The chart above shows Aotearoa New Zealand’s exports and imports of coal. First, note that the emphasis is on timing, not absolute amounts; Imports have a different scale to Exports. Essentially, imports have been around 10% of exports.

It’s also important to note that most Aotearoan coal is exported, while coal used to generate electricity at the Huntly power station is mainly imported. These are two different grades of coal. So it is to be not unexpected that coal imports will have been high at the same times that coal exports also have been high.

And it’s important to note that these data are for values of coal, not volumes. Values will be affected by fluctuations in world coal prices and by fluctuations in the $NZ exchange rate. (Increases in coal exports from 2000 to 2002 will have reflected the historically low exchange rate then.)

Coal exports actually increased after the November 2010 Pike River explosion; that coalfield was still in development in 2010.

Generally, from 2005 to 2012 the export expansion reflected the world market; noting dips for the 2008 global financial crisis, with a subsequent export of stockpiled coal in 2009. During that coal boom period, more than half New Zealand’s coal exports were to India. There was a resurgence of coal exports to India at the end of the 2010s’ decade.

The lull in 2020/21 reflected to Covid19 crisis. Again, we see an exporting of stockpiles after the crisis eased. In 2023 coal exports plummeted, probably a mix of falling world demand as well as falling New Zealand supply. This is a good sign for global transitioning away from coal, though China’s domestic production and consumption of coal will be rising as it transitions from petrol and diesel cars to electric cars. China will be happy to be using fewer imported fossil fuels.

On the import side, New Zealand’s demand for coal from 2003 to 2020 seems to have reflected the global trend, and it will have reflected a lack of growth in renewable energy generation during the later years of the Clark-led Labour-led government. It was under National that the big fall in coal imports took place.

Coal consumption in New Zealand stabilised in the mid-2010s, but resurged again in 2018, again under a Labour-led government; although, to be fair, 2018 and 2019 mainly reflect economic growth rather than the new government’s priorities.

Coal consumption at Huntly in recent years also reflects drought, meaning less hydro-generation of electricity. There is likely to be a lull in coal imports over the next few months, given that the hydro lakes are full, and the El Niño weather forecast is for a strong contribution from wind generation.

My sense is that increased use of electric vehicles – and increased charging capacity – will lead to another temporary resurgence in coal imports. The 2023 quasi-recession, engineered by the Reserve Bank, may however lead to some offsetting reductions in energy demand. My guess, though, is that there will be a short-lived consumption boom in Aotearoa in 2024 and 2025, as high interest rates pull in hot-money from overseas, holding up the $NZ exchange rate, and leading to a further ‘blow-out’ in New Zealand’s current account deficit; a 30.6 billion dollar annual deficit (7.6% of GDP), slightly less than the record high of nearly 9% of GDP earlier this year.

I look forward to hearing about the new government’s plans for expanded renewable electricity generation, and hope that these plans will not mean the loss of wild rivers such as the Mokihinui. Time will tell; soon, in 2024. This government needs ‘runs on the board’ – outcomes, not just proposals – if it is to survive beyond 2026.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

New Zealand’s international relations are under new management. And Winston Peters, the new foreign minister, is already setting a change agenda.

As expected, this includes a more pro-US positioning when it comes to the Pacific – where Peters will be picking up where he left off. Peters sought to align New Zealand more closely with the United States under his ‘Pacific Reset’ policy that he launched while serving as foreign minister under Jacinda Ardern’s Labour-New Zealand First coalition government from 2017-2020.

Peters is wasting no time in getting back on the foreign affairs horse.

Just three days after being sworn in as a minster, he gave his first speech on foreign policy at the US Business Summit in Auckland last week.

Peters was lavish in his praise for the US in his address, arguing that Washington had been ‘instrumental in the Pacific’s success’. But he noted that ‘there is more to do and not a moment to lose. We will not achieve our shared ambitions if we allow time to drift.’ Adding that ‘speed and intensity’ would be needed, Peters said ‘the good news is that New Zealand stands ready to play its part.’

The early timing of the speech itself is a sign that New Zealand’s new, yet very familiar foreign affairs minister is unlikely to wait around when it comes to taking major decisions.

It was an important, agenda-setting address.

There were strong hints that New Zealand’s new Government wants to move swiftly when it comes to Wellington’s potential involvement in in ‘Pillar II’ of the AUKUS defence pact that currently involves Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Peters’ disclosed in the Q&A to the speech that he had already talked to Judith Collins, the new defence minister, about New Zealand’s AUKUS stance.

The previous Labour government’s position was that AUKUS remained a hypothetical question while no formal offer existed for New Zealand to join ‘Pillar II’ of the high-level defence pact that currently involves Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

But while playing for time in an election year, the then Prime Minister Chris Hipkins signalled in July that New Zealand was at least ‘open to conversations’ about joining the pact in some form. And Labour’s expedited release of three major defence strategy documents in August, just prior to the election campaign, laid the groundwork for at least formal consideration of involvement in AUKUS.

The reports also paved the way for New Zealand to spend vastly more on its military and to take a more security-focused approach to the Pacific – recommendations that Peters will probably be keen to implement.

Wellington and Washington have been becoming closer since at least November 2010, when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited New Zealand’s capital to sign the ‘Wellington Declaration’. The relatively short agreement served to clear the air after decades of chequered bilateral relations stemming from the Fourth Labour Government’s introduction of a nuclear-free policy in the 1980s.

Going nuclear-free (which prevented visits from US warships) saw New Zealand cast out as a US ally. Washington formally suspended its obligations to Wellington under the ANZUS defence treaty in 1986. But nearly 40 years on, US-NZ relations are rapidly deepening, a trend that has been accelerated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Western concerns over China’s rise in the Indo-Pacific.

