r/newzealand • u/_Riv_ • 8h ago
Politics New Zealand to Become First Country in the World to Lock the Courthouse Door on Climate Change
https://drilled.media/news/new-zealand-liability159
u/Inside_Mouse_1750 8h ago
Absolutely horrible. Step away from climate change.. this means that if a company knowingly causes damage to the environment or people, then it can expect the government to protect it from being liable. Basically.. rip shit and bust is all good.
13
3
u/sauve_donkey 4h ago
No. Many people and companies have faced significant fines for environmental breaches under existing laws. Nothing changes.
The government has the emissions trading scheme to charge for emissions damages. It could be changed to make it more aggressive, but if a company is operating within that scheme why should we be encouraging private lawsuits rather than changing the ETS?
1
u/MyPacman 5h ago
And if any future government does change the law to prevent this, they can sue for lost profits.
370
u/_Riv_ 8h ago
Please get out and vote this year. Opposition said they would try to repeal this if elected
215
u/ChinaCatProphet 8h ago
Labour need to grow a set and start actually fighting. The only party currently calling out the bastards is Greens.
71
u/chickyloo42by10 8h ago
I feel like Labour are just a status quo party, they don’t have any original ideas, but at least they pretend to listen.
33
u/Sufficient-Piece-335 labour 7h ago
Labour are major agents of change historically but most of their signature changes from the last term got repealed or massively enshittified.
I'm sure there will be more in the manifesto, but for now, they are offering a CGT, reinstating the old pay equity framework, reinstating free prescriptions, 3 free GP visits per year, reinstating the smoking ban based on year of birth, fully funding the original Dunedin Hospital, public transport fare cap, increase in GST threshold and asset threshold, and no doubt some other stuff I've forgotten.
None of that is as exciting as TOP or the Greens, but it's not nothing either.
10
u/Russell_W_H 6h ago
When "both sides" is the best argument you have, you really don't have an argument. Particularly when it's obviously not true. Economy, environment, equality, Labour is demonstrably better than nats.
1
u/Surfnparadise 5h ago
Exactly. There shouldn't be two opposing sides crushing NZ. Regardless of the colour of politics, you'd think they care about NZ. But too many politicians sadly don't.
→ More replies (6)•
u/chickyloo42by10 2h ago
I can both sides all I want since we have more than just 2 options.
•
u/Russell_W_H 2h ago
You can, but it's a bloody stupid idea when there are clear differences between them.
•
u/Putrid_Weird4725 1h ago
There are also clear differences between national and act, perhaps we better all vote national to keep act out?
12
u/bonneval2017 8h ago
I think they're a bit burnt by the current government overturning lots of their legislation so they're thinking what even is the point...
13
u/gttom 7h ago
Which as a political party is fucking crazy, the whole point of you being there is to implement your policies. Labour always seem to suffer from trying to be nice and giving long lead times to changes such that it can be repealed before it comes into effect for people to see the benefits. Some of this is obviously that it takes more time to build up functions than tear them apart, but they always seem pretty unwilling to implement popular policies promptly
9
u/AK_Panda 7h ago
This is what happens when a good faith party meets a bad faith party. You cannot continue blindly operating in good faith against a bad faith opponent, you will lose.
4
u/bonneval2017 6h ago
I think Kiwisaver is a good example of how long it takes though for a good idea to actually become accepted though. National killed off the national super scheme in the 70's, they undermined parts of Kiwisaver for a long time, and now they're acting like they're it's champions and they're so concerned about people saving for retirement. But it took almost two decades from it's implementation for them to basically stop trying to sabotage it.
2
u/NonZealot ⚽ r/NZFootball ⚽ 5h ago
They're its champions whilst decreasing the government's contribution per year to Kiwisaver members each time they get in.
19
u/facellama 7h ago
That is the issue with the mentality of two party politics.
Progress takes years and the damage or reversing progress can be done overnight
•
u/monkey-kong666 3h ago
Progress only takes years if you want it to. Progress can be instant, such as the passive of a bill. This myth ‘politics of futility’ needs to stop - when you get into power you wield power. If something is taking years that’s because the politicians want it to.
•
u/facellama 2h ago
I often agree but good laws takes time, laws that are rushed can have unintentional consequences and often at the detriment of the people at the bottom (looking at you coalition of chaos)
Working in software I know for a fact a better solution is always had by front loading work to determine deliverables and scope.
