, an independent climate commission established, emissions reductions plans, improved nationally determined targets for reduction, signed the global methane pledge etc.

But there is still no effective government policy to cut emissions from agribusiness, by far the biggest polluter.

The problem is not just that the government is doing virtually nothing to cut emissions from agribusiness, the problem is that it is saying that it is taking climate change seriously.

It is equivalent to the Australian government doing nothing about coal or the Canadian government doing nothing about tar sands oil — all while telling us how seriously they take climate change. This is greenwashing and it is dangerous because many people think climate action is happening.

When the claims of meaningful action are fronted by a “nuclear free-moment” Prime Minister and a Green Party Climate Minister – the general observer could be forgiven for trusting that those claims are true.

The evidence that this government has done very little to cut agribusiness emissions is bountiful but let me focus on just one central area — agriculture and the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

Taking government at its word
The government repeatedly tells us that the Emissions Trading Scheme is the most important tool to cut emissions. This is debatable but let us take them at their word.

If it is so important then why, 14 years after the ETS began in 2008, is the biggest polluting sector, agribusiness, still exempt from the ETS? For 14 years agribusiness lobbyists and industry groups such as Federated Farmers and Dairy NZ have successfully fought a battle of predatory delay to stop their sector facing a price on emissions, apparently the most important climate tool.

And every government (Clark, Key, Ardern) has given them exactly what they want — perpetual delay.

When the ETS was passed into law in 2008, the Labour government of the day delayed agriculture’s entry until 2013. A bad start.

At the time, myself and many others argued against the delay but the Clark government wouldn’t budge. The John Key-Bill English National government (2008-2017) that followed, delayed agriculture’s entry indefinitely. From the perspective of agribusiness, delaying is winning, and they were winning.

For a moment in 2017/2018 it looked like the newly elected Ardern government might have the courage of its convictions and that the agribusiness lobby would finally lose its battle to stop climate action.

The Labour-NZ First coalition agreement explicitly committed them to support agriculture’s entry into the ETS at 5 percent of its obligations. With NZ First’s vote secured, there was a Parliamentary majority to bring agriculture into the ETS. Finally.

Backed down under pressure
But then in 2019 the Jacinda Ardern and James Shaw backed down to agribusiness pressure and instead of agriculture facing a price on its emissions they adopted an industry proposal — He Waka Eke Noa.

He Waka Eke Noa was a proposal from agribusiness for a joint government-agribusiness initiative looking at pricing agribusiness climate pollution. In effect He Waka Eke Noa handed over to industry the design of the system to price their own pollution. New Zealand agribusiness was beside themselves with joy.

In time it would become clear that it was not just that industry would design the system, but they would design a system that they would control going forward.

And, the target date for starting pricing was 2025. That was two elections away — 2020 and 2023 —  and the chances of the current ministers still being there was remote. And if they did manage to win in 2020 and 2023, it was almost unheard of for a government to win a fourth term in 2026 so anything implemented in 2025 could be easily undone.

He Waka Eke Noa’s timelines left the industry partying. And as for the politicians, none of them were likely to be around to get the blame when nothing happened either.

In one of the defining moments of this government’s climate inaction, Jacinda Ardern and James Shaw stood next to Dairy NZ and Federated Farmers to launch the five year He Waka Eke Noa project, instead of implementing their own policy of immediately putting agriculture into the ETS.

James Shaw celebrated He Waka Eke Noa and went so far as to say “nothing about us without us” —  that is he used the slogan of the disability advocacy movement to infer that the agribusiness sector shouldn’t be regulated without their consent and agreement. That was a real low point I must say.

Predictably, three years of delay later, in 2022, the final report from He Waka Eke Noa was released detailing a complicated system that would cut agribusiness emissions by less than 1 percent. The headline reduction was higher but that is because it included the reductions that are supposed to come from technologies that don’t currently exist (magic bullets), the reductions that result from the unrelated freshwater regulations, and the reductions that come out of the waste sector.

Incidentally agribusiness has been saying those same magic bullets have been just around the corner for the last 20 years. If you strip out reductions projected to come from magic bullets, freshwater regulations and waste, the emissions reductions from the He Waka Eke Noa pricing mechanism are less than 1 percent. In addition, under the proposal industry would control the mechanism for regulating their own pollution — classic industry capture.