Since February 2022, New Zealand has imposed sanctions on Russia, joined US-led groupings such as Partners in the Blue Pacific (PBP) and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and sent its Prime Ministers to successive NATO summits. And in May 2022, Jacinda Ardern visited Joe Biden at the White House, where a 3000-word joint statement called for ‘new resolve and closer cooperation’.

Meanwhile, a string of senior US officials have visited New Zealand just this year, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Kritenbrink and the White House’s Indo-Pacific coordinator, Kurt Campbell (who Joe Biden recently nominated to become his new Deputy Secretary of State).

If New Zealand does join AUKUS, it could spell the effective end of the country’s ‘independent foreign policy’. The ANZUS break-up of the late 1980s, the end of the Cold War and the acceleration of globalisation had allowed New Zealand to free itself from blocs. Wellington talked to anyone and everyone, building solid, trade-focused relations with China and others in the Global South – while not neglecting Western partners, including the United States.

Peters may think the current geopolitical environment justifies a new approach.

If he does, he should prepare for significant pushback. Helen Clark, who was Prime Minister during Winston Peters’ first term as foreign minister from 2005-8, posted on Friday that New Zealand was now ‘veering towards signing up’ to AUKUS despite bipartisan support over decades for the independent foreign policy stance.

This added to criticism from Clark earlier in the year, including in August, when she argued the new defence blueprint showed New Zealand was ‘abandoning its capacity to think for itself & instead is cutting & pasting from 5 Eyes’ partners’.

It should also be remembered that Winston Peters, while undoubtedly powerful and highly experienced, is only one Government minister. The views of Judith Collins – the defence minister – remain unknown in any detail, while the foreign policy positions of Christopher Luxon seem more centrist than radical.

Moreover, with the US now firmly focused on the war between Hamas and Israel – and its own presidential election year fast approaching – it is far from guaranteed that the hypothetical AUKUS question will turn into a concrete one for New Zealand anytime soon.

Moreover, Peters’ initial ministerial comments on New Zealand’s own position towards the Middle East suggest there is plenty of room for nuance. Calling the death toll in Gaza ‘horrific’, Peters welcomed a short-lived extension to the ceasefire on Friday, but called for all parties to ‘work urgently towards a long-term ceasefire’.

And in a radio interview earlier last week, Peters said ‘the ceasefire is not good enough, we’re going to have find a way forward through this and a peaceful solution – that’s what New Zealand and the Western world has got to put its focus on’.  Peters added ‘internationally we need to be talking to people across the political divide who are making sense on this matter’.

Talking to all sides and playing a small role in facilitating a sustainable political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would very much be in keeping with New Zealand’s independent foreign policy approach – and Winston Peters is already speaking out strongly about the war.

With Christopher Luxon passing up on the opportunity to attend COP28 in Dubai at the weekend, Winston Peters will have the chance to make the Government’s first ministerial trip to the Middle East to begin this dialogue. The Gulf states would be a natural starting point for these discussions.

Meanwhile, on Ukraine – the war that helped to speed up New Zealand’s alignment with the US in 2022 – Peters was open to the idea of New Zealand upgrading its military support to Ukraine by sending Kyiv light armoured vehicles (LAVs). While noting that the decision was not up to him alone, he added ‘if we can help we should be doing the best we can’.

Labour had denied a request from Ukraine to provide the LAVs in 2022 and of late had preferred to make financial contributions to Kyiv’s war effort – the most recent being a $NZ4.7 million package announced by Chris Hipkins in July at the NATO leaders’ summit in Lithuania.

It all adds up to a complex picture.

Winston Peters has no shortage of global issues to address.

And there could be some major changes ahead for New Zealand foreign policy.

*******

Geoffrey Miller is the Democracy Project’s geopolitical analyst and writes on current New Zealand foreign policy and related geopolitical issues. He has lived in Germany and the Middle East and is a learner of Arabic and Russian. He is currently working on a PhD at the University of Otago on New Zealand’s relations with the Gulf states.

The COP28 countdown is on.

Over 100 world leaders are expected to attend this year’s UN Climate Change Conference in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which starts next Thursday.

Among the VIPs confirmed for the Dubai summit are the UK’s Rishi Sunak and Brazil’s Lula da Silva – along with King Charles and Pope Francis.

On the other hand, Joe Biden and Xi Jinping are both unlikely to join in – and neither is Australia’s Anthony Albanese.

It remains to be seen which camp New Zealand’s new Prime Minister will fall into. Christopher Luxon is only expected to be formally sworn in as PM on Monday, following the conclusion of several weeks of coalition negotiations to form a new government.

But in theory, this would still leave plenty of time for Luxon to fly to the ‘World Climate Action Summit’ opening event for world leaders, which is being held from December 1-2.

Luxon positioned his National Party firmly in the centre during the election campaign, committing New Zealand to meeting its emissions reductions targets and telling sceptics ‘you can’t be a climate denier or a climate minimalist in 2023’.

Beyond the issue of climate change itself, COP28 would be a valuable initial networking and relationship-forming opportunity for New Zealand’s new Prime Minister. And to some extent, the Dubai gathering would be a make-up affair for Luxon, after he missed the APEC summit in San Francisco in mid-November due to the ongoing coalition negotiations.

It is safe to say that the ongoing war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas will be a major topic of sideline conversations at this year’s COP.

While Luxon missed the chance to meet Xi and Biden at APEC, COP28 would be a good chance for Luxon to hear the views of a range of other world leaders – particularly voices from across the Middle East.

Somewhat surprisingly, New Zealand’s former PM Jacinda Ardern never went to a COP summit during her six years in office. The last time a New Zealand PM was represented was in 2015, when John Key attended COP21 in Paris.

Coincidentally, 2015 was also the year that Key visited the Gulf states on a three-country tour of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE that sought to jumpstart New Zealand’s bid to strike a free trade deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The bloc’s membership also includes Bahrain, Oman and Qatar.