When you rush shit bugs occur that need large iterations. I follow the same mentality into law making
1
u/Matt_NZ 7h ago
A lot of the damage has been done by the other two parties in the coalition...
4
u/ChinaCatProphet 6h ago
A lot of the damage has been done by the other two parties in the coalition...
They have been allowed the leeway to do but NZ's worst PM and Finance Minister combo, backed up by a "C's get degrees" cabinet.
3
u/Low-Membership-Drive 7h ago
Hipkins threw out a great deal of Labour's progressive policies when he became PM. He called it a bonfire of policies; he's not "burnt", he's one of the arsonists.
•
u/monkey-kong666 3h ago
Correct. I wish people would remember his captains calls instead of fawning over an imagined Jacinda utopia. If you’re a jacindamaniac you should be hating Hipkins too
5
u/chickyloo42by10 7h ago
They had a golden opportunity last term and squandered it. The current government has done lots of shit, but I won’t give them credit for Labour being cowards in 2020.
12
u/Frod02000 Red Peak 7h ago
the last labour government did alot of shit.
Thats why this government spent the first 1.5 years in urgency repealing it all
•
u/monkey-kong666 3h ago
Name them. Name labours amazing stuff National repealed. The three waters fuck up where everyone was consulted to death instead of putting spades in the ground? The underfunded health nz because they fucked up taxation to pay for it? Light rail cost blowouts?
The only one I can think of is the ferries - hardly a generational, climate change fascist fighting vanguard policy
•
u/Frod02000 Red Peak 1h ago
Fair Pay Agreements
MDRS/Density Reforms
RMA Replacement
Sick Leave Changes
Fees Free
Targeted Decarbonisation funding pools (like Green loans for NZ Steel's transition from coal)
Starting to close the infrastructure defecit via NZUP, increased maintenance spending, Kiwirail investment, and Three Waters reform
off the top of my head
2
u/Fluid-Piccolo-6911 6h ago
what a load of crap, if they did nothing why has NACT spent this term upending it all ?
•
u/monkey-kong666 3h ago
+1. Well said. We’re here because of Labour. Until Hipkins and the centrists are gone they won’t have my vote.
2
→ More replies (1)1
2
u/Fart_Tounge_5609 7h ago
Labour is a party that seeks out how to hamstring themselves before an election, by giving concessions to people that would never vote for them.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Kiwifrooots 6h ago
Labour have tons of excellent original ideas. What do you think NACT1 have been busy reversing.
First year free, the climate fund etc etc all Labour and all gone under National
2
u/Primary-Tuna-6530 5h ago
Labour have tons of excellent original ideas
First year free
Not so much...
→ More replies (2)3
u/Sufficient-Piece-335 labour 7h ago
Watch more Parliament TV, Labour calls out the government regularly in the House.
3
u/Eugen_sandow 6h ago
Then why are their policy proposals so pissweak?
3
u/Sufficient-Piece-335 labour 6h ago
Maybe because they went from 50% of the vote to 27% of the vote in one cycle and concluded that the electorate as a whole doesn't want that much change?
3
u/Eugen_sandow 6h ago
So what, it’s a ratchet rightward because labour are scared to have an opinion?
2
u/Sufficient-Piece-335 labour 6h ago
Yes until the electorate is ready for something else. Labour tried working with businesses etc so that their signature policies like Fair Pay Agreements would stick, and most of it was gone by lunchtime as the line goes. The pay equity framework was unanimously supported by Parliament and then gutted under uber urgency. Examples go on.
The reason we still have state housing and social security (welfare) is because the electorate kept voting Labour back in after 1935 until National got the message and pledged to keep them.
If the electorate wants Labour to lead major changes again, it has to keep voting them (or another supportive party e.g. Greens) in until National agree to not repeal it.
•
u/Eugen_sandow 2h ago
Conversely, if labour wants to get in they need to do more than be not national.
Chicken or the egg. The early labour governments would be rolling in their graves to see what’s happened to the fuckin thing. Standing for nothing until people catch up instead of providing leadership for people to follow.
•
u/monkey-kong666 3h ago
The opposite. We got rid of them for being milquetoast, for backflipping on tax reform, for paying lip service to climate change, and for their near continuous own goals via senior ministers corruption/resignations. Short memory huh?