From the industry perspective He Waka Eke Noa was designed to stop government regulation i.e. stop agribusiness going into the ETS. Under criticism from Groundswell, both Federated Farmers and DairyNZ touted their achievement in keeping their industry out of the ETS.

The National Party also voiced its support for the final report. The Climate Minister was a little more muted.

Most people listening to the government talk about He Waka Eke Noa would think that it has been a tremendous success — after all doesn’t the government always say it wants consensus on climate? Whereas in fact its sole success has been to delay government regulation of agribusiness climate pollution — by three years so far — and, even if it were implemented, by its own calculations emissions would be reduced by less than 1 percent.

That is what consensus with polluters looks like and that is the corner that Ardern and Shaw have painted themselves into.

The purpose of greenwashing is to make us think industry is finally taking climate seriously and hence there is no need for government regulation, while in reality very little is happening to cut emissions.

He Waka Eke Noa is a perfect example of greenwashing:

• It looks like industry is taking climate change seriously with media coverage of all their hard work;
• The new scheme, if it is implemented, is controlled by industry, so full industry capture;
• The scheme has almost no impact on actually reducing emissions; and
• Even if, god forbid, the government were to reject He Waka Eke Noa and instead revert to putting agribusiness into the ETS when it makes a decision in late 2022, it is too late for that decision to be fully institutionalised before the next election, so it will be easily removed if there is a change of government in 2023 and not so hard even after the 2026 election. Predatory delay has been such a successful tactic so far for the industry, why change now?

The Glasgow target
The decisions by this government not to cut agribusiness emissions created cascading international problems of perception for the New Zealand government when it was required to offer a new target for emissions reductions at the Glasgow climate conference in November 2021.

The government wanted to look good with an ambitious target (known as a Nationally Determined Contribution) but had few policies to actually cut emissions. Other countries were raising doubts about the government’s climate commitment. The ETS was supposed to do the heavy lifting but, as the Climate Commission admitted recently, under current settings the “NZ ETS is likely to deliver mostly new plantation forestry rather than gross emission reductions”.

The answer was to use the potential future purchase of overseas carbon offsets to present a net target that looked ambitious.

The Climate Minister announced with great fanfare that New Zealand would commit to a 50 percent cut in net emissions below 2005 levels by 2030. NZ paraded its 50 percent target around the Glasgow climate conference. It sounds good until you realise not only does the target use tricky accounting to make it look much larger than it is, but that TWO THIRDS of the emissions reductions would come from buying offshore carbon offsets.

Sorry about the shouty capitals but nothing yells “greenwashing” quite like offshore carbon offsetting. Carbon offsets are notoriously corrupt, open to double counting, and are the carbon equivalent of papal indulgences. They are what you do when you don’t have policy to cut emissions but want to look good.

Yet this is the government’s plan to reach our international climate target — greenwashing. The Climate Commission has urged the government to contract the offsets fast: “It is essential that the government secure access to sources of offshore mitigation as soon as possible”. Instead of, you know, actually cutting emissions.

And just to show the government is not without a sense of humour they signed up to the global methane pledge to cut methane emissions — without a plan to cut methane emissions! In fact, in case industry was worried, when Shaw returned from Glasgow he confirmed that the government would not introduce any new policies to cut methane. Moooo.

But what about the giant climate bureaucratic superstructure?
Faced with this evidence of greenwashing on agribusiness and the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) some people say “what about the Zero Carbon Act”? That proves they are serious doesn’t it? I think that we do need institutional reform to deal with climate, and I’ve pointed to what we need and some of the problems of the Zero Carbon Act before, but it should not be at the expense of immediate climate action.

Much of the government’s climate policy focus in the last five years has been on building an elaborate climate bureaucratic structure. This began with the years-long process to get cross-party support for the Zero Carbon Act, the years-long process to establish the Climate Commission, then there was the years-long processes to build the carbon budgets and the Emissions Reduction Plan.

These structures and processes do look good but they don’t cut emissions – only regulations and policies that cut emissions actually cut emissions. Now you might argue that over time this bureaucratic superstructure will lead to significant emission reductions, and maybe they will, and maybe they won’t, and maybe they can be improved.

The problem is we don’t have years to wonder and hope. We need to have been tangibly cutting actual emissions for the last five years, and cutting them harder over the next five, if we are to play any part in stalling global climate catastrophe.

Spending five years on not implementing much policy to cut emissions, in order to implement a bureaucratic superstructure that might result in emissions cuts down the road if a future government has the courage to use the climate superstructure to implement the policies that this one has not, is plainly not a serious policy to cut emissions. Just implement the policies.

