NZ Becomes First Country To Back Out Of Beyond Oil And Gas Alliance
Greenpeace says that the New Zealand Government has lost its last shred of climate credibility in light of its withdrawal from the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance - a global first.
Greenpeace spokesperson Amanda Larsson says, "This is a Government that is refusing to invest in a safe and livable future. Luxon has made an unconscionable decision with no thought for the implications on our kids' and grandkids' futures."
"From choosing to reverse the oil and gas ban, to offering up $200 million in taxpayer-funded subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, it's clear that Luxon can't be trusted to make decisions on climate change.
"Abandoning the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance is like withdrawing your investments in smartphones to back fax machines instead. These are not serious people."
Larsson says that there is a growing risk that the Government's reversal of climate change policies will result in backlash from New Zealand's trading partners, citing advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that said that repealing the ban on offshore oil and gas was likely to breach New Zealand's free trade deals with the UK and European Union.
Additionally, Member of the European Parliament Saskia Bricmont has asked questions of the European Trade Commissioner about the impacts of New Zealand's regressive climate policies on the EU-NZ Free Trade Agreement - specifically, the move to revise New Zealand's methane emissions target in line with the controversial concept of 'no additional warming'.
"The Luxon Government is bending over backwards for two of the most polluting industries in the world - the intensive livestock industry, and the fossil fuel industry," says Larsson.
"They are turning New Zealand into a laughing stock on the global stage as they continue to let polluters write policies that harm regular people.
"Already, international climate scientists have called out the Prime Minister for ignoring scientific evidence by exploring dodgy accounting tricks for measuring methane emissions from livestock. It is the first time in Luxon's political or business career that he has made the front page of the Financial Times - and it was humiliating. He should expect more international criticism to come."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
A Vassal's Impulse: Australia Backs US Strike On Iran
The initial statement from Australian government sources was one of constipated caution and clenching wariness. Senator Penny Wong's time as head of the Department of Trade and Foreign Affairs has always been about how things come out, a process unsatisfyingly uncertain and unyielding in detail. Stick to the safe middle ground and sod the rest. These were the cautionary words of an Australian government spokesperson on June 22: 'We have been clear that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security.' That insipid statement was in response to Operation Midnight Hammer, a strike on three nuclear facilities in Iran by the US Air Force, authorised by US President Donald Trump on June 22. With such spectacular violence came the hollow call for diplomatic prudence and restraint. There was an important difference: Tehran, not Israel or Washington, would be the subject of scolding. Iran would not be permitted nuclear weapons but jaw jaw was better than war war. 'We note the US president's statement that now is the time for peace,' stated the spokesperson. 'The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.' Within twenty-four hours, that anodyne position had morphed into one of unconditional approval for what was a breach of the United Nations Charter, notably its injunction against the threatened or actual use of force against sovereign states in the absence of authorisation by the UN Security Council or the necessity of self-defence. 'The world has long agreed Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent this. That is what this is,' accepted Wong. Advertisement - scroll to continue reading This assessment was not only silly but colossally misguided. It would have been an absurd proposition for the US to make the claim that they were under imminent threat of attack, a condition seen as necessary for a pre-emptive strike. This was a naked submission to the wishes of a small, destabilising and sole (undeclared) nuclear power in the Middle East, a modern territorial plunderer celebratory of ethnonational supremacy. The Australian position, along a number of European states, also failed to acknowledge the General Conference Resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (in particular GC(XIXI)/RES/444 and GC(XXIV)/RES/533) declaring that 'any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency.' Wong also misrepresented the circumstances under which Iran was told they could negotiate over their nuclear program, erroneously accepting the line from the Trump administration that Tehran had 'an opportunity to comply'. Neither the US diplomatic channel, which only permitted a narrow, fleeting corridor for actual negotiations, nor Israel's wilful distortion of the IAEA's assessment of Iran's uranium enrichment plans and prevarication, ever gave chance for a credible resolution. Much like the calamitous, unlawful invasion of Iraq in 2003 by a crew of brigand nations – the merry trio of US, UK and Australia stood out – the autopilot to war was set, scornful of international law. Wong's shift