New Zealand departs climate action group
In a decision that confirms the coalition government's embrace of fossil fuels, Climate Minister Simon Watts told parliament on Wednesday he had written to the alliance to signal their departure.
Since taking office in November 2023, Chris Luxon's government has repealed a Jacinda Ardern-era ban on exploration for offshore oil and gas, and fast-tracked mining projects, including for coal.
Mr Watts said those acts meant New Zealand no longer sat comfortably inside the grouping.
"The New Zealand government made the decision to withdraw, in good faith, our associate membership, and informed the alliance of this decision on 21 June, 2025," he said.
New Zealand was approached to join the alliance by co-founders Costa Rica and Denmark and did so in late 2021 alongside COP26, the UN climate conference of that year held in Glasgow.
A released cabinet paper showed Kiwi officials believed joining would be a "useful vehicle for advancing effective global climate action" and also "does not involve binding legal commitments".
Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Amanda Larson was scathing of the government's embrace of both mining and agriculture through "intensive livestock", which she said were two of the world's most polluting industries.
In May, the government was also named by the Financial Times for accounting practices which downplay the impact of methane from agriculture.
"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," Ms Larson said.
New Zealand was an associate member, alongside California and Belize, but as of Wednesday, was scrubbed from the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance website.
Resources minister Shane Jones called the grouping "an indulgent, vanity-belief community".
New Zealand has left the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, a group of governments advocating a shift to cleaner energy sources, becoming the first nation to do so.
In a decision that confirms the coalition government's embrace of fossil fuels, Climate Minister Simon Watts told parliament on Wednesday he had written to the alliance to signal their departure.
Since taking office in November 2023, Chris Luxon's government has repealed a Jacinda Ardern-era ban on exploration for offshore oil and gas, and fast-tracked mining projects, including for coal.
Mr Watts said those acts meant New Zealand no longer sat comfortably inside the grouping.
"The New Zealand government made the decision to withdraw, in good faith, our associate membership, and informed the alliance of this decision on 21 June, 2025," he said.
New Zealand was approached to join the alliance by co-founders Costa Rica and Denmark and did so in late 2021 alongside COP26, the UN climate conference of that year held in Glasgow.
A released cabinet paper showed Kiwi officials believed joining would be a "useful vehicle for advancing effective global climate action" and also "does not involve binding legal commitments".
Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Amanda Larson was scathing of the government's embrace of both mining and agriculture through "intensive livestock", which she said were two of the world's most polluting industries.
In May, the government was also named by the Financial Times for accounting practices which downplay the impact of methane from agriculture.
"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," Ms Larson said.
New Zealand was an associate member, alongside California and Belize, but as of Wednesday, was scrubbed from the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance website.
Resources minister Shane Jones called the grouping "an indulgent, vanity-belief community".
New Zealand has left the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, a group of governments advocating a shift to cleaner energy sources, becoming the first nation to do so.
In a decision that confirms the coalition government's embrace of fossil fuels, Climate Minister Simon Watts told parliament on Wednesday he had written to the alliance to signal their departure.
Since taking office in November 2023, Chris Luxon's government has repealed a Jacinda Ardern-era ban on exploration for offshore oil and gas, and fast-tracked mining projects, including for coal.
Mr Watts said those acts meant New Zealand no longer sat comfortably inside the grouping.
"The New Zealand government made the decision to withdraw, in good faith, our associate membership, and informed the alliance of this decision on 21 June, 2025," he said.
New Zealand was approached to join the alliance by co-founders Costa Rica and Denmark and did so in late 2021 alongside COP26, the UN climate conference of that year held in Glasgow.
A released cabinet paper showed Kiwi officials believed joining would be a "useful vehicle for advancing effective global climate action" and also "does not involve binding legal commitments".
Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Amanda Larson was scathing of the government's embrace of both mining and agriculture through "intensive livestock", which she said were two of the world's most polluting industries.
In May, the government was also named by the Financial Times for accounting practices which downplay the impact of methane from agriculture.
"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," Ms Larson said.
New Zealand was an associate member, alongside California and Belize, but as of Wednesday, was scrubbed from the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance website.
Resources minister Shane Jones called the grouping "an indulgent, vanity-belief community".
New Zealand has left the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, a group of governments advocating a shift to cleaner energy sources, becoming the first nation to do so.
In a decision that confirms the coalition government's embrace of fossil fuels, Climate Minister Simon Watts told parliament on Wednesday he had written to the alliance to signal their departure.
Since taking office in November 2023, Chris Luxon's government has repealed a Jacinda Ardern-era ban on exploration for offshore oil and gas, and fast-tracked mining projects, including for coal.
Mr Watts said those acts meant New Zealand no longer sat comfortably inside the grouping.
"The New Zealand government made the decision to withdraw, in good faith, our associate membership, and informed the alliance of this decision on 21 June, 2025," he said.
New Zealand was approached to join the alliance by co-founders Costa Rica and Denmark and did so in late 2021 alongside COP26, the UN climate conference of that year held in Glasgow.
A released cabinet paper showed Kiwi officials believed joining would be a "useful vehicle for advancing effective global climate action" and also "does not involve binding legal commitments".
Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Amanda Larson was scathing of the government's embrace of both mining and agriculture through "intensive livestock", which she said were two of the world's most polluting industries.
In May, the government was also named by the Financial Times for accounting practices which downplay the impact of methane from agriculture.
"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," Ms Larson said.
New Zealand was an associate member, alongside California and Belize, but as of Wednesday, was scrubbed from the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance website.