In September, New Zealand’s then Labour government began talks with the UAE on a new bilateral Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement – or CEPA. The CEPA could be a stepping stone to finalising a wider free trade agreement with the GCC that has been in the works since 2006.

With trade opportunities in the Gulf beckoning and no end in sight to the war in Gaza, the Middle East is likely to be higher up the foreign affairs agenda for New Zealand than might have previously been thought.

On the climate front, COP28’s head appointed by host UAE, Dr Sultan al Jaber, has emphasised ‘inclusivity’ as a key plank of this year’s event. Bringing together a wide range of countries around the table, despite deepening geopolitical polarisation driven by the Gaza and Ukraine wars and tensions in the Indo-Pacific, may be the summit’s most impressive achievement.

Israel pledged in July to send a 1000-strong delegation to Dubai, led by both its Prime Minister and President. The size will now be greatly reduced – but, remarkably, Israel is still coming and will still have a pavilion at COP28. While the war has strained relations between the UAE and Israel that were normalised under the Abraham Accords in 2020, diplomatic ties remain in place.

Speaking shortly prior to the outbreak of the war that began on October 7, the UAE’s Ambassador to New Zealand, His Excellency Mr. Rashed Matar Alqemzi, told me in an interview that ‘we are bringing the world together’ and emphasised the welcome being extended by COP28 to women, religious organisations, youth and indigenous peoples.

In New Zealand’s case, this includes Māori, whose role at Expo 2020 in Dubai was ‘greatly valued’ according to Alqemzi. New Zealand’s Iwi Chairs Forum, a coalition of Māori tribal leaders, was given the task of leading a ‘Festival of Indigenous and Tribal Ideas’ during the Expo. Two years on, COP28 will be held on the same Expo 2020 site on Dubai’s southern fringe.

The aim for ‘full inclusivity’ is more controversial, however, when it refers to the involvement of oil companies and their executives at the summit – including Dr Sultan Al Jaber himself, who also heads the UAE’s state-owned oil company, ADNOC.

Since he was given the role in January, Al Jaber’s appointment has frequently been criticised by climate campaigners, with one likening it to putting a tobacco company in charge of the World Health Organization.

The counter-argument – as put by Al Jaber himself in a speech to oil company executives in October – is that fossil fuel producers are ‘central to the solution’ and need to stop ‘blocking progress’.

While these words are unlikely to convince campaigners who see greenwashing, there is some cause for optimism ahead of COP28.

A recent agenda for the summit released by Al Jaber called for a ‘responsible phase-down of unabated fossil fuels’ – a reference to the burning of oil, gas and coal without the use of carbon capture technology.

The call to ‘phase-down’ the use of at least some fossil fuels altogether represents a small, yet significant shift from earlier this year, when Al Jaber was called out by former UN climate head Christiana Figueres for speaking merely of ‘phasing out fossil fuel emissions’.

On the other hand, ‘phase-down’ is weaker than the total ‘phase-out’ language used by a recent UN report and agreed upon by the EU as its negotiating position for COP28.

The debate over phasing-down vs. phasing-out is unlikely to go away any time soon.

The need for speed has to be balanced with fairness – especially for the world’s poorest.

In his agenda, Al Jaber called for global emissions reductions of 22 gigatons – almost half the current level – by 2030, but also for a ‘just energy transition’ that ensures energy supplies remain affordable and reliable to all.

Threading this needle will not be easy.

Some parallels might be drawn with New Zealand’s own attempts to reduce agricultural emissions, which make up half of the country’s greenhouse gases – mainly due to the methane produced by livestock.

After originally pledging to bring farming into the country’s Emissions Trading Scheme, Jacinda Ardern’s Labour-led Government agreed in 2019 to work with industry groups on an alternative pricing model and technologies to reduce agricultural emissions.

A deal was announced at the end of 2022, but it collapsed this year with key industry players and Christopher Luxon’s National Party withdrawing their support. Now in Government, National is delaying the introduction of a pricing system until 2030 – well beyond Sultan Al Jaber’s deadline for action.

At the global level, agriculture is a small contributor when it comes to emissions.

By far the lion’s share comes from the burning of fossil fuels – oil, gas and coal.

While the Gulf may be looking to a future beyond oil – and focusing on education, services and technology – the fact remains that there are plenty of players with a lot to lose and everything to gain from delaying the decarbonisation process.

New Zealand’s chequered experience with a joint government-industry effort to reduce agricultural emissions may offer a salutary lesson.

Keeping everyone at the table is harder than it looks.

Still, it is worth keeping the bigger picture in mind.

Al Jaber’s drive for inclusiveness is very much in keeping with the UAE’s current overall foreign policy stance.

Despite pressure from Western capitals, Abu Dhabi has steadfastly maintained relations with Moscow since Russia invaded Ukraine – and the UAE has resisted the temptation to cut its newly forged diplomatic ties with Israel, despite overwhelming backing on the ‘Arab street’ for the Palestinian cause.

Meanwhile, with COP28 just around the corner, Ambassador Alqemzi says his message for the summit’s critics is ‘let’s see what the UAE will do – and then we can talk again’.

It is a pivotal time for the Middle East.

Christopher Luxon could learn a great deal in Dubai.

*******

Geoffrey Miller is the Democracy Project’s geopolitical analyst and writes on current New Zealand foreign policy and related geopolitical issues. He has lived in Germany and the Middle East and is a learner of Arabic and Russian. Disclosure: Geoffrey attended the recent Global Media Congress in the UAE as a guest of the organisers, the Emirates News Agency.

Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka was welcomed to the New Zealand Parliament yesterday while on his first official trip to Aotearoa since being elected as PM in December.