However, in agriculture, our biggest polluter, there is no ambiguity that this climate policy structure has delivered nothing. The Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) has almost nothing to offer except magical technologies that don’t currently exist. The government’s excuse for offering no serious policy on cutting agribusiness emissions in the ERP is, you guessed it, He Waka Eke Noa. Predictably Federated Farmers really liked the Emission Reduction Plan, because it, you know, didn’t reduce agribusiness emissions!

The 2022-23 Budget that followed the ERP allocated $710 million over four years to agribusiness climate initiatives, but it turns out the money is to look for magic bullets to cut emissions. And some of these magic bullets might be worse — recently $11 million was given to research nitrification inhibitors that kill soil biology in order to cut nitrous oxide emissions following the application of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers.

Killing our soils is the exact opposite of what we need to do. The money in the ERP comes from ETS revenue paid by others, because agribusiness is not required to pay into the Emissions Trading Scheme. It is a giant subsidy from everyone else to agribusiness to maintain the pretence of climate action.

It seems a big price to pay to maintain the pretence — it would be a lot cheaper just to paint the cows green.

Some might argue that the climate bureaucratic superstructure may not achieve much in reality, but it is not actually harmful. Sure, the argument goes, this elaborate policy superstructure has wasted lots of time and energy which could have gone into policies that would actually cut emissions, but it is harmless enough.

Well, maybe you’d only think that if you haven’t been following the litigation. Crown Law, the government’s lawyers, are using the Zero Carbon Act etc to actually block climate action in the courts. Here are two quick examples.

In the most recent case against the Energy Minister’s decision to issue more onshore oil and gas exploration permits, the Minister’s lawyers argued that the Zero Carbon Act allowed for more oil and gas exploration and so it was fine. This is in spite of the fact that the world already has more oil and gas reserves than can be burnt to stay under the 1.5 degree guidance that is in the Zero Carbon Act.

Previously climate lawyers have been able to argue that the global situation for oil and gas must be taken into account but now, significantly, under the Zero Carbon Act, the Crown argues you can only consider the New Zealand situation. So the Zero Carbon Act is being used to justify oil exploration and protect it from legal attack by climate activists.

And in a previous case against the Climate Commission, James Shaw’s lawyers argued that the 1.5 degree target in the Zero Carbon Act was only “aspirational” and not binding on the government.

Marc Daalder reported it thus:

“Crown Law counsel Polly Higbee told the High Court references to 1.5 degrees [in the Zero Carbon Act] used “broad, aspirational language” and it would be “too prescriptive” to argue that the purpose section placed any actual duty on the Government.”

No actual duty on the government from the 1.5 degree target in the Zero Carbon Act is what Shaw’s lawyers told the court. Outside the court, when speaking to climate activists, Shaw says that the 1.5 degrees target is binding, but in court, where it matters, his lawyers argue it is not.

It’s hard to think of a clearer example of greenwashing. There were many people in the climate movement who worked hard to deliver the Zero Carbon Act and honestly believed it would be a significant tool to cut emissions, rather than defend oil exploration against legal attack.

The final argument for these bland instruments like the Zero Carbon Act is that we need to get broad political elite consensus on climate to get change. History tells us the opposite. To choose just one example which is close to the PM’s heart — nuclear free.

Nuclear free New Zealand was not a result of a consensus process. It was vociferously opposed by the National Party and its many allies — they voted against the legislation and spoke out against it. Nuclear free NZ was not won by reducing our ambitions to what was acceptable to the National Party and the US State Department.

Thousands of peace and environment activists campaigned for it and the Labour government eventually came round to their position, and stood up to provide leadership. There was no political elite consensus. The reason that the National Party never repealed the nuclear free legislation when they returned to government in 1990 was because of its broad support from civil society, support that resulted from civil society campaigners and a Prime Minister willing to fight for the policy (once he finally came round to it).

Introducing vacuous climate legislation that achieves little, in order to get the National Party to vote for it, is pointless, or worse.

Winning the debate on real climate action is the only way to ensure it sticks, and greenwashing undermines that public campaigning.

Conclusion
During the 2017 election campaign I bumped into Jacinda Ardern in Wellington airport and she told me my job at Greenpeace was to hold her government accountable. I respected her for saying that and I agreed with it, and still do. And so that is what I’m doing.