Resources minister Shane Jones called the grouping "an indulgent, vanity-belief community".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
11 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Tweedledee and Tweedledum': Albanese and Wong are ‘putting stress' on Australia-US alliance
Sky News host Steve Price discusses Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong's 'slack-jawed' approach to Palestinian recognition and how this move has put stress on the Australia-US alliance. 'I am referring to the slack-jawed way our leader has decided to reward the terror group Hamas with the decision to recognise a Palestinian state with a visit to the UN,' Mr Price said. 'One can only wonder at the tone of the phone calls between other left-leaning leaders like France's Macron and the UK's Starmer in the lead-up to this. 'So, here we have Tweedledee and Tweedledum, Albo and Wong, courting votes from the Harbour Bridge march … and the Greens putting stress on the US alliance to support a fanciful notion that no one … in the Middle East thinks is ever going to happen.'
Sydney Morning Herald
13 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The one thing America could learn from us
A few weeks ago I watched as protesters braved the rain to cross the Sydney Harbour Bridge in a March for Humanity, calling for aid to Gaza. Among the Palestinian flags, one image stood out: the Indigenous flag, symbolising a shared history of dispossession. This week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that Australia will next month recognise a Palestinian state at the UN. These developments remind us that identity cannot be separated from politics. At a time when democracies elsewhere are fracturing under the weight of polarisation, Australia's institutional resilience should embolden us to embrace our differences more openly in political discourse – not frighten us. As an Australian studying in the US during both of Trump's presidential victories I saw first hand how identities can be politicised to fracture a society. After the October 7 Hamas attacks I witnessed, as a graduate student, how Harvard students retreated into ideological silos, avoiding dialogue with those whose identities they perceived to be at odds with their own. Australia feels different – partly because of how our political system is structured. Identity weighs less heavily on our social conscience, but perhaps that's why it's so often ignored. Identity politics refers to the idea that our race, gender, religion or class shapes our political views. Over time it has often been framed as divisive. Peter Dutton, after the 2023 Voice referendum defeat, said the result was a rejection of 'the madness of identity politics'. But his own loss in the 2025 election might suggest otherwise. A wave of post-election commentary emphasised the Liberal Party's need to better reflect 'modern Australia', with female representation highlighted as one of the most glaring absences in the party room. Loading Australia's electoral system structurally limits the worst elements of polarisation caused by identity politics. Unlike the US, where turnout hovers around 60 per cent, Australia's compulsory voting system ensures broad participation and fosters a more centrist politics. Our Westminster system means Australian voters elect a party to govern, not a singular leader. Our ballots are cast for local MPs, and the party with the majority elects our prime minister. In contrast, the US system centres on the direct election of a president, making national politics more personalised by design. Preferential voting also encourages engagement with more than one party and rewards coalition-building over extremism. This institutional design helps insulate us from the deep political tribalism seen in the US and gives us the space to explore identity in a less adversarial way. A few months ago, during the 2025 Australian federal election, the main topics on the campaign trail were the cost of living, Medicare, affordable housing and Australia's future energy mix – a far cry from the US presidential election, which focused on a 'war on woke' and employed rhetoric that divided American voters along lines of race, gender and sexuality. This contrast is driven in part by the need of American candidates to use emotionally charged narratives to boost voter turnout.
The Age
13 hours ago
- The Age
The one thing America could learn from us
A few weeks ago I watched as protesters braved the rain to cross the Sydney Harbour Bridge in a March for Humanity, calling for aid to Gaza. Among the Palestinian flags, one image stood out: the Indigenous flag, symbolising a shared history of dispossession. This week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that Australia will next month recognise a Palestinian state at the UN. These developments remind us that identity cannot be separated from politics. At a time when democracies elsewhere are fracturing under the weight of polarisation, Australia's institutional resilience should embolden us to embrace our differences more openly in political discourse – not frighten us. As an Australian studying in the US during both of Trump's presidential victories I saw first hand how identities can be politicised to fracture a society. After the October 7 Hamas attacks I witnessed, as a graduate student, how Harvard students retreated into ideological silos, avoiding dialogue with those whose identities they perceived to be at odds with their own. Australia feels different – partly because of how our political system is structured. Identity weighs less heavily on our social conscience, but perhaps that's why it's so often ignored. Identity politics refers to the idea that our race, gender, religion or class shapes our political views. Over time it has often been framed as divisive. Peter Dutton, after the 2023 Voice referendum defeat, said the result was a rejection of 'the madness of identity politics'. But his own loss in the 2025 election might suggest otherwise. A wave of post-election commentary emphasised the Liberal Party's need to better reflect 'modern Australia', with female representation highlighted as one of the most glaring absences in the party room. Loading Australia's electoral system structurally limits the worst elements of polarisation caused by identity politics. Unlike the US, where turnout hovers around 60 per cent, Australia's compulsory voting system ensures broad participation and fosters a more centrist politics. Our Westminster system means Australian voters elect a party to govern, not a singular leader. Our ballots are cast for local MPs, and the party with the majority elects our prime minister. In contrast, the US system centres on the direct election of a president, making national politics more personalised by design. Preferential voting also encourages engagement with more than one party and rewards coalition-building over extremism. This institutional design helps insulate us from the deep political tribalism seen in the US and gives us the space to explore identity in a less adversarial way. A few months ago, during the 2025 Australian federal election, the main topics on the campaign trail were the cost of living, Medicare, affordable housing and Australia's future energy mix – a far cry from the US presidential election, which focused on a 'war on woke' and employed rhetoric that divided American voters along lines of race, gender and sexuality. This contrast is driven in part by the need of American candidates to use emotionally charged narratives to boost voter turnout.