New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins announced just over NZ$11.1 million in climate change support for Fiji.

Hipkins said he had “an inspired discussion” with Rabuka on how they could further cooperate on combating the effects of climate change.

He said it remained the single greatest threat to lives and livelihoods in the Pacific region.

Rabuka welcomed the finance boost saying it would support the implementation of renewable energy projects, infrastructure resilience, and climate policy.

Hipkins noted both nations regularly collaborated on climate disasters.

“I want to take this opportunity to publicly thank Fiji for their defence and emergency personnel assistance following Cyclone Gabrielle,” Hipkins said.

‘Long-standing links’
“We are connected by long-standing people-to-people, sporting, economic and cultural links, and through the Fijian communities who have made New Zealand their home.

“We are connected by the depth of our cooperation across a broad range of sectors including defence, policing, health, trade and industry, education, fisheries, climate change and disaster management to name a few.

“I know that New Zealand and Fiji, alongside other Pacific Island Forum leaders, share an ambitious vision for the social, cultural and environmental economic resilience of the region where we are strong, prosperous and secure.

“We know we are stronger when we combine our efforts and focus on Pacific regionalism and the priorities of the Blue Pacific continents.”

In response, Rabuka acknowledged the traditional owners of the land and paid respect to elders past and present.

He said his visit was to discuss ways forward for both countries, following covid-19.

“Exactly a month ago, the WHO declared covid-19 over as a global health emergency. Seven million deaths later, the global economy is still recovering,” Rabuka said.

‘Serious’ about Fiji economy
“The people’s coalition government that I lead is serious about growing our economy and my engagement here reflects that.”

He said the Fiji government was keen to work harder to boost its export capacity to New Zealand and pleased to see bilateral relations had continued to strengthen over the years.

On Monday, Rabuka met the Fijian community in Auckland and the following night community members in Wellington.

The official visit also comes 25 years after Rabuka last visited the country in an official capacity when he was previously Prime Minister.

The visit is also signifcant for the Fijian community as they had welcomed a Fiji prime minister for the first time in 16 years.

More than 500 Fijians in Auckland turned up to the Mahatma Gandhi Centre to welcome Rabuka and his wife, Sulueti, where they were accorded a full traditional welcome ceremony.

Community thanked for support
Rabuka thanked the community for its ongoing support for Fiji.

“You have left Fiji but continue to play an important role in Fiji. Thank you for keeping Fiji in your lives,” he said.

Rabuka informed the community that their financial support had contributed greatly as Fiji battled its unprecented economic crisis, with the World Bank reporting its debt levels reaching 90 percent of GDP last year.

In 2022, Fiji received more than F$1 billion in remittances which prove to be a saving grace during the height of the pandemic which caused great financial strain for Fijians.

Rabuka spoke about the success of national events such as Girmit Day and the reconvening of the Great Council of Chiefs and Ratu Sukuna Day.

President of the Fiji Girmit Foundation Krish Naidu thanked Rabuka for honouring his promise to the community.

Girmitiya holiday promise
“When the Prime Minister visited us last year, we asked for a public holiday to mark the contributions of the Girmitiyas, and told us if he made [it into] government he would do that.

“He lived up to his words. He is an honourable man.”

Naidu added that Rabuka’s visit was extremely crucial to the Fijian community.

“We look forward to this week with the Prime Minister building the much-needed aroha, loloma, and love between Fiji and NZ, which has been lost for 16 years,” he added.

The Fiji Prime Minister returns to Fiji today.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Vanuatu is in celebration mode after winning a significant battle on the world stage over climate change.

In a United Nations resolution spearheaded by Vanuatu, the world’s top court will now advise on countries’ legal obligations to fight climate change.

It also means the International Court of Justice can advise on consequences for those countries which do not comply. The resolution was passed overnight on Wednesday.

Vanuatu Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau was ecstatic. He was in New York for the vote.

He called it a “historic resolution” and the beginning of a new era in multilateral climate co-operation.

“I celebrate today with the people of Vanuatu who are still reeling from the devastation from two back-to-back cyclones this month caused by the fossil fuels and greenhouse emissions that they are not responsible for,” he said.

His country is still picking up the pieces from Cyclone Judy and Cyclone Kevin, which struck within a couple of days of each other earlier this month.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta has been in Vanuatu looking at what support New Zealand can give — and ensuring help gets to those who need it.

She has witnessed first-hand the climate challenge that the people are facing. Mahuta said New Zealand had supported Vanuatu’s drive to get the UN resolution across the line.

NZ’s Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta . . . “”We have to acknowledge Vanuatu’s leadership.” Video: 1News

“We have to acknowledge Vanuatu’s leadership,” Mahuta told 1News.

“It’s not really the size of the country, but it’s the size of the vision, and Vanuatu’s voice has clearly put front row centre an aspiration to have the ICJ recognise the impacts of climate change on vulnerable countries.”

Accompanying New Zealand’s delegation is a 10-member Pasifika Medical Association PACMAT team. They will be based at the Aotearoa-funded Mindcare Mental Health facility for the next 28 days helping those traumatised by the two cyclones.

New Zealand has announced $12 million to add to a funding pool for the region to help people get back on their feet quicker after the disaster.

In Vanuatu, New Zealand is offering $18.5 million for a clean drinking water project, $4 million for tourism recovery and $3 million for general budget support.

Barbara Dreaver is 1News Pacific correspondent. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The recent climate talks in Egypt have left us with a sobering reality: The window for maintaining global warming to 1.5 degrees is closing fast and what is on the table currently is insufficient to avert some of the worst potential effects of climate change. The Nationally Determined Contribution targets of Asian and Pacific countries will result in a 16 per cent increase in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 from the 2010 levels. 