The government has done some good stuff on climate, but on the really big and difficult climate policy issues they are greenwashing. And the greenwashing has disoriented and weakened the climate movement and meant that we are getting much weaker climate policy out of this government than we would otherwise.

And I refer to Ardern rather than Shaw deliberately because there is an uncomfortable political reality that sits behind all this: Jacinda Ardern makes the climate policy in this government and James Shaw presents it. The first rule of politics is to learn how to count — look at the numbers and you will understand this government — Labour has a simple majority and Shaw isn’t even in Cabinet.

James Shaw may like the climate policy, he may not, I don’t know. He may be the architect of crucial bits of it, or not, I don’t know. He is allowed to say he would like to improve the climate policy, but he cannot speak out against it and keep his job. And once you dwell on that hard political truth, all this makes a lot more sense.

It’s not my job or Greenpeace’s job to say whether that is an acceptable position for the Green Party to find itself in, but it is our job to call out greenwash when we see it. We believe that only people power can ensure genuine enduring progress on climate and people need to know the truth if they are to act on it.

For that reason greenwashing is the enemy of progress on climate and where you stand on greenwashing is the Rubicon of our times.

Dr Russel Norman is executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa and was co-leader of the Green Party for nine years. He resigned from Parliament as an MP in 2015 to take up the Greenpeace position.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A shellshocked Climate Change Minister James Shaw has been ejected from the New Zealand Greens’ leadership by a minority of party delegates and has yet to decide whether he will fight to stay on.

Thirty-two out of 107 delegates voted at the party’s online annual general meeting today to vacate Shaw’s position, more than the 25 percent threshold necessary under the Greens’ rules.

The vote means any Green Party member can now put their name forward for the role over the next week before another vote within five weeks.

Speaking at Parliament this evening, Shaw said he was “inclined” to stand again, but would first seek feedback from his caucus colleagues and the wider membership.

“This is obviously a bit of a surprise. I’ve got to work through a few things,” Shaw said.

“I still got 70 percent of the delegates supporting me and I’ve had quite a lot of supportive messages in the very brief time that the news has been out. But I do want to take some soundings just to get a proper sense check.”

Shaw said he was still processing the outcome and would spend some time with his family tonight.

Fighting the climate crisis
“It is hard when there is a group that’s organising against you. But… I have been so focused on my job as Minister for Climate Change, doing what we need to do to fight the climate crisis, that I really don’t have a lot of time for factional organising.”

Co-leader Marama Davidson — who was reconfirmed by delegates — said she was personally shocked by the action against Shaw.

“I certainly wasn’t expecting this,” Davidson said. “I feel saddened for my friend, as you would feel for anyone who loses their title and role at this time.”

Davidson, though, declined to give a full-throated endorsement of Shaw staying on, saying she would not pre-empt his decision or the party’s. She did say Shaw had “slogged his guts out” in the role.

“I’m simply here to support the work that James has done to date… we’ve been able to keep our support quite well above our election night support numbers.”

Shaw said he had spoken to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern this afternoon and she had confirmed he would retain his position as Climate Change Minister regardless of the leadership decision.

“This is a temporary blip. It does not have any impact on the work that we’re doing as ministers or the work of our MPs,” Shaw said.

Party caucus meeting
The party caucus would meet as usual on Tuesday morning with no current plans to meet before then.

The Green Party constitution was recently changed meaning Shaw’s position could be filled by a person of any gender.

Shaw was elected to the party’s leadership in 2015 after Russel Norman​ announced his retirement.

Last year, Shaw comfortably defeated a challenge to his co-leadership from activist James Cockle. Then, Shaw received 116 votes to Cockle’s four.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Critics of New Zealand’s new $4.5 billion global warming plan to help New Zealanders into electric vehicles and hybrids say a significant cheque for the Clean Car programme is sending the wrong message about the role cars play in the country’s future.

Victoria University of Wellington’s environmental studies Professor Ralph Chapman said — electric or not — cars were still heavy on the wallet and on the environment.

“The sheer carbon emissions associated with running cars, the life cycle of a car and all the infrastructure that goes with it — like highways and more spread-out infrastructure for water and waste water … when you start to add it all up, cars are pretty much a disaster.”

Professor Chapman said there were still carbon emissions that went into making EVs and the like, as well as the emissions involved in importing them to New Zealand.

