With the election only weeks away, public debate is returning to the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the possible construction of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Taranaki. These debates should be judged against a more direct goal: ending our dependence on fossil fuels as quickly as possible.

The New Zealand ETS uses market mechanisms to price carbon, treating pollution as a cost to manage rather than a harm to eliminate. At its worst, it functions as an extension of the historical “extractive playbook”, privatising natural commons for corporate profit and relying on offset markets (like buying agricultural land for forestry) to delay genuine structural decarbonization. Carbon credits are another means for speculators to extract wealth. But the trading is not going well. No bids were placed for government credits in the recent government auction.

New Zealand First and ACT are discussing withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, yet neither appears to offer an alternative plan for confronting the climate crisis. This reinforces the need to assess parties not only by what they oppose, but by the practical measures they support to reduce fossil fuel use.

These weaknesses point to the need for a climate policy that measures success by actual reductions in fossil fuel use, rather than by the volume of credits traded.

Stop burning fossil fuels (as quickly as possible)

Corporations are motivated to squeeze as much value out of the planet as possible, regardless of the collateral damage. Rather than shooting for  “Net Zero” sometime in the future, I prefer “Real Zero” or “Gross Zero” frameworks. Under a Real Zero paradigm:

• Mandates focus strictly on phasing out fossil fuel extraction and combustion directly.
• Carbon removal and nature restoration are treated as separate, parallel obligations rather than tradable credits to justify ongoing emissions.

What does this look like for Aotearoa?

Who are the politicians who are talking about stopping the burning of fossil fuels? Which parties are making tangible commitments to reduce our consumption of imported fuels? The current government has been backsliding on climate action. Here is a list of their actions. Mostly, these actions are taken to improve the economy. Meanwhile, economies around the world are being impacted by climate-related weather events.

 I suspect the National Party is beginning to blush a little about the excesses of the reversals.

A government committed to reducing fossil fuel dependence could pursue the following measures across energy, transport, agriculture, industry and the built environment.

1. Commit to stopping the LNG terminal.
2. Reduce dependence on LNG-related products and services, such as phasing out urea production by incentivising farmers to use regenerative practices.
3. Reinstate and enforce strict bans on all offshore and onshore oil and gas exploration.
4. Set a firm statutory deadline to shut down coal and gas-fired units at the Huntly Power Station, replacing them with diverse, geographically distributed renewable generation.
5. Delay the construction of data centres until we have secure renewable supplies (we have an average of 94% renewables so far this year).
6. Accelerate the phase-out of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle imports and mandate zero-emission light fleets, with heavy fleets to follow as more options become available and competitive.
7. Shift freight from road to rail and reallocate transport budgets toward rapid bus and rail networks in urban centres to dramatically reduce daily fuel reliance.
8. Require high-heat industrial processors (e.g., dairy and timber processing) to transition fully to electric boilers, heat pumps, or sustainable biomass.
9. Stop connecting new residential and commercial buildings to reticulated gas networks, supporting conversions to induction cooking and electric space heating. Start the phase-out suburb-by-suburb.
10. Implement dynamic pricing and smart-grid controls that automatically shift non-essential electricity demand (like EV charging and water heating) away from peak hours.

Creating a sense of urgency

There is no time for tinkering. Reactionary politicians incite fear and risk aversion to justify costly investments such as the proposed LNG terminal. But we have had remarkable supply continuity that many countries would envy.  

The August 2021 blackout serves as a key case study in the trade-off debate. Opponents of a rapid fossil fuel phase-out often cite August 9, 2021, to argue that fossil backup (gas/coal) is mandatory for grid security.

However, official reviews (including those by the Electricity Authority) found that the 2021 outage stemmed from market mechanisms, demand-forecasting errors, and operational miscommunication, not a lack of physical generation capacity.

Reliability doesn’t depend solely on burning gas or coal. Managed demand-side response (like smart hot water control, localised battery storage, and dynamic pricing) can absorb peak demand spikes without building LNG terminals or risking catastrophic climate impacts.

The climate crisis has been caused by the excessive consumption of wealthy countries – and that includes us. Poorer nations are feeling the impacts. Nepal has not contributed much to the rise in greenhouse gases but has recently suffered from the consequences of planetary warming.

We need to toughen up and approach the crisis as our forebears did during the world wars, devoting their energies to the war effort, whether in service overseas or at home. We live in a poll-driven democracy where political parties respond to public concerns. Hence, political campaigns focus on the cost of living, while other issues such as the climate crisis languish.