The Sharm-el Sheikh Implementation Plan and the package of decisions taken at COP27 are a reaffirmation of actions that could deliver the net-zero resilient world our countries aspire to. The historic decision to establish a Loss and Damage Fund is an important step towards climate justice and building trust among countries.

But they are not enough to help us arrive at a better future without, what the UN Secretary General calls, a “giant leap on climate ambition”. Carbon neutrality needs to at the heart of national development strategies and reflected in public and private investment decisions. And it needs to cascade down to the sustainable pathways in each sector of the economy. 

Accelerate energy transition

At the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), we are working with regional and national stakeholders on these transformational pathways. Moving away from the brown economy is imperative, not only because emissions are rising but also because dependence on fossil fuels has left economies struggling with price volatility and energy insecurity.

A clear road map is the needed springboard for an inclusive and just energy transition. We have been working with countries to develop scenarios for such a shift through National Roadmaps, demonstrating that a different energy future is possible and viable with the political will and sincere commitment to action of the public and private sectors. 

The changeover to renewables also requires concurrent improvements in grid infrastructure, especially cross-border grids. The Regional Road Map on Power System Connectivity provides us the platform to work with member States toward an interconnected grid, including through the development of the necessary regulatory frameworks for to integrate power systems and mobilize investments in grid infrastructure. The future of energy security will be determined by the ability to develop green grids and trade renewable-generated electricity across our borders. 

Green the rides

The move to net-zero carbon will not be complete without greening the transport sector. In Asia and the Pacific transport is primarily powered by fossil fuels and as a result accounted for 24 per cent of total carbon emissions by 2018.

Energy efficiency improvements and using more electric vehicles are the most effective measures to reduce carbon emissions by as much as 60 per cent in 2050 compared to 2005 levels. The Regional Action Programme for Sustainable Transport Development allows us to work with countries to implement and cooperate on priorities for low-carbon transport, including electric mobility. Our work with the Framework Agreement on Facilitation of Cross-border Paperless Trade also is helping to make commerce more efficient and climate-smart, a critical element for the transition in the energy and transport sectors.

Adapting to a riskier future

Even with mitigation measures in place, our economy and people will not be safe without a holistic risk management system. And it needs to be one that prevents communities from being blindsided by cascading climate disasters. 

We are working with partners to deepen the understanding of such cascading risks and to help develop preparedness strategies for this new reality, such as the implementation of the ASEAN Regional Plan of Action for Adaptation to Drought.

Make finance available where it matters the most

Finance and investment are uniquely placed to propel the transitions needed. The past five years have seen thematic bonds in our region grow tenfold. Private finance is slowly aligning with climate needs. The new Loss and Damage Fund and its operation present new hopes for financing the most vulnerable. However, climate finance is not happening at the speed and scale needed. It needs to be accessible to developing economies in times of need.

Innovative financing instruments need to be developed and scaled up, from debt-for-climate swaps to SDG bonds, some of which ESCAP is helping to develop in the Pacific and in Cambodia. Growing momentum in the business sector will need to be sustained. The Asia-Pacific Green Deal for Business by the ESCAP Sustainable Business Network (ESBN) is important progress. We are also working with the High-level Climate Champions to bring climate-aligned investment opportunities closer to private financiers.

Lock in higher ambition and accelerate implementation

Climate actions in Asia and the Pacific matter for global success and well-being. The past two years has been a grim reminder that conflicts in one continent create hunger in another, and that emissions somewhere push sea levels higher everywhere. Never has our prosperity been more dependent on collective actions and cooperation. 

Our countries are taking note. Member States meeting at the seventh session of the Committee on Environment and Development, which opens today (29 November) are seeking consensus on the regional cooperation needed and priorities for climate action such as oceans, ecosystem and air pollution. We hope that the momentum begun at COP27 and the Committee will be continued at the seventy-ninth session of the Commission as it will hone in on the accelerators for climate action.

In this era of heightened risks and shared prosperity, only regional, multilateral solidarity and genuine ambition that match with the new climate reality unfolding around us — along with bold climate action — are the only way to secure a future where the countries of Asia and the Pacific can prosper. 

*******

Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is an Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

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

As the Second Global Ocean Conference opens today in Lisbon, governments in Asia and the Pacific must seize the opportunity to enhance cooperation and solidarity to address a host of challenges that endanger what is a lifeline for millions of people in the region.

If done right ocean action will also be climate action but this will require working in concert on a few fronts.

First, we must invest in and support science and technology to produce key solutions. Strengthening science-policy interfaces to bridge practitioners and policymakers contributes to a sound understanding of ocean-climate synergies, thereby enabling better policy design, an important priority of the Indonesian Presidency of the G20 process. Additionally policy support tools can assist governments in identifying and prioritizing actions through policy and SDG tracking and scenarios development.

We must also make the invisible visible through ocean data: just three of ten targets for the goal on life below water are measurable in Asia and the Pacific. Better data is the foundation of better policies and collective action. The Global Ocean Accounts Partnership (GOAP) is an innovative multi-stakeholder collective established to enable countries and other stakeholders to go beyond GDP and to measure and manage progress towards ocean sustainable development.

Solutions for low-carbon maritime transport are also a key part of the transition to decarbonization by the middle of the century. Countries in Asia and the Pacific recognized this when adopting a new Regional Action Programme last December, putting more emphasis on such concrete steps as innovative shipping technologies, cooperation on green shipping corridors and more efficient use of existing port infrastructure and facilities to make this ambition a reality.

Finally, aligning finance with our ocean, climate and broader SDG aspirations provides a crucial foundation for all of our action. Blue bonds are an attractive instrument both for governments interested in raising funds for ocean conservation and for investors interested in contributing to sustainable development in addition to obtaining a return for their investment.

These actions and others are steps towards ensuring the viability of several of the region’s key ocean-based economic sectors, such as seaborne trade, tourism and fisheries. An estimated 50 to 80 per cent of all life on Earth is found under the ocean surface. Seven of every 10 fish caught around the globe comes from Pacific waters. And we know that the oceans and coasts are also vital allies in the fight against climate change, with coastal systems such as mangroves, salt marshes and seagrass meadows at the frontline of climate change, absorbing carbon at rates of up to 50 times those of the same area of tropical forest.

But the health of the oceans in Asia and the Pacific is in serious decline: rampant pollution, destructive and illegal fishing practices, inadequate marine governance and continued urbanization along coastlines have destroyed 40 per cent of the coral reefs and approximately 60 per cent of the coastal mangroves, while fish stocks continue to decline and consumption patterns remain unsustainable.

These and other pressures exacerbate climate-induced ocean acidification and warming and weaken the capacity of oceans to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Global climate change is also contributing to sea-level rise, which affects coastal and island communities severely, resulting in greater disaster risk , internal displacement and international migration.

To promote concerted action, ESCAP, in collaboration with partner UN agencies, provides a regional platform in support of SDG14, aligned within the framework of the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030). Through four editions so far of the Asia-Pacific Day for the Ocean, we also support countries in identifying and putting in place solutions and accelerated actions through regional dialogue and cooperation.

It is abundantly clear there can be no healthy planet without a healthy ocean. Our leaders meeting in Lisbon must step up efforts to protect the ocean and its precious resources and to build sustainable blue economies.

*******

Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is an Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

Earlier this week the final report from the IPCC (press release) on climate change was released. While it indicates that it is still technically possible to limit global warming to 1½ degrees; such an outcome is both unlikely and may require more than lots of trees to pull excess carbon from the atmosphere.

While climate change is a major ‘existential’ issue – and may prove to be the most important of such issues – it is hard to focus on it at the moment, with two other more immediate existential issues facing us, neither of which are going to go away in a convenient manner: pestilence, and Putin. (Covid19 is only the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of the broader pestilence issue, which was unleashed into our consciousness in 2020; the wider issue relates to the socioeconomic causes and consequences of disease, and other forms of contagion – which are not viral in the microbiological sense.)

There are three determinative options re climate change: prevent, adapt, and hope. These are not mutually exclusive; we (humankind) can and should seek to do all three. But these options represent three different emphases of action or inaction.

Hope

This is not about hoping that the science of carbon gas emissions, global warming and climate change is wrong. Instead it is about gaining a better understanding of what science is and is not, and about the ‘stochastic’ nature of all prediction; including (indeed especially) scientific prediction, which is based on an incomplete and evolving knowledge base.

‘Stochastic’ means that there is a range of statistically possible outcomes, even if our knowledge of the present and past (‘the science’) could be perfect. The ‘unmodified future’ is based on the midpoint of a range of projections (or predictions). If accurate (ie unbiassed), there is a fifty percent chance that the outcome will be ‘worse’ than predicted, and a fifty percent chance that the outcome will be ‘better’ than predicted.

Thus, we may hope that – in the absence of any substantial global or national policy initiatives – the climate change outcome will be substantially better, by pure chance, than the midpoint prediction. Aligned with this, we may hope that, by chance, future scientific discoveries will lead to favourable modifications of our present range of predictions.

As a rough ballpark estimate, I would suggest that the chances of a fortunate outcome following a strategy of inaction might be around five percent; maybe even ten percent. On the opposite extremity of this probability spectrum there would be a similar five to ten percent chance of a truly catastrophic outcome (eg similar to the sea-level impact of Canada’s Laurentide ice sheet melting, just over 10,000 years ago).

Prevent

Assuming the current midpoint scientific prediction, there are – it is argued – policy options that must be implemented in the early 2020s that would lead to a midpoint outcome which falls within the ‘acceptable range’ of 1½ degrees of global warming. (Note that, if we bring this midpoint prediction just to the cusp of the 1½ degree threshold, there is still a fifty percent change of breeching that threshold in practice.)

The question here is: What is the chance that the required political interventions will take place? Given our track record so far – and given the noted existential distractions – the chance that correct and sufficient interventions will take place is about one in a million. Possible, yes, but highly improbable.

This does not mean that preventative policy strategies should not take place; such strategies could increase the chance of a hopeful outcome (eg to twenty percent), and diminish the chance of a truly catastrophic outcome (eg to two percent).

Important in this context is that we may need to adopt a ‘lesser evil’ strategy. And the most important such strategy – increasingly discussed – is a nuclear power strategy.

(Another possible strategy, or even complementary to nuclear power expansion, would be for people to increasingly settle in sunny environments near coasts – including desert environments – whereby solar power could be abundant, and water supplies would be extracted via solar-powered desalination of sea water. This would mean less human encroachment on good farmland, and possibly an increased reliance on urban-hydroponic ‘market-gardening’ for food supplies. And, similar renewable technology could facilitate the development of technologically-advanced hybrid shipping to enhance the supply chain. ‘Hybrid’ could include a greater role for wind, solar, and uranium as fuels for freight transport.)

Nuclear power is clearly a classic example of a ‘lesser evil’. There are well-understood risks of catastrophic accidents with very long-lasting environmental impacts. Further, nuclear power plants are obvious military targets, making it possible to conduct nuclear war without the use of nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, we (in the west) have been lax in developing nuclear technology in ways which minimise such risks. This is despite that fact that nuclear fuels – especially uranium – are less concentrated (than oil and gas) in politically problematic countries such as Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

China has been less lax. Indeed China, for all its faults, has probably actually done more to decarbonise the earth than any other polity. First, through its post-1980s’ industrialisation, it has enabled much deindustrialisation to take place in the west. This is significant. Second, China has not been afraid to do the research and development work required to bring about twenty-first century nuclear technology, as well as solar and wind generation.