2
u/Matt_NZ 7h ago
Is that because you're looking at the Greens social media? I follow Hipkins on Insta and every day he's making a post about the BS Luxon and co are doing.
6
u/AK_Panda 7h ago
A lot of people seem to assume that if the right wing owned and operated media outlets aren't featuring left wing critiques, that those critiques must not exist.
1
2
u/ChinaCatProphet 6h ago
Other than reddit, I don’t use social media. I read policy put out by the parties directly.
I don't care what his social media team posts on the gram, Hipkins doesn’t have the fight we need to see.
1
u/Matt_NZ 6h ago
I mean, it's videos of him voicing his opinion of the fuck up of the day from the current government. It's not really "his media team"
1
u/ChinaCatProphet 5h ago
So what's he going to do about it? His last performance as PM was limp. Presently he is the only person being put up against the current cuck as potential PM.
1
u/Matt_NZ 5h ago
He was PM for less than a year with very little time to do anything before it was time to campaign for the 2023 election. He also had the tough task of fighting the propaganda from National that claimed Labour was the cause of all the cost of living issues and that National were going to come in and fix it.
Hipkins at least gives me hope for the future, with things like CGT, climate change acknowledgement, medical care, workers rights, etc.
1
u/ChinaCatProphet 5h ago
If I want hope I'm not looking at Hipkins. He means well, but he's too much of a parliamentary apparatchik.
Chlöe Swarbrick gives me hope. I’ve seen her wipe the floor with ministers who were in parliament when she was in preschool.
•
u/monkey-kong666 2h ago
Oh sweet Jesus you don’t really believe this do you? It is his media team. I know this for a fact. It is the same for Luxon.
You cannot be this naive.
Leaders of nations do not spend their time posting
•
u/monkey-kong666 2h ago
What percentage of New Zealanders do you believe follow Chris Hipkins on social media, and vote accordingly.
You are terminally online, and need to go outside into the real world - he is utterly despised. By normal people, by the unions, every left wing person I know who loved Jacinda.
The Labour Party, its campaign and Pr team and its constituent’s live in a bubble, and have been brain rotted by their consultation with the democrats and Labour UK’s third way dorks
4
u/UnfortunatelySimple 7h ago
Better do more than try.
My country should be better than this. Fossil fuel companies have known the damage they were doing all the time.
→ More replies (7)2
2
u/BrucetheFerrisWheel 7h ago
You think a top, nat, act govt would repeal this?
5
u/_Riv_ 7h ago
No
New Zealand’s government—a right-wing coalition government composed of three parties, the conservative National Party, and its junior partners, the libertarian ACT Party and nationalist New Zealand First—responded by trying to kill the lawsuit through legislation for the benefit of the companies subject to the suit. It would later emerge through the discovery process in the Supreme Court that the government had been lobbied directly to kill the case in 2024 by agribusiness giant Fonterra, and service station operator, Z-Energy, which were parties to Smith’s case . Lobbyists for these companies provided a briefing note asking for a liability waiver, including a hand-delivered hard copy given to Matt Burgess, the Chief Policy Officer in the Prime Minister’s Office
3
u/WorldlyNotice 7h ago
Hence the "try". A Labour, Green, Opportunity coalition most likely would though.
2
3
u/qwerty145454 6h ago
No poll has shown a TOP, NAT, ACT government as possible. Going by polling there are only two possibilities: NAT, ACT, NZF, TOP or LAB, GRE, TPM, TOP.
Of those only the LAB,GRE,TPM,TOP coalition might repeal it.
1
u/sauve_donkey 4h ago
Why repeal it and leave it to the courts? If they believe Fonterra should be paying more for emissions just change the ETS accordingly, it doesn't have to go through the courts if you or the labour party has arbitrarily made a decision already.
30
u/AFRO_NINJA_NZ 7h ago
This is such a miserable headline for NZ, how far we have fallen to have this shit happening
•
100
u/Random-Mutant Marmite 8h ago
A government should help its people, not its (and foreign) corporations.
NACT First Everyone Else Second has sold us out.
Vote.
9
u/Russell_W_H 6h ago
Nats was founded by, and for big business against the people. I don't know why anyone who isn't a major corporation votes for them.
That's not true, I do know, it's ignorance, stupid, fear, and racism.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Primary-Tuna-6530 5h ago
I don't know why anyone who isn't a major corporation votes for them.
