The New Zealand government’s decision to build a port for gas imports feels designed for a world with a 1999 use-by date. Only those financially invested in preserving the extractive economy of the twentieth century, or those who have swallowed its kool-aid, persist with the fantasy that that world can continue. It is clear that we must develop a regenerative, more circular economy if we are to leave this planet in some semblance of what it was before the ravages of industrialisation and consumerism.
Fossil fuels will remain part of the transition, but we need politicians to adopt a transition mindset, not a rear-view mirror. Nate Hagens reminds us that fossil fuel energy converted into human effort provides the equivalent of 500 billion “energy slaves.” Stepping away from that will not be easy. Yet across the world, we see renewables surging ahead, and it appears to have crossed a threshold where clean energy is both financially and environmentally superior.
Bernard Hickey estimates that the billion-dollar cost of this gas facility will reach $2.7 billion over its lifetime. That is a huge investment in the past, in a world that needs to die. The justification rests on continuity of supply: avoiding brownouts, protecting industry from price spikes. But surely $1to 2.7 billion could be directed toward the social and material infrastructure of the world trying to be born.
There are too many harms flowing from our continued dependence on fossil fuels:
- they fuel geopolitical conflict
- they poison air, water, and climate
- they entrench corporations with no ethical spine and an extractive mindset
- their lobbying power distorts policy and corrupts politicians.
Renewables offer something different. They can free us from the centralising impulse of control and help to build distributed systems under community stewardship. A localising kaupapa born from energy democracy could spill into other parts of life – food, housing, transport, and care for the taiao.
Let’s abandon the culture of the twentieth century and embrace a vision of the world we need to create. Calling a halt to this dodgy project would be a good step in that direction. Here are the reasons the gas facility is a particularly bad idea.
1. It adds an unfair burden to electricity users
Funding fossil infrastructure through a levy socialises the cost of gas dependence. Households and small businesses will pay more on power bills for decades, whether or not they ever use gas. At a time when families face intense cost-of-living pressure, this is the wrong direction.
2. It squanders a “sweet spot” for renewables
For roughly the same investment, Aotearoa could enable around 50,000 households to install solar systems, or build state-owned grid-scale battery farms to firm wind and hydro. Or based on Bernard Hickey’s $2.7 billion estimate, that is more like 135,000 homes, or 250,000 homes patially subsidised. Solar and storage costs are at historic lows; global pressures on materials such as silver suggest this window may not last. We should be accelerating distributed renewables now, not locking capital into imported fossil fuel infrastructure.
3. It risks becoming a stranded asset
An LNG terminal is a 20–30 year commitment in a world moving rapidly away from fossil fuels. Gas prices are volatile and long-term demand is likely to fall as electrification and storage expand. This facility could be economically stranded before the debt is repaid, leaving electricity users to carry the cost of an under-used relic. That is a gamble households should not be forced to underwrite.
4. In effect it is a fossil fuel subsidy
When consumers are compelled to fund a gas terminal, the project functions as a subsidy to fossil fuels. This contradicts New Zealand’s decarbonisation commitments and diverts resources from clean technologies that would permanently lower emissions and power prices.
5. It deflects from energy efficiency
No credible strategy has been offered to cut demand through insulation, heat pumps, industrial efficiency, and demand response. The cheapest unit of energy is the one not used. A national efficiency drive could deliver security faster and far cheaper than an LNG facility.
6. Exacerbating income inequality and energy exclusion
Those with resources can increasingly free themselves from rising power prices by installing solar and battery storage, while low-income households remain captive to a centralised system and to government policy. As wealthier customers exit, the fixed costs of the grid are spread across a shrinking and poorer customer base, driving prices higher for those least able to pay. Investments like this LNG terminal accelerate that spiral, turning energy security into a privilege rather than a right.
7. It heightens trade and reputation risks
Europe and other partners now charge for the carbon embedded in imports through mechanisms such as the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. Doubling down on fossil gas will raise the emissions intensity of electricity and processing, exposing exporters, especially in food and fibre, to higher costs and reputational damage. This decision may ultimately be paid for at the border.
8. Better pathways to energy security exist
Security can be achieved without new fossil lock-in through:
- grid-scale and community battery storage
- distributed rooftop solar and farm-scale generation
- demand flexibility and time-of-use pricing
- accelerated wind and geothermal build
- modernised transmission and local micro-grids.
These options strengthen resilience while lowering long-term prices and emissions.
A call for political leadership
I urge Labour MPs, and all parties that claim climate responsibility, to state clearly that they would scrap the LNG terminal and replace it with a credible alternative centred on renewables, storage, and efficiency. New Zealanders deserve a plan that reduces bills, cuts emissions, and protects the export future — not one that locks the next generation into imported gas.
This is a defining choice about the energy system we build. We can invest in the past, or in a resilient, low-carbon future owned by communities. I ask those who represent me to choose the latter.
Climate Action Tai Tokerau 