“The whole model has to change, rather than just encouraging people to go to a slightly more efficient car.”

Professor Chapman said the alternative option of scrapping an old car in return for money towards buying a bike or using public transport was a good move.

Free Fares lobby disappointed
Free Fares, which is lobbying the government to make all public transport free, is also disappointed in the scheme.

A spokesperson for the group said the wider Emissions Reduction Plan was “a continuation of an individualised culture and a focus on car ownership” rather than public transport, “which is what we need”.

Low-income families who scrap their old car will get funding to buy a low-emitting vehicle in a $569 million scheme, one of the big-ticket items in the government’s first Emissions Reductions Plan.

The money will not just be for electric vehicles – it could also help buy an e-bike or could be in the form of public transport vouchers.

But there was very little detail released about the scheme, such as who exactly will be eligible and – critically – how much financial help they would get.

New Zealand’s first Emissions Reduction Plan. Video: RNZ News

A pilot will be rolled out for 2500 households first, before an expansion of the scheme in about two years’ time.

Climate Change Minister James Shaw yesterday said it would follow a similar scheme which was introduced in California.

Those who took part in one scheme there got about $NZ15,000 off the price of a new or second hand EV.

“Notoriously challenging” says MIA
But even if a similar discount was offered here, it would still be costly, and “notoriously challenging”, the Motor Industry Association (MIA) said.

Chief executive David Crawford said the cost of new EV imports started at $40,000 and went upwards of $80,000, whereas used models started at about $20,000.

“If it is a new EV, their prices are quite high; would [eligible people] be able to afford debt servicing the difference? The price gap for a new EV can still be big,” Crawford said.

New Zealand has many old cars still being driven around; they pollute more and aren’t as safe so the MIA said it was supportive of moves to get more of them off the road.

The Motor Trade Association (MTA), which represents mechanics and repair shops, wants the government to go further than the $569m scheme, and roll out a scrappage model for everyone.

Its energy and environment manager Ian Baggott said it would be a challenge for the government to determine the criteria for scrappage.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Deeper and and more rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are needed to limit the worst effects of global warming, a climate scientist has warned.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in a report that global emissions of CO2 would need to peak within three years to stave off the worst impacts.

Without shrinking energy demand, reducing emissions rapidly by the end of this decade to keep warming below 1.5C will be almost impossible, the key UN body’s report said.

Even if all the policies to cut carbon that governments had put in place by the end of 2020 were fully implemented, the world will still warm by 3.2C this century.

At this point, only severe emissions cuts in this decade across all sectors, from agriculture and transport to energy and buildings, can turn things around, the report said.

IPCC vice-chair Dr Andy Reisinger told RNZ Morning Report the world was “pretty much out of time” to limit warming to 1.5C as agreed in Paris in 2015 and subsequently.

“What our report shows is that the emissions over the last decade were at the highest level ever in human history.

“But on the positive side, that level of emissions growth has slowed and globally we’ve seen a revolution in prices for some renewable energy technologies.” That had led to a rapid uptake of solar and wind energy technologies, he said.

“Also policies have grown. About half of global greenhouse gas emissions that we looked at in our report are now covered by some sort of laws that address climate change.”

The report said the world would need “carbon dioxide removal” (CDR) technologies – ranging from planting trees that soak up carbon to grow, to costly and energy-intensive technologies to suck carbon dioxide directly from the air.

Governments had historically seen these technologies as a “cop out” but they were needed alongside reducing emissions,” Reisinger said.

“The time has now run out. If we don’t achieve deep and rapid reductions during this decade, much more so than we’re currently planning to collectively, then limiting warming to 1.5 degrees is out of reach.

“And the world collectively has the tools to reduce emissions by about a half by 2030.”

NZ has ‘squandered 30 years’, says Shaw
Climate Change Minister James Shaw says Aotearoa New Zealand has the political will to tackle climate change but it would have been a lot easier if it had begun decades ago.

“We are one of the highest emitting countries in the world on a per-capita basis and what that means is we’re now in a situation where having essentially fluffed around for three decades the cuts that we need to make over are now far steeper than they would have been.”

“Our country has squandered the past 30 years,” Shaw told Morning Report.

He said the Emissions Reduction Plan to be published next month would set out how the country would reduce emissions across every sector of the economy.

“I think what’s different about the plan that we’re putting out in May is that it’s a statutory instrument”, he said, and was required under the Zero Carbon Act. It would have targets to reduce emissions to the year 2025, 2030 and 2035.