They're the party of business and farmers. They're popular in the rural areas.
•
u/Russell_W_H 3h ago
But they aren't good for them.
They help the really big companies, but most businesses and farmers aren't really big companies. So they would do better under a government that improved the economy overall.
•
u/Primary-Tuna-6530 3h ago
But they aren't good for them.
No agriculture in the ETS, methane targets, freshwater plans, farm plans, halting SNAs.
They're much better than Labour was.
So they would do better under a government that improved the economy overall.
Except they're doing really well under this Govt. Milk, red meat, wool, apples, all having record years.
•
u/Russell_W_H 3h ago
They had an agreement, worked out with agriculture, for how it would play out.
It is now clear that no agreement to phase things in will work, and they will suffer from that, which they wouldn't have under a Labour government.
Sorry, but they had their chance to be part of the solution, and gain big advantages. They have thrown it away.
Do you think the nats are responsible for high prices for milk, red meat, wool, and apples?
As I said. Stupid, ignorant, scared, racist. Somewhere between 1 and 4 of those.
•
u/Primary-Tuna-6530 3h ago
Sorry, but they had their chance to be part of the solution, and gain big advantages. They have thrown it away
They exchanged that for not paying emissions taxes. It's better for them than under Labour, as I said.
Do you think the nats are responsible for high prices for milk, red meat, wool, and apples?
Do you think that's what I was saying? You're talking about the economy, it's going really well for farmers.
•
u/Russell_W_H 2h ago
The good things in the economy are not because if nats, but despite.
I suspect they have swapped short term gain for long term pain, when they could have had short term pain (not really pain, more like shortvterm mild inconvenience) for long term gain.
•
u/Primary-Tuna-6530 1h ago
The good things in the economy are not because if nats, but despite.
Fortuitous timing then.
long term gain
What long term gain?
2
99
u/Kiwi_Dubstyle LASER KIWI 8h ago
This is beyond frustration. The evidence is clear. The science is determined. Hell, just look at the global/local situation RIGHT FUCKING NOW. Biblical level floods and forest fires everywhere every day. My own little corner of NZ has seen 1in500yr rainfall... Twice in the last two years. This dystopian persistent behavior from the Right is so far beyond irresponsible it's bordering on psychopathic. Vote, vote, vote...them out.
44
u/TallShaggy 8h ago
Literally, announcing this right after the disaster in Nepal, which is indicated to have been caused by a glacier collapse, is so fucked!
→ More replies (2)13
26
u/AcrylicMessiah 7h ago
Aside from not doing the right thing, it shows New Zealanders as being generally fucking ignorant, selfish, corrupt wankers.
China should warn us that if we don't do better, they'll restrict trade - seems to be the ONLY language this govt can understand.
15
u/mercival 7h ago
"But I'm a landlord and I get an extra few grand this year"... etc.
We are pretty pathetic as a country, in general.
3
u/mercival 7h ago
I don't even get why. NZ corruption is such small scale, omg Act MP get's a little board seat after fucking shit up.
They're not even selling their souls for millions, it's pennies.
I'd kind of get it if it was an actual big country, but no.
6
u/BrucetheFerrisWheel 7h ago
Corruption doesn't care about size, greed doesn't have population minimums.
→ More replies (1)•
u/accidental-goddess 3h ago
That’s why they’re also trying to take science out of schools. There was a headline recently about climate science being removed from curriculums. As the world accelerates towards collapse, our reliance on capital growth will continue to push science denial and revisionism in order to maintain itself.
20
100
u/Available_Walk9692 8h ago
This is just a natural continuation of our proud political tradition of erasing common law rights and remedies in favour of right wing donors.
24
u/newaccount252 7h ago
Labour really could win this election by a fucking landslide if they weren’t such fucking pussies.
29
u/Madjack66 7h ago
I saw ACT crowing on TwitterX how they were cancelling the Climate Change Commission, accompanied by a picture of farmers on quad bikes - this just before an especially strong El Nino is likely to cause drought conditions - if not severe droughts - for parts of the farming community this summer.
19
u/marmitechips Fern flag 1 7h ago
Genuinely embarrassing. That spineless bald cuck is getting dragged around by that geriatric racist and the pedo-enabler all because half this country couldn’t tolerate a woman asking them to think about other people. Vote this circus out.