from constipated caution to free flow approval for the US attack, with its absent merits and weighty illegalities, was also a craven capitulation to the warmonger class permanently mesmerised by the villain school of foreign relations. This cerebrally challenged view sees few problems with attacking nuclear facilities, the radioactive dangers of doing so, and the merits of a state having them in the first place. The US attack on Iran found hearty approval among the remnants of the conservative opposition, who tend to specialise in the view that pursuing a pro-Israeli line, right, wrong, or murderous, is the way to go. Liberal Senator and former Australian ambassador to Israel, David Sharma, thought the Albanese government's initial response 'underwhelming and perplexing', claiming that support for this shredding of international law 'a straightforward position for Australia to adopt'. Sharma is clearly getting rusty on his law of nations. His side of politics is also of the view that the attacked party here – Iran – must forgo any silly notion of self-defence and retaliation and repair to the table of diplomacy in head bowed humiliation. 'We want to see Iran come to the negotiating table to verify where that 400 kilos of enriched uranium is,' stated a very stern opposition home affairs minister, Andrew Hastie. 'I'm very glad to see that Penny Wong has essentially endorsed our position and I'm glad we have bipartisanship on this.' Australia's response has been that of the weary poltroon. Little has been asked about Canberra's standout complicity in assisting the US imperium fulfil its global reach when it comes to striking targets. The role of the intelligence signals facility in Pine Gap, cutely and inaccurately called a joint venture, always lends its critical role to directing the US war machine through its heavy reliance on satellite technology. Wong, when asked about the role played by the facility in facilitating the attacks on Iran, had little to say. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was also cold towards disclosing any details. 'We are upfront, but we don't talk about intelligence, obviously. But we've made very clear this was unilateral action taken by the United States.' At least on this occasion, Australia did not add its forces to an illegal adventure, as it all too wilfully did in 2003. Then, Iraq was invaded on the spurious grounds that weapons of mass destruction not only existed but would somehow be used either by the regime of Saddam Hussein or fictional proxies he might eventually supply. History forever shows that no such weapons were found, nor proxies equipped. But the Albanese government has shown not only historical illiteracy but an amnesia on the matter. Unfortunately, it's the sort of amnesia that has become contagious, afflicting a goodly number of Washington's satellites, vassals and friendly states.
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
Government Restores Real Consequences For Crime
Minister of Justice Today the Government's sentencing reforms take effect, restoring real consequences for crime, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says. 'Communities and hardworking New Zealanders should not be made to live and work in fear of criminals who clearly have a flagrant disregard for the law, corrections officers and the general public. 'We know that undue leniency has resulted in a loss of public confidence in sentencing, and our justice system as a whole. We had developed a culture of excuses. 'This Government promised to restore real consequences for crime. That's exactly what we're delivering. It's part of our plan to restore law and order, which we know is working. 'This is a significant milestone in this Government's mission to restore law and order. It signals to victims that they deserve justice, and that they are our priority.' The reforms strengthen the criminal justice system by: Capping the sentence discounts that judges can apply at 40 per cent when considering mitigating factors unless it would result in manifestly unjust sentencing outcomes. Preventing repeat discounts for youth and remorse. Lenient sentences are failing to deter offenders who continue to rely on their youth or expressions of remorse without making serious efforts to reform their behaviour. Responding to serious retail crime by introducing a new aggravating factor to address offences against sole charge workers and those whose home and business are interconnected, as committed to in the National-Act coalition agreement. Encouraging the use of cumulative sentencing for offences committed while on bail, in custody, or on parole to denounce behaviour that indicates a disregard for the criminal justice system, as committed to in the National-New Zealand First coalition agreement. Implementing a sliding scale for early guilty pleas with a maximum sentence discount of 25 per cent, reducing to a maximum of 5 per cent for a guilty plea entered during the trial. This will prevent undue discounts for late-stage guilty pleas and avoid unnecessary trials that are costly and stressful for victims. Amending the principles of sentencing to include requirement to take into account any information provided to the court about victims' interests, as committed to in both coalition agreements. Two aggravating factors are also included. These respond to:
NZ Herald
14 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Never mind the swear words, politicians need to raise debate quality