Shaw said measures like the clean car discount scheme were working.

New Zealand’s agricultural emissions had not reduced, he said. This was the year when final decisions would be made on whether agriculture was brought into the Emissions Trading Scheme, and the whole sector was involved in the process.

There were farms up and down the country doing a terrific job on emissions but like every sector there was a “noisy group” which was dragging the chain.

“I think the charge that Groundswell are laying that we are not listening to farmers is ‘total bollocks’, he said.

Shaw noted the IPCC report said 83 percent of net growth in greenhouse gases since 2010 had occurred in Asia and the Pacific — and that New Zealand, Australia and Japan, as a group, had some of the highest rates of greenhouse gas emissions per capita in 2019.

Cut consumer demand
While past IPCC reports on mitigating carbon emissions tended to focus on the promise of sustainable fuel alternatives, the new report highlights a need to cut consumer demand.

Massey University emeritus professor Ralph Sims, a review editor of the IPCC report, said one of the overarching messages is that people needed to change behaviours.

Despite New Zealanders having an attitude that our impact was small, in fact the country had some of the highest carbon emissions per capita, he said.

“We need people to look at their lifestyles, look at their carbon footprints and consider how they may reduce them.”

One of the easiest for the individual was to avoid food waste, he said.

Sims was involved in the transport chapter and said it was a key area for New Zealand.

“It’s the highest growing sector, and makes up for 20 percent of the country’s emissions.”

Faster electric vehicles change
He did not believe the country was transitioning fast enough to electric vehicles, and government assistance needed to be ramped up.

Electric vehicle prices would also reduce over time and a second hand market would make them more affordable, he said.

Sims said New Zealand needed to “get out of coal” and some companies were already reducing their coal demand.

Though New Zealand’s coal industry was small, exploration was still on the table and just last year the Southland District Council granted exploration at Ohai, he said.

Methane emissions need to reduce by a third by 2030, which Sims said is “a major challenge, and highly unlikely” to be achieved in New Zealand.

Victoria University of Wellington professor of physical geography James Renwick said curbing greenhouse gas emissions was still possible, with immediate action.

“The advice from the Climate Change Commission does show that we can peak emissions in the next few years and reduce and get down to zero carbon dioxide hopefully well in advance of 2050,” he said.

“It’s impossible to overstate the dangerous threat we face from climate change and yet politicians and policy makers and businesses still don’t act when everything’s at stake. I haven’t really seen the political will yet but we really need to see action.”

Technologies available at present to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere were not able to operate at the scale needed to make a difference to the climate system, he said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

There is a mood circulating among some New Zealand circles that it would end badly for the Green Party in 2023 should it negotiate a part within a now-powerful Labour-led government.

The argument goes: that should the Greens negotiate roles within the new government, that their voice and policies would be watered down, rendered irrelevant by the large, expanded, Labour Party.

That Labour’s success in being able to govern alone would mean the Green Party’s place and purpose would be seen to be irrelevant.

It boils down to a resistance to govern for fear of being seen as mediocre.

But the counter-argument suggests: should the Green Party bow to the above narrative – to shy away from an opportunity to assert its core environmental and climate policies, to abandon the ability to inject itself into the new Executive Government’s priority policy settings – then it would relegate itself into legislative insignificance and potential political oblivion by 2023.

It would also pay-waste to the ministerial experience, gains and momentum that its members of Parliament established during the 2017-20 term.

It can be argued, the Greens have proven that the Red-Green tag-team works. Unlike Winston Peters’ New Zealand First, the Greens have experienced an increased share of electoral and party list support, despite one-spectacular own goal, and despite being in government as a smaller party within the 2017-20 Labour-led Government.

Redefining MMP history
That is redefining MMP history.

Let’s examine that phenomenon.

Traditional Green support (that withdrew in large numbers during the 2017 election campaign) returned in part in 2020 perhaps to assist their Green Party to survive. The effect: the Green Party avoided the sub-five percent dry horrors and indeed secured a generational-shift with Chloe Swarbrick’s impressive win in Auckland Central.

As such, the Greens have made history, defining a maturing of New Zealand voter behaviour where, as a third party, have increased voter support after presiding over significant ministerial portfolios in partnership with a large party-led government.

The Greens should avoid the cautious, strategic trap. Should the Greens shy away from negotiating, then they will likely commit themselves to a future of legislative irrelevance.