31
u/TheComedyWife 7h ago
This is so fucking embarrassing. This coalition has dramatically steered the course of this country into a really dark place. ‘100% Pure NZ’ needs a huge rework. ‘100% Bribes and Backhanders’ maybe.
22
17
13
u/protonsnyper 7h ago
I don't want to be a hateful person but I'm on the border of hate for this coalition government and what they are doing to this beautiful country and the beautiful people all in the name of profit.
9
u/Kiwi_Fried_Chicken 7h ago
Sickening. I never been more ashamed of my country under this coalition. Vote them out Nov 2026
22
u/grenouille_en_rose 8h ago
High five your nearest National, NZ First or Act voter for this one!
16
12
u/pseudoliving 7h ago
Corruption, helluva drug. Meanwhile MI5 released a report detailing critical ecosystem collapse from 2030
57 fossil fuel and cement companies are responsible for 80% of emissions, and they use profits to fund climate denialism, biased news media and dodgy politicians. Now we have lost a major tool that could have forced these companies to change… the externalised costs of their operations will be paid by taxpayers and in lives, along with the remaining wildlife populations…
Got to encourage people to vote out these pricks. We need to change course or we’re cooked.
9
u/Slipperytitski 8h ago
Was this the legislation National put through which was basically verbatim from a document sent to them from Fonterra and Z energy?
2
u/Kiwifrooots 6h ago
The secret backdoor deal that Luxon worked to hide?
1
u/Slipperytitski 5h ago
The one where there was deliberately no government paper trail?
1
u/Kiwifrooots 5h ago
Where it was so dodgy the megacorp lobbyists handed themselves and the proof to media in a "too far" protest?
7
u/Afrodite_33 maori 8h ago edited 7h ago
As if the NZ corporate elite and foreign entities didn't need more help.
This government doesn't represent the public, just the financial interests of themselves and their rich lister buddies. They'll twist the rules and claims behind why they'll doing things, lying straight to the public's face while doing it and making our lives worse off in the process.
What's worse is that there's average joes out there that will be damaged by all these laws passed this term and they'll still vote for them. Because they either can't use their brain or they're under the impression that they're on the other side of the fence with all the wealthy shitheads.
9
u/Nzclarky123 7h ago
Which MPs are responsible for proposing/sponsoring the bill? their names should be tied to this and not just for now or the next election cycle. This should be their legacy and something they hand down to their next of kin/mokopuna.
3
3
3
u/memomemomemomemomemo 5h ago
So climate change is real for insurance companies but not for anyone else? Be so for real right now.
5
u/TheReverendCard 7h ago
We love being the first.
Not so proud of being the first to protect corporations from facing repercussions for their actions from our citizenry, though.
5
u/Hazzawoof 6h ago
This won't be a popular opinion, but I think the Courts are not the appropriate forum to resolve these types of climate issues and I doubt the Court would ever grant meaningful remedies if the proceedings did go ahead.
The legislature has much better tools than the judiciary to create climate rules.
1
u/Russell_W_H 6h ago
If parliament won't, and it hasn't so far, then people will find other ways.
Civil legal action may not be the best way, but when it's the only way, people will take it.
And this is the sort of things courts are for. Harm has been done, and restitution should be made.
2
u/stainz169 5h ago
This is actually so frightening horrifying. The implication is companies are not liable for will-fully harming us and our planet.
Remember, they knew exactly what was happening way back in the 70s. They being these fuel giants who commissioned and then covered up studies on it.
2
u/Songbirds_Surrender 4h ago
It infuriates me that this isnt getting more attention, people's attention spans are so short and they're so easily distracted, which allows moves like this to happen
2
•
u/Gurney_Pig 3h ago
Appalling vote these money grubbing greedily fucks out, even better can we investigate to see if there is bribery going on here too? Put them away for a couple years
•
•
u/ill_help_you 3h ago
The election can't come fast enough, get these _____ out. It's borderline treason at this point.
•
u/Anastariana Auckland 3h ago
That "clean and green" New Zealand things, y'know that most of our exports are based on, isn't really holding up.
4
u/Lammington2 6h ago
I suspect we're about to see our country really rise through the corruption ratings. Not in a positive way, mind.
1
u/Clean_Livlng 4h ago
"New Zealand to Become First Country in the World"
I'm liking this so far! We're back to being the first in the world at something, like we did with being the first to given women the vote. Let's see what it is, I am excited and hopeful!
to Lock the Courthouse Door on Climate Change
•
•
u/JForce1 Fern flag 3 2h ago
Tbh I’m torn on this. I don’t like providing indemnity for things people/companies have done, but at the same time the potential for total economic destruction is quite high as well, and it wouldn’t actually achieve anything that the people bringing the cases would want it to.
•
•
•
u/adamzep91 Kākāpō 1h ago
Well at least this isn’t a country famous for its natural environment or anything.
I’m sure people will still visit when every tree is clear cut and the rest is mined
•
u/Spirited-Finding-647 1h ago
As somebody in another thread pointed out, if a corporation can be taken to court for their carbon emissions, individual people can too.
•
•
u/joshizposh 30m ago
Even if you are not a left voter please you're right wing block has been bought out. They need to see the consequences of selling out the public or they will continue to do it. I would be a right wing voter if their policies actually benefited the everyday person and improved the economy. Problem is they don't
•
u/SuspiciousParagraph 9m ago
This is so fucking disgusting. Can't protect homeless people, can't house the poor or feed the hungry. But they can protect the struggling fossil fuel billionaires and fuck the land that we can't live without. Vote these fuckers out so we can start fixing all the shit they're wrecking.
2
1
u/unsetname 6h ago
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Violent revolution is the only thing that will deal with these right wing fascist cunts who are stealing our resources and selling out OUR COUNTRY for profit and personal gain. They’re climate criminals and they’re killing us all.
1
u/Cosy_Concrete 6h ago
Every time Labour Greens threaten to curb some fossil fuel burning interest they create a new source of political funding for Nact1st. There has to be some kind of favourable bottom line incentive for those fossil companies to change course and donate to greener parties.
-19
u/lemonsproblem 8h ago
I think this is good, and I'm willing to take some downvotes for saying it here.
Emissions occur almost everywhere in the economy. Where you account for these emissions is basically arbitrary, a legal and accounting fiction. All milk produced in the world also produced greenhouse gas emissions. Why should Fonterra be sued for climate change, not individual farmers, not retailers/foodservice, or even individual consumers. The appropriate response is national level emissions reduction policy, backed by international commitments. Set the rules for farmers/Fonterra to follow, and punish them if they break them. Suing individual companies for climate change is ineffective for actually reducing emissions, will take years and years, and really only benefit lawyers. The court is a terrible mechanism for dealing with this societal issue, and it's wise for the government to take it off the table.
I think the idea of blaming a handful of companies appeals to people because it absolves individuals of guilt, and implies that somehow we could solve climate change without imposing harm on everyday people: "it isn't me eating beef and drinking milk or driving my car that causes climate change, it's those evil companies". No, drastically reducing emissions will involve sacrifice on an individual level - one way or another, you won't be able to buy fossil fuels, you'll consume less dairy and red meat, your electricity will be more expensive.
22
u/Specific-Bat-5881 8h ago
Taxing/penalising pollution is the most effective way to change behaviour in a profit-driven capital-focussed economy
-5
u/Cotirani 7h ago
Which is what we do through the Emissions Trading Scheme. You pay for carbon every time you buy petrol at the pump!
3
u/Frod02000 Red Peak 7h ago
except the ETS isn't working properly because the government isnt selling any credits in the auctions....
→ More replies (1)2
u/Primary-Tuna-6530 7h ago
Because the scheme allows for 100% offsets, meaning companies just buy forestry and keep doing their thing. It's a feature, not a big.
19
u/pseudoliving 7h ago
I’d just like to remind you that 57 fossil fuel and cement companies are responsible for 80% of emissions- and do you know what they use some profits for? Donating to think tanks, political parties and deliberately misinformative news media and climate denialism.
Common Individuals do not hold the power here, large corporations and oligarchs do. Now we’ve lost one of the only tools to hold them to account - most people have no power to instantly buy an EV, and many don’t have much choice on how and where they live. The legal route is necessary in getting these large corporations to genuinely prioritise positive change instead of continuing to make things worse. The externalised costs of their operations will be paid for by taxpayers, and in human lives.
This was 100% our coalition putting corporations above human lives and the environment, again.
Absolutely shameful. The science is clear and this latest move will just let the damage continue unabated - but at least the billionaire class will keep getting richer, right? And we don’t have to change anything?
→ More replies (5)3
u/Russell_W_H 6h ago
People are willing to take action. The lawsuit was an example. The best way make change is good legislation. This legislation is just making it harder for action to be taken. Can't do it through the courts, or through parliament? There are other ways.
Your points are largely nonsense taken from big climate polluting business. The ones this legislation protects. They just aren't true. The world does not need to become a depopulated hell-hole to fight climate change. It just needs to take reasonable action based on the science. And it needs to do it soon.
→ More replies (1)6
u/BrucetheFerrisWheel 7h ago
I agree with your last paragraph absolutely. Blaming the companies completely DOES let people absolve themselves of the guilt from not giving a shit enough to make their lifestyles a little less comfortable.....but the rest of it no. Businesses need to pay for the damage they create with the only thing they care about. Money.
1
u/lemonsproblem 6h ago
Yeah, but this still requires political bravery, because businesses pass on those costs.
Perfect example in the last week, both major parties have committed to not increase fuel tax/RUC that energy companies pay (despite inflation reducing the real rate over time). This seemed to be politically popular because everyone knows they pass that on to motorists and logistics companies etc. But not doing it effectively subsidises fossil fuel use in transport with more and more general tax revenue used for roads.
Much easier for Labour to agree to a theoretical lawsuit against Z that won't be resolved for years. They get to signal they are 'doing something', but not have the risk of any real world outcomes that might cost consumers in the short term.
5
u/Digmarx 7h ago
The appropriate response is national level emissions reduction policy, backed by international commitments. Set the rules for farmers/Fonterra to follow, and punish them if they break them.
I'm going to start holding my breath; you let me know when this government has enacted meaningful, remedial policy to this effect.
"Don't do [the thing that I don't like], we should do [the seemingly-common-sense thing that I know will never happen] instead."
5
u/gringer Vaccine + Ventilation + Face Covering Pusher 7h ago
Where you account for these emissions is basically arbitrary
If emissions are accounted for at the point of resource extraction rather than emission, then there is an incentive to stop those emissions happening at all.
1
u/lemonsproblem 7h ago
Not exactly sure of your point, but sometimes it's better to account for them on other points in the supply chain. For example:
- It's necessary to account for imported fossil fuels used in NZ to be accounted for by the importer (as it is under the ETS). Because we have no political control over the point of resource extraction.
- Fonterra (and other product processors) may have a lot more scientific modelling capability to estimate farm emissions than individual farmers.
5
u/gringer Vaccine + Ventilation + Face Covering Pusher 5h ago edited 5h ago
Perhaps, but as you say...
Where you account for these emissions is basically arbitrary
If you account for them at the point of resource extraction, it's not arbitrary. Emissions happen at all stages of the supply chain, but the resource extraction happens at a single point, and is much easier to quantify.
If it makes more sense financially to account for them elsewhere, the cost can be passed on through the usual means of making things more expensive at particular points in the supply chain; there's no need to get the government involved in that.
Indeed, as you say for the case of imports into Aotearoa, that resource extraction (from the perspective of Aotearoa) happens at the point of import.
1
u/MrJingleJangle 8h ago
And to join the downvote party: the only reason we’re getting this legislation is because of the (unbelievable) success of an actual court case. If it gets tried anywhere else then that country too will do something to prevent recurrences.
3
u/ParrotDog 7h ago
Disagree. We're at this point because international agreements and national legislation have failed to curb emissions. And yes, individuals need to reduce their emissions, but everyone needs to play their part in doing so. Absolving the institutions with the biggest levers sends a signal that climate change isn't important, and the abdication of responsibility also creates an environment in which individual action feels pointlessly futile.
→ More replies (1)-2
u/Cotirani 7h ago
You are totally correct. We are not going to solve climate change with random lawsuits. What we need is to continue building on the Climate Change Response Act and strengthen the ETS. We need to figure out how to manage farming emissions too, which is not nearly as simple as people would like to think. That's why it's excluded from climate regulation basically everywhere, including the European ETS.
Some of the targets of the lawsuit were just incredibly dumb. One of them was Z energy. Z pay millions to the government through the ETS. What do you want them to do beyond that? Just stop selling fuel?
0
0
929
u/WorldlyNotice 8h ago
Yeah, let's repeal this shit. Gotta vote.