The west can work with China. To some, such cooperation would fall into the ‘lesser evil’ category. The west could start by cutting back on the excesses of ‘political gaslighting’ of China that have been increasing in recent years.

I read the following in the New Zealand Listener (12 March 2022) in a story titled ‘Sino things to come’: “China is happy with nuclear reactors, with 54 of them producing power and another 14 under construction. It has built a new kind of reactor, which doesn’t run on uranium but on thorium. This weakly radioactive metallic chemical element has the potential to produce safer and cheaper nuclear energy while generating a much smaller amount of long-lived radioactive waste.”

This is the kind of initiative that Germany, for example, should and could have been undertaking; instead of becoming reliant on Russian gas while supposedly both decarbonising and denuclearising. What has happened is that Russia has ‘played Germany’, Russia’s greatest historical rival. Whatever happens in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin has already defeated Angela Merkel in his politico-economic gamesmanship. And this ‘victory’ of Putin is as much a part of the west’s problem in dealing with him today as is his possession of ‘weapons of mass destruction’. Germany is dependent on Russia.

Just about anything we can do to tilt the odds away from environmental catastrophe can be a good thing; albeit with the understanding that replacing one scenario of catastrophe with another less probable scenario of catastrophe should be undertaken with eyes open.

Adapt

As noted, the probability that our climate-change political target will be met is probably about one in a million. (Anything that helps is better than nothing, of course, though bearing in mind that unintended consequences from political actions – possibly arising from wilful blindness – can undermine the overall success of political interventions.)

Thus, we must adapt to the environmental consequences of our past, present and likely future ‘bad habits’. A commitment to adaption need not undermine preventative policies; it need not be a case of either/or. Adaption strategies should not be seen as acknowledgement of political failure; rather they represent survival realism. Further, the ‘expected investment return’ on a pure adaption strategy would most likely be substantially higher than the expected return on a pure prevention strategy.

We need to learn how to live in, and insure ourselves in, a warmer and stormier world. An important part of this will be indirect, enabling a more equitable world in which it is in the interest of everyone to look to the future as well as to subsist in the present. Further, if we as free(ish) agents are given sufficient autonomy, we can make better choices without looking to governments to make those choices for us. Such ‘civil society’ choices can facilitate a lessening of climate change as well as adaptation to it.

Adaptation to climate change is a mitigation, a lesser evil. Elimination of a problem is clearly better than having to live with a problem. Nevertheless, that’s how life works. Through realism. Our lives are imperfect. Yet we survive, by making difficult trade-offs and by performing practical balancing acts.

————-

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

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

The IPCC Working Group II report on climate impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability says man-made climate change is causing unprecedented damage to the natural environment and the livelihoods of billions of people.

It also says global warming is set to rise beyond 1.5 deg C by 2040 unless the world commits to drastically reduce its carbon emissions from the use of fossil fuels.

For nations on the frontlines in the Pacific the consequences will be disastrous with an increase in climate hazards such as sea-level rise, more frequent and severe extreme weather events including flooding, and droughts.

350 Pacific Climate Warriors council of elders member Brianna Fruean says the findings in the report are not new for the region.

Fruean is a prominent youth voice in international climate advocacy and spoke to RNZ Pacific’s regional correspondent Kelvin Anthony about what the report means for Pacific people.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

After a series of tense huddles, more than 24 hours into overtime, the gavel went down on a climate deal in Glasgow, Scotland, last night.

The Glasgow Climate Pact refers to coal for the first time in the UN process. It asks countries to come back with stronger climate plans in 2022.

And it finalises the most contentious elements of the Paris Agreement rulebook, six years after the landmark deal was done.

What it doesn’t do is meet calls for climate reparations, to the dismay of developing countries, especially in the Pacific.

A proposal for a finance facility to help victims of the climate crisis was quashed by the US and other rich nations, as was a call to earmark a share of carbon trading revenues to fund adaptation.

Addressing the plenary before the text was adopted, US Climate Envoy John Kerry said: “There is some discomfort. Well, if it’s a good negotiation, all the parties are uncomfortable. This has been a good negotiation.”

For China, India and big emerging economies, the compromise was accepting language around 1.5C, coal and fossil fuel subsidies despite concerns that such restrictions could inhibit their development — and a grievance against developed countries taking up most of the carbon budget.

India forces concession
India’s Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav forced a concession at the last minute, getting a reference to the “phase-out” of coal power changed to “phase-down”.

Tina Stege, of the Marshall Islands, told the plenary of her “profound disappointment” about the change.

“We accept this change with the greatest reluctance. We do so only because they are critical elements in this package that people in my country need as a lifeline for their future,” she said.

COP26 president Alok Sharma said: “I apologise for the way this has unfolded and I am deeply sorry.”

Pausing to fight back tears, he continued, to applause from the crowd, “I think it is vital that we protect this package” before, hearing no objections, he banged down the gavel.

Vulnerable countries also expressed dismay at the incremental progress on scaling up funding to respond to the impacts of climate change. They had to make do with a body to provide technical assistance and a “dialogue” on loss and damage.

Before the plenary started on Saturday afternoon Kerry and veteran US climate lawyer Sue Biniaz roamed the meeting hall. Their longest and most animated discussions were in a huddle with Ahmadou Sebory Toure, the lead negotiator for the G77+China group of developing countries.

‘Betrayal of people, planet’: World reacts to COP26 climate pact https://t.co/WRPMkN8gbp

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) November 14, 2021

Emerging empty handed
Yet Toure appeared to emerge empty handed. A source in the G77 said the African group had threatened to reject the package, but small islands talked them down.

Speaking in the meeting, while Biniaz pored over texts, Gabon’s Environment Minister Lee White said one of Africa’s red lines had “been rubbed out with no compromise”.

“The [African Group] is quite unhappy,” the source said. “Aosis [group of small island states] managed to convince the rest of the blocs to revisit the issue in Egypt. For now, they believe this is the best deal we can have out of COP.”

After the meeting, Kerry strode over to Toure and they exchanged a fistbump before walking off talking with Kerry’s arm around Toure’s shoulder.

The UK presidency’s stated aim for the conference was “to keep 1.5C alive”, referring to the most ambitious global warming limit in the Paris Agreement.

Announcements last week including India aiming for net zero by 2070 and a widespread agreement to reduce methane emissions led the traditionally cautious International Energy Agency to say that global warming could be held to 1.8C.

Climate Tracker caution
Others urged caution. Climate Action Tracker projected current policies put the world on a path to 2.7C warming and strengthened emissions targets for this decade could bend the curve to 2.4C.

More optimistic assessments rely on long term — and therefore uncertain — targets.

The carbon trading rules agreed in Glasgow, while stricter than some parties wanted, risk diluting ambition, critics warned.

“We have much to do to stop companies and countries gaming the system,” said Rachel Kyte, co-chair of an initiative to boost the integrity of voluntary carbon markets. “We have no room or time for markets like buckets of water, with 100 tiny holes.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Prime Minister James Marape has defended the massive cost of sending a 62-strong delegation to the COP26 Climate Summit in Scotland as “justified”. However, following a controversy over the K5.8 million (NZ$2.03 million) bill for the travel late last week, the Post-Courier responds with this editorial. 

Prime Minister James Marape told the media yesterday that the gains from the country’s attendance at the current COP26 Climate Summit in Glasgow, Scotland, will far outweigh the cost of attending.

But if we are being true to the essence of COP, are we really there to find solutions to climate change?

Marape said “the benefits from COP26 will outweigh the cost” in direct response to this newspaper questioning the decision to send a 62-member delegation to the current 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference — that is the long version of COP26 for those who have been wondering.

The Post-Courier, through sources it considers reliable, found that the trip while regionally and globally important, involved sending one of the largest delegations ever assembled by this or any other country to a global climate meet.

Also disconcerting was the fact that this would no doubt have to have cost a fortune – this is after taking into account the usual accommodation, logistics, travelling allowances and all the other bells and whistles that go with such grand displays of Papua New Guinean interest.

Now, Marape has come back with a rather lengthy statement informing the media and thus our consumers of the reasons why the large delegation to Scotland was warranted.

His firm assurance to us is basically that PNG will reap the harvest from this COP26 meet and that naysayers and soothsayers alike should not worry about the costs involved in the country’s participation at the climate event.

PM’s stand on COP26 meeting
That is our Prime Minister’s stand on the matter and for all intents and purposes we are bound to accept it for what it is and give him and our government the benefit of the doubt.

Marape has told us that a COP26 outcomes report and correlating implementation matrix shall be made known to the public in the near future and we shall hold him to his word.

But what concerns us as a newspaper for the people, is the fact that the international community is abuzz with disdain towards the current and on-going COP26 climate meet that PNG seems so interested in.

It would seem while we as a country are in Glasgow for the good of the nation, we are missing the very essence of what the climate meeting is all about.

All major news agencies around the world have reported that COP26 cannot in good conscience hold any real representative climate change talks because most countries that are most affected by climate change remain absent this year.

CNN reported over the weekend that the “Most Affected People and Areas regions” (MAPA), have a distinct lack of advocacy at this COP26.

A third of Pacific islands have announced they are unable to send senior delegations for the first time in COP history.

Small nations least responsible
These nations, Small Island Developing States (SIDS), are the least responsible for climate change — but are some of the most impacted on.

And their voices are missing in Glasgow.

Only four Pacific island nations are sending their leaders, Fiji, Tuvalu, Palau and good old PNG.

The rest either have limited or no representation, largely due to COVID-19 restrictions in the region.

It is important that as one of only four Pacific island nations at COP26, we speak for the good of all our neighbours who we are sure would have liked to be at COP26 but could not make it.

As our delegation concludes its climate talks and pushes for innovative ways to help combat the adverse effects of climate change, let us hope our good PM, the government and our delegation remain true to what COP26 is all about.

And that they actually push for ways to mitigate our drowning islands and ever increasing loss of animal habitats.

We say this because at the moment it seems like PNG has again sent another rather large sales and marketing team abroad to garner interest in our country in the hopes of improving our financial and economic situation rather than actually finding climate change solutions.

Post-Courier editorial published on 8 November 2021 with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning discuss two issues: the evolution of new generation attack drones; and the COP26 meeting in Glasgow this week. Specifically, Buchanan and Manning unpack:

• Whether Geopolitics has railroaded a broad-based consensus of climate interventionism
• Why Russia and China abandoned the Cop26 multilateral forum?
• How mostly developed nations state the take away agreements help address climate change, and how Greenpeace and many other environment groups say fundamental problems remain with how developed nations address the climate change challenge.

ALSO: We discuss the latest in the evolution of high-tech militarised attack drones. What can we now expect to see? And, how will countries defend themselves against AI driven attacks?

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning will discuss two issues: the evolution of new generation attack drones; and the COP26 meeting in Glasgow this week. Specifically, Buchanan and Manning will unpack:

Whether Geopolitics has railroaded a broad-based consensus of climate interventionism

Why Russia and China abandoned the Cop26 multilateral forum?

How mostly developed nations state the take away agreements help address climate change, and how Greenpeace and many other environment groups say fundamental problems remain with how developed nations address the climate change challenge.

ALSO: We discuss the latest in the evolution of high-tech militarised attack drones. What can we now expect to see? And, how will countries defend themselves against AI driven attacks?

Join Paul and Selwyn for this LIVE recording of this podcast while they consider these big issues, and remember any comments you make while live can be included in this programme.

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.