That scenario would see its natural partner party Labour – under Jacinda Ardern, an environmentally and climate change sensitive leader – hoover up good and sound Green Party policy and make it its own.

It appears, Labour does not want to do that.

Consensus building
Labour leader and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern indicated on election night and over the weekend, her wish to embark on consensus building. Her call on Sunday to Greens co-leader James Shaw set out a pathway ahead toward negotiations.

While refusing to get ahead of herself on the elements of discussions between Labour and the Greens, she clearly indicated an intention to develop a consensus around policy, and use common ground as a basis of dialogue.

Those are strong negotiation points that the Green leadership, caucus and membership can leverage from.

Also, both Labour and the Greens share a need to cement in a consensus-driven red-green bloc, a movement of significance, that could reshape Aotearoa New Zealand society, policy-sets, and the political and economic environment for the next two Parliamentary terms.

This was a bloc of significance in determining the make-up of Government in 2017, it played a significant part in Labour’s connection to environmentalism in 2020, and will prove absolutely necessary once Labour’s main opponent, the National Party, re-invents itself to campaign as match fit and as a centre-right cabinet-in-waiting in future election cycles.

This, one get’s a sense, is what drives the Prime Minister’s pursuit of consensus building at a time of absolute power. That, in turn, offers the Green negotiators a powerful lever beyond what the numbers would suggest – ie; mutual interest.

It’s likely, Labour knows the 2020 election result is the zenith of its political successes.

Labour not a broad-tent party
Labour is not a broad-tent party. In Jacinda Ardern, it has exceptional leadership. In Grant Robertson, it has solid, assuring, strategic financial leadership. It has a deep and deepening pool of political talent in ministers that stretch well beyond the top-five.

It has a ministerial line up that now has significant ministerial experience. It has a pool of caucus members ready to express their commitment to Executive Government representations.

One gets the strong sense it is the party, with the politicians, with the policy sets… for this time. Interventionism, Keynesian economics shaped for the 2020 decade, and a government with the energy to get things done.

The most enduring criticism of the Ardern-led government is the pace of incrementalism. And that, is something that the challenges of these times can demand be addressed.

It is also an idiosyncrasy of which the Green Party can challenge with considerable honest broker-ship. One gets a sense that the elements of a unified red-green bloc could well sustain voter enthusiasm through this term and potentially 2023-2026.

Labour’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern’s post-election media stand-ups demonstrate she knows this.

Jacinda Ardern’s wish to build consensus across the centre-centre-left, acknowledges the success of the Green Party’s election campaign. She also has indicated an interest to have discussions with the Maori Party should special votes shore up its election night win in Waiariki.

Cooperation with Māori Party
Her comments appear to signal to Māori that the Ardern-led Labour Party wants to work with, and cooperate with, every Māori  MP that the Māori electorate voters send into Parliament.

So is the host of Green Party MPs really reluctant to join their successes with Labour’s landslide?

It appears not.

While significant debate is occurring within the party’s membership – again that should the Greens enter into a coalition, then that will end badly for them in 2023 – the Green leadership has indicated an eagerness to negotiate.

Co-leaders James Shaw and Marama Davidson have been clear, there is much work yet to do beyond what they achieved during the 2017-20 term (despite New Zealand First’s centre-right hand-break) and are keen to have their ministers and caucus talent play their rightful part.

Additionally, Chloe Swarbrick’s impressive performance winning Auckland Central demands recognition of significance. A strong signal of resolve and commitment to the generation Swarbrick represents, would be to promote her to the executive so as to initiate her to the demands of ministerial politics and governance. One get’s the sense Chloe will become a highly significant element of future governments, and now would be the perfect time for her to engage in that journey.

Meanwhile, after specials, with a slightly expanded caucus (potentially including the impressive activist Steve Abel), the Greens can definitely broker relevancy on party-based constituency issues, principles, while rolling their collective sleeves up to develop policy throughout the term.

Larger slice of research budget
Indeed with a larger slice of a Parliamentary Service research budget, the Green caucus can truly embrace opportunities for fact-based environmental activism, and work with like-minded ministers to get real gains for their voters, members, and Aotearoa New Zealand.

Such opportunity does not call for reticence. In other words, the opportunity is reality, the dangers are, at this time, abstract. With political planning, such perceived dangers can be rendered irrelevant and relegated to very last-century thinking.