I don't believe people are genuinely shocked by the language we're all hearing every night on our streaming TV shows. What is shocking is the standard of argument being employed by politicians and parties as they seek to score points with silly populist arguments. On my Facebook and Instagram feeds, the Labour Party has been trying to tell me that the Government is to blame for soaring butter prices. It has posted a chart of butter prices pointing out that they have doubled since the National-led coalition came to power. That's annoyed me on a number of levels. Despite the fact it seems to enrage many Kiwis, soaring dairy prices are clearly a net gain for the economy. We sell a lot more internationally than we consume locally and the current dairy price spike is expected to bring in an additional $10 billion in export revenue over this year and next. It's exactly what our economy needed. The impact on consumers is overstated. Butter prices have doubled in two years. You used to be able to get a 500g block for about $4.50 now it's about $8.50. That's an extra $4 a week, far less than petrol prices fluctuate on a regular basis. Also, there are numerous butter substitutes and blends that haven't risen nearly that much. I understand why someone on the Labour Party team has tried to milk the dairy price story (sorry for the pun). It is a headline grabber and an easy online meme. I bet the analytics on it look great. But it makes no sense in the real world. The Government has no control over international dairy prices. There are things a government could do to reduce the cost of butter for local consumers. They could subsidise the price with taxpayer money. Or they could impose price controls on farmers and force them to sell a certain amount locally. These would be terrible policies, and there is no chance Labour is about to adopt them. So butter prices would be exactly the same right now if they had won the last election. More broadly, inflation is running rampant like it was throughout 2021 and 2022. It has edged up to 2.5% but remains within the Reserve Bank's 1-3% target band. The same Stats NZ release that included the butter price graph also pointed out that annual rent price increases haven't been below 2.8% since 2011. Of course, much lower inflation isn't all good news. The fact it is underperforming so badly is giving economists confidence that inflation will stay subdued. The economy is struggling to get any momentum and there is no doubt a lot of people are doing it tough. There's no shortage of real issues with this recovery, which the current Government ought to take some responsibility for. Labour could legitimately be attacking the Government on unemployment and job security. There are tens of thousands more people on the Jobseeker benefit now than there were when Labour was in power. I don't mean to single out Labour either. The National Party spent a lot of time in opposition attacking Labour for letting those Jobseeker numbers rise. It also drives me crazy when the Government holds press conferences after the Official Cash Rate announcement to take credit for falling interest rates. Interest rates are falling because inflation is under control and the economy is underperforming. If they go much lower, it will be because things are getting worse, not better. Meanwhile, in the past week, we've had David Seymour running 'victim of the day' social media attacks on opponents of his regulatory standards bill. Seymour says he is being 'playful' and having 'fun' with his line, suggesting opponents are suffering from 'Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome'. Surely if the bill is worth putting before Parliament, then it must have been aimed at delivering some sort of meaningful change to the status quo. Let's have a grown-up debate about what that intended change is. What's frustrating about political debate in 2025 is that politicians are so quick to build 'straw man' arguments because they seem easy to sell as memes and headlines. A 'straw man', for the record, is where you present a weak version or flawed version of your opponent's argument so you can easily dismiss it. It's lazy and doesn't do anything to boost the quality of policy-making in this country. It's probably too much to ask, but wouldn't it be nice if our politicians were confident enough in their view to employ the opposite of a 'straw man' argument? That's called a 'steel-man' argument. It requires you to consciously present the strongest and most charitable version of your opponent's argument. Then you explain why it still doesn't stack up. It requires you to do a bit of homework and think through the logical basis for your argument. I'm pretty sure all the leaders of our political parties are smart enough to do that. But we seem to be following a depressing international trend which sees social media debate reduce everything to simplistic points which appeal to an increasingly tribal political base. New Zealand has a cyclical recovery underway that would have happened, at a greater or lesser pace, regardless of who was in power. Scrapping over that is pointless. We need to be looking ahead to how we lift the economy at a structural level and enable higher levels of cyclical growth. That requires some serious work and will need a higher quality of debate than what we've been seeing this year. This column will take a two-week break as the author is on holiday with his family. Liam Dann is business editor-at-large for theNew Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined theHeraldin 2003.