After all, voters do vote for a party’s policies on the understanding that should they be able to inject those policies into government then real change will be achieved. To shy away from that democratic mandate would be an abuse of the support that the Green Party has been given.

Selwyn Manning is editor of Evening Report  and a frequent contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Strong team. More jobs. Better economy. So say the National Party’s campaign hoardings. Only thing is, last Sunday’s Newshub-Reid Research poll – which had support for the Labour Party at 60.9 percent and for National at 25.1 percent – suggests the team is not looking that strong at all.

Nor will it be having much to say on jobs or the economy following the general election on September 19 if those numbers are close to the result.

As you might expect, National’s leadership dismissed the poll as “rogue”, saying the party’s internal polling (which hasn’t been publicly released) puts it in a much stronger position.

READ MORE: National gambles on Collins crushing Ardern’s charisma in NZ election

But this latest poll is consistent with three others released since May (June 1, June 25 and July 15). Averaged out, these polls put support for Labour and National at 55.5 percent and 29.1 percent respectively.

[Editor: Yesterday’s 1 News-Colmar Brunton poll put National down to 32 percent while Labour moved up another three points to 53 percent.]

That is quite the gap. Assuming they are broadly accurate, what do they tell us about the state of politics in Aotearoa New Zealand?

The centre is now centre-left
For a start, the political centre appears to be shifting to the left. Across the past four polls, support for Labour and the Greens sits around 62 percent. When nearly two out of three voters in a naturally conservative nation support the centre-left, something is going on.

Correspondingly, as the notional median voter shifts left, parties on the right are being left high and dry. The Reid Research poll put the combined support for National, ACT and New Zealand First at 30.4 percent, a touch under half the level of support for the centre-left.

In 2017, National secured nearly 45 percent of the party vote. Nearly half of that support has bled away – and most of it hasn’t gone to other conservative parties. New Zealand First is on life support; the right-wing ACT party is at 3 percent; and the other centre-right parties (including the New Conservatives, the Outdoors Party and the conspiratorially inclined Advance NZ/Public Party coalition) are well off the pace.

The leadership gap
Then there is the question of leadership. Judith Collins was installed in an attempt to re-establish National’s bona fides as New Zealand’s natural party of government. But she has not had the impact Jacinda Ardern did when she took Labour’s reins several weeks out from the 2017 election.

In fact, while 25 percent of those polled by Reid Research support National, the party’s leader sits at only 14 percent in the preferred prime minister stakes: nearly half of those who would vote National do not rate Collins as the prime minister.

The polling suggests that Collins’s penchant for attack politics is not resonating with voters. She has not been helped by the recent antics of (now departed or demoted) caucus colleagues Hamish Walker, Michael Woodhouse and Andrew Falloon, but the buck stops with her.

National’s default claim of being the better economic manager also took a blow in the most recent poll. Asked who they trusted most with the post-covid economy, 62.3 percent of respondents preferred a Labour-led government and only 26.5 percent a National-led one.

Could we see an outright victory?
Something may be about to happen to the shape of our governments. Under New Zealand’s previous first-past-the-post (FPP) electoral system we saw a string of manufactured governing majorities.

For the better part of the 20th century either National or (less frequently) Labour would win a majority of seats in the House of Representatives with a minority of the popular vote. Indeed, the last time any party won a majority of the popular vote was 1951.

That may be about to change. Since the first mixed member proportional (MMP) election in 1996 we have not had a single-party majority government: multi-party (and often minority) governments have become the norm. That is because MMP does not permit manufactured majorities in the way FPP does. To win an outright majority you need to enjoy the support of a (near) majority of voters.

Labour may be on the verge of doing precisely that. If it does, it will be a very different kind of single-party majority government to those formed after FPP elections.

In 1993, for instance, the National Party formed a single-party majority government on the basis of just 35 percent of the vote. If Labour is in a position to govern alone (even if Ardern looks to some sort of arrangement with the Greens) it will be because a genuine majority of voters want it to.

Rogue poll or outlier on the same trend, Collins has had her honeymoon (if it can even be called that). In a way, though, neither Ardern nor Collins is the real story here. Much can and will happen between now and September 5 when advance voting begins. But something bigger and more fundamental may be going on.

If the pollsters are anywhere near right, New Zealanders will look back at the 2020 election as one of those epochal events when the electoral tectonic plates moved.

Dr Richard Shaw is professor of politics, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz