may 2026

LOCAL

1) Media articles written by Tom Powell since the last newsletter. 

14/03/2026 - Liquefied Natural Gas a step back­ward.

"There are ser­i­ous con­cerns with the Gov­ern­ment’s decision to build a lique­fied nat­ural gas (LNG) port and import fossil gas.
I’d like to focus on just one of them here – that this is a major step back­ward from a low-car­bon and energy self-reli­ant future.
Why does the Gov­ern­ment want an LNG port? 

There is a real risk that import­ing fossil gas will raise energy prices, not lower them, as the gov­ern­ment hopes. 
My main con­cern, though, is that pick­ing an energy solu­tion based on fossil fuel is a step back­ward in our ambi­tion to decar­bon­ise our soci­ety. New Zea­l­and is choos­ing last cen­tury’s energy solu­tion rather than for­ging ahead with any of the renew­able, low car­bon and self-reli­ant ones that are on offer. Import­ing more fossil fuel is a step back­ward in our quest to cre­ate a safe and secure energy future for New Zea­l­and. As we all know, quick, cheap and easy isn’t usu­ally the best in the long run."

11/04/2026 - Fuel crisis a prime example of why we need an energy insurance policy

"Here we go again!  Another war and another oil price shock.  An International Energy Agency spokesman has stated, “The war in the Middle East is creating the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.”
Not only are we paying more for fuel at the pump, the supply of fertiliser is being restricted. Since this is needed to grow most of our food, it will result in higher food prices, too.  We are in for another round of inflation and hardship due to supply shortages of imported fossil fuels and agri-chemicals.
We’d be justified in thinking that we are a bit like the swinging tail of a superpower canine in the midst of a dog fight.  We’re not part of the fight but we are getting thrown around and bitten, just as well.  
But, we can’t say we haven’t been warned – the Middle East and its oil have seen intermittent dog fights for decades now."

09/05/2026 - Floods and us: Preparing for the sad reality of more rainstorms.

"As our planet warms, we can all expect to see more flooding.  It is simple physics – warmer air holds more moisture and what goes up must come down. The Council and Civil defence organisations work hard to prepare for flooding and educate us on how to stay safe; all good and important advice.  But, there are things that we, as residents, can do to minimise the impacts of flooding, as well. The sad reality is that rainfall is becoming more intense and, with the chaotic nature of weather systems, harder to predict."

Here are links to copies of the full articles if you can't access them on The Press website - Liquefied Natural Gas a step back­ward,  Fuel crisis a prime example of why we need an energy insurance policy, and Floods and us: Preparing for the sad reality of more rainstorms.

2) Te Ao Māori in Coastal Risk Assessments - A case study at Wairau protecting taonga by weaving mātauranga and science.

Back in February as part of Climate Action Week Marlborough Lesley and I attended a very interesting Film Screening of a short documentary put together by Keelan Walker of Rangitane o Wairau. This highlighted the impacts of climate driven sea level rise on the intergenerational history and cultural significance of Wairau Bar. The documentary recorded details about the research project described in the information shared from Rangitane below. If you are interested you can learn a lot more about the research project in this StoryMap.

Our kaupapa at Te Pokohiwi o Kupe (Wairau Bar) — looking at climate-driven sea level rise and coastal inundation and what that means for wāhi tapu, taonga and our connection to place — has been recognised as a finalist at the Science New Zealand Awards 2026, being held at Parliament. This research has been developed alongside Earth Sciences New Zealand, and it’s about weaving mātauranga Māori and western science together in a way that’s grounded in Rangitāne priorities and kaitiakitanga. At its heart, the project helps us better understand the cascading impacts of rising seas and extreme coastal events — not just the water itself, but the compounding risks to cultural landscapes, urupā, and the taonga that sit within them.

Dr Peter Meihana, lead trustee on the kaupapa, said:
“This mahi shows what’s possible when mātauranga Māori and science are woven together with integrity. Our pūrākau, our histories and our lived experience matter — and when they sit alongside the science, we get a clearer picture of what’s at risk and how we respond.”

Corey Hebberd, General Manager, added:
“This has been a genuinely collaborative project — practical, grounded, and future-focused. Being recognised as a finalist is a proud moment, and it reinforces why this work matters for Rangitāne and for coastal communities across Aotearoa.”

Ngā mihi nui to everyone who has contributed — our whānau, our research partners, and all those backing this kaupapa. We’re proud to see Te Pokohiwi o Kupe acknowledged on the national stage.

3) MDC reports of interest. 

Sediment in Pelorus / Te Hoiere - a Summary.

There has been a lot of work done over many years to quantify the issue of sedimentation in the Pelorus/Te Hoiere Sound and assess the impacts. Funds from the Te Hoiere Project have helped with this process in the last few years and an excellent presentation was made by MDC staff member Matt Oliver to the Environment and Planning Committee on May 27th summarising what is now known. The aim was to update the Committee on current and future work to address the environmental issue of sediment loss and transport in the Te Hoiere Catchment. His opening comment to Councillors didn't pull any punches when he announced that this issue was the biggest environmental challenge facing Marlborough. He made the analogy with wilding pines which is another also a big issue but one that can be met with enough funds and resources. The issue of sedimentation is different and will require consistent effort and planning over a long time period. 
It is interesting to note that the big problem with the large sediments deposits in the Sound is that they are repeatedly being re-suspended with the daily movement of tides, thus inhibiting the re-establishment of marine ecosystems that were widespread before the forests were cleared.  

Here is a summary of that presentation.

• Sediment loss is a long-standing, catchment-wide issue in Te Hoiere / Pelorus Sound, driven by historic land clearance, ongoing land use,  steep terrain, erodible soils, and storm events, with both current and legacy sediment contributing to impacts. 
• Marine ecosystems have been significantly degraded, with sedimentation causing reduced light penetration, seabed smothering, loss of  seagrass and shellfish, and sediment accumulation rates around ten times natural levels.
• All land uses contribute to sediment inputs, with major sources including subsoils and streambanks; a large proportion (≈70%) of mobile  marine sediment is legacy material that is repeatedly re-suspended.
• Sediment generation and transport are highly storm-driven and complex, influenced by slope, geology, land cover, and hydrology; erosion  sources include mass landslides and riverbank instability across multiple land uses.
• Substantial scientific understanding and mitigation tools now exist, supported by decades of research and recent Te Hoiere Project, enabling  justified and targeted action.
• A coordinated, whole-of-community response is required, combining regulatory and non-regulatory measures, long-term planning, and  sustained funding to reduce sediment inputs, manage legacy sediment, and restore marine ecosystems. 

You can download the full report from the MDC website if you wish to learn more about the science involved in defining the different contributions to the legacy sedimentation that has built up in the Sound, particularly since 1840 when extensive forest clearance began. You need to download the Agenda for the May 27th meeting to see the report. 

MDC Response to Declining Wairau Aquifer Levels.

For anyone interested there is also a useful report from MDC Groundwater Scientists Peter Davidson and Charlotte Tomlinson that summarises where things are at with defining options to arrest the decline in Wairau Aquifer groundwater levels. An MDC staff workshop is planned for June 2026 to discuss recent advances in knowledge with a focus on ways of managing gravel extraction as the physical basis for the review of the MEP gravel extraction plan. The workshop which will be facilitated by Lincoln Agritech, will be attended by Rivers &  Drainage engineers, Policy planners and hydrologists.

This report can be found on the same website page as above, not in the Agenda Report but rather in the "Information Package".

Update on Sea Level Rise (SLR) Modelling and Lower Wairau Hydrodynamic Assessment.

A report was presented to the MDC Environment and Planning Committee at the end of April. It is a more detailed look at impacts of SLR in the Lower Wairau and concludes that those impacts will be less than initially outlined in an earlier 2023, NIWA report, which “delivered a district-wide static (“bathtub”) assessment that highlighted the Lower Wairau Plain as a priority for refinement due to complex river–lagoon–coast interactions and the influence of flood protection assets. The updated results confirm the Lower Wairau’s sensitivity to relative SLR and show that inundation pathways are strongly controlled by stopbanks, river channels, floodgates, coastal barriers and lagoon connections. Compared with the previous static mapping, the area potentially impacted has been reduced.”

This more detailed analysis was well received at the committee meeting, as they are very aware of the impact rising sea levels combined with storm surges will have on infrastructure and those living in the areas projected to be impacted over the coming decades. The main impacts are the sewerage ponds and the lifestyle blocks along Hardings Road. There is a further report currently being worked on looking at groundwater impacts and once that is completed and presented to Council they plan to have a public meeting to present all the information. You can check out the map of projected inundation areas in the council report from April 30th or further info and maps in the full report, which can both be downloaded from the Council website.

It seems to me that the Hardings Road lifestyle blocks will become unlivable in the decades ahead. As sea levels rise so will ground water levels, and this will be a major issue impacting effective operation of septic tank wastewater systems. This already causes problems in low lying areas during heavy rainfall events. These people can relocate but the impacts on the sewerage ponds is another matter. Eventually they will be compromised by SLR and the only option will be relocation. This will be a much more challenging and expensive exercise than the relocation of a few landowners. There are a lot of people who rely on the effective operation of the ponds who never think about what the implications of such a disruption would be. There are also many local authorities around NZ who will be in the same boat, as it was clearly cheaper and easier to build our waste water systems at or near sea level so that gravity could help deliver the goods to them. The costs of relocation will be enormous and quite possibly unrealistic in some cases. I guess we have plenty of time to kick the can down the road on that one and relocating waste water treatment facilities may not be the biggest challenges we face if climate and environmental breakdown continues on its current trajectory. 

NATIONAL 

4) Our relationship with Papatuanuku. 

Here is a positive item to remind us all of what is possible if we have the right priorities. You would think that being honest and genuine stewards of Papatuanuku's bounty is commonsense and that Her needs would always be considered first when deciding what we should and should not extract from Her. After all, if we don't prioritise the maintenance of a healthy and functioning biosphere, all the money and power in the world won't save our social and economic systems from collapsing.  

"When Dame Anne Salmond first bought her piece of land along the Waimata river over 25 years ago, it was bare pasture. Now, known as Waikereru, it’s been restored into a haven for rare native bush and birds - it feels, as Dame Anne puts it, like a cosmic hug. In this episode, she talks to Sam the Trap Man about how they did it (starting with bringing the birds back), the strength that native forest gives to catchments in extreme weather, and why she thinks New Zealand needs a gold standard nature credits scheme."

If you wish to hear more about this wonderful restoration work and great example of "Recloaking Papatuanuku" happening at Waikereru have a listen to this 10 minute YouTube clip with Anne talking with Sam the Trap Man. 

5) Waste-to-fuel: a circular solution in tough times or a greenwashing dead end?

This webinar is scheduled for 7.30pm, June 17th. If you are keen please register your interest.

Description - As climate change hits hard, cost of living soars and growing plastic waste threatens to overwhelm us, slick sales pitches increasingly market the idea of waste-to-fuels as a ‘solution’. These take both liquid and solid forms as synthetic gas (‘syn-gas’) and process engineered fuels (PEF). Industry claims include being part of the ‘circular economy’, ‘bioenergy’, ‘sustainable’, ‘carbon neutral’ and even ‘zero carbon’. Despite the claims of positive environmental and economic outcomes, these technologies are highly toxic, require large energy inputs and are just another linear disposal pathway. They are in effect dirty fossil fuels that may be worse in climate and health impacts than the original fossil fuels they claim to displace. There are a number of live proposals across Aotearoa right now.

Come hear experts to learn and discuss:

• Dr. Andrew Rollinson on waste-to-fuels, including ‘sustainable aviation fuel’. 
• Adam Currie of 350 Aotearoa on the climate accounting and energy security claims.
• Dr Trisia Farrelly on the health and environmental impacts of the plastic-to-fuels technologies. 

6) If governments won’t try energy quotas, we should do it ourselves.

This article published on the Newsroom site was written by Pat Baskett. I have included information about Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQ's) before. It is timely that Pat has focussed again on this form of managing and reducing fossil fuel use.
With the disruptions to world oil supplies due to the conflict in the Middle East it would be encouraging if we saw politicians looking more seriously at this system rather than just relying on price as a rationing tool. Using price simply increases inequity in our society, as it is those with less financial resources who go without.  

The recent disastrous effects of this overheated world and the sure knowledge that more disasters are to come have put me in a dilemma. For years I’ve stood on the street with placards saying fossil fuels cause climate change and that we need to give them up. I’ve decided to adjust my climate campaign to focus on two issues.

1. The need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions wherever we can and as fast as possible.
2. With no end in sight to our dependence on fossil fuels, we need to use them as sparingly as possible.

As fuel prices rise in New Zealand agencies will be increasingly forced to triage and allocate time and resources. How can we ensure that decisions are made equitably? Climate activist organisations have long campaigned for a “just transition” as they foresee the effects of power in politics and inequitable access to resources.

David Fleming, an English economist and climate writer, proposed a novel solution. He invented a system late last century of what he called Tradable Energy Quotas. These are designed to address peak oil and in effect ration the energy available to citizens and industry. TEQs (pronounced tex) is an electronic, market-based system whereby one unit or quota represents 1kg of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent in other greenhouse gases. Every adult receives an equal free entitlement of TEQs each week. Government agencies and industry secure their units in bulk at weekly auctions or buy them when needed. (Compare this with the free allocation of units in our Emissions Trading Scheme to major industries.) If you use less than your free entitlement you can sell your surplus. If you need more and you have the means, you buy them.

The total number of units available is determined by the national carbon budget. This would be set in Aotearoa by the Climate Change Commission and would decrease each year as we depend less on fossil fuels and more on solar and renewables. Fleming commented: “Since the national TEQs price would fluctuate according to national demand, it would become transparently in everyone’s interest to help each other to reduce their energy demand – encouraging a national sense of common purpose to keep energy available and affordable.”

Check out the full article on the Newsroom website.

7)  Recent legal challenges we should be thankful for. 

We all need to be very thankful for groups such as Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) and Lawyers for Climate Action. It is becoming more common for the Government to change the law when it doesn't suit their agenda or to simply break it's own laws and hope they are not challenged. Legal action groups that challenge Government decisions are essential if our democracy is going to work effectively and if we are to provide the protection that Te Taiao requires. Below is information about two different cases currently in process. 

Emissions Reduction Plan challenge.

Three days of hearing in the Wellington High Court in Lawyers for Climate Action and Environmental Law Initiative v Minister of Climate Change, concluded recently. The case has brought significant scrutiny to the actions of the Minister of Climate Change, Simon Watts, in changing New Zealand’s first Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP1), and the subsequent development of the second Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP2).

Lawyers for Climate Action’s Executive Director, Jessica Palairet says, “The Minister was required by law to have a high level of confidence that New Zealand’s carbon budget would be met.” “However, the advice from his officials showed the chances of achieving the second emissions budget were not much better than a coin toss.”

The Minister went on to approve the Second Emissions Reduction Plan anyway, despite the obvious risk it would not achieve meeting the carbon budget. “In our view, that is a reckless decision made by the Minister, and we have asked the Court to require the Minister to revisit it,” says Palairet. ELI’s Senior Legal Researcher Eliza Oldfield Prestidge says: “New Zealand’s climate law demands stable policy making and plans that will actually meet our carbon budgets. 

“We have asked the Court to declare ERP2 is insufficient to meet the legal standard, and to declare the ERP1 amendments did not follow lawful consultation requirements. “We want to see the Minister make decisions that provide the people of Aotearoa New Zealand with a high level of confidence that we can meet our climate targets,” says Prestidge Oldfield. The groups await the Court’s judgment.

You can read more about this case on the ELI website.

This article in The Spinoff also provides further explanation about "The legal challenge to New Zealand’s ‘incoherent’ climate plan." 

“It’s a moment to show just how bad the government’s approach to climate change is, the fact that New Zealand made a promise to an emission plan that won’t be kept,” says 350 spokesperson Adam Currie. “Even if you don’t care about climate change [this case] shows the government is not trustworthy.” While litigation is just one way to take climate action, Palairet says it’s an essential one. “The law used well is one of the most powerful tools we have to respond to the climate crisis.”

Pine plantations scrutinised in High Court case against Govt climate plan.

Lawyers argue New Zealand’s emissions reduction strategy prioritises forestry offsets over cutting emissions at source, raising concerns for Māori and rural communities. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has been taken to the Wellington High Court, with lawyers arguing the Government’s emissions reduction plan relies too heavily on forestry offsets, particularly pine plantations, rather than reducing emissions at source. Tree planting has largely been criticised as a false climate solution because it does not address the source of emissions. 
The case focuses on changes to Aotearoa New Zealand’s first Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP1) and the lawfulness of the second plan (ERP2), which sets out how emissions will be reduced between 2026 and 2030. Te Tai Rāwhiti-based commentator Manu Caddie (Ngāti Pūkenga, Ngāi Te Rangi) said the issues raised in the case reflect broader concerns about land use, environmental risk, and the long-term impacts of forestry expansion.

ELI’s Senior Legal Researcher, Eliza Prestidge Oldfield, said the government is taking a “least cost” approach to policy, where it is cheaper to plant trees than to upgrade fossil fuel equipment, such as swapping coal boilers for electrified heating. “We say that’s not good enough and leaves mokopuna to bear the burden in the future,” said Oldfield. “Tree planting can complement emissions reductions, but they should not replace emission reduction policies purely because tree planting is the cheapest thing to do.”

Caddie said it was telling that Justice David Boldt described the Government’s process as “as fundamentally flawed a process as I think I have ever seen.” He said the judge’s remarks raised serious questions about the strength of the plan, which he characterised as rushed and driven by early political commitments rather than a full consideration of the science and practical impacts.

You can check out the full article on Te Ao Maori News website.

8) Environmental Law Initiative unmoved by attempt to curb judicial reviews.

Following on from the previous item this article published on the Newsroom site looks at efforts from Fisheries Minister Shane Jones to place a statutory restriction on judicial reviews. 

The charity behind a string of successful judicial reviews says a 20-working day time-frame for fisheries reviews leans towards a wider crackdown on the role of the courts. The environmental charity that Shane Jones is trying to hamstring through a statutory restriction on judicial reviews says this could be “the thin end of the wedge” in a wider crackdown on the role of the courts.

The Environmental Law Initiative won’t reveal its strategy if a 20-day deadline for judicial reviews to be lodged against decisions of the Minister of Fisheries is passed into law, but says it won’t be stopped. The clause was inserted into the Fisheries Act reforms after public consultation took place, and against the advice of Ministry for Primary Industries officials, who instead suggested a three-month deadline for catch-limit decisions and six months for other sustainability decisions.

“It’s the role of the courts to scrutinise the executive, and to be called a serial offender is not really accurate.” If the initiative was frequently losing cases or being vexatious, the title might be more fitting, but he says that isn’t the case. It did lose a case early this year, with the High Court dismissing its argument that the scope of a setnet ban set by Jones to protect yellow eyed penguins didn’t go far enough. “Environmental Law Initiative has been successful in the majority of claims on fisheries, and we’ve done the work we’ve done to uphold the public interest.” In some ways, that makes fisheries ministers the serial offenders, he says.

9) What happens to EV batteries at the end of their life?

A reader of this newsletter asked me if I knew what the situation was in regard to recycling of EV batteries. What I've found out is that there is no effective nationwide recycling scheme happening in NZ yet but that efforts are being made to set one up. AA have published a useful article in their Autumn newsletter providing information about the formation of the Battery Industrial Group in 2020 and progress with setting up a national stewardship scheme. Here is an extract from that article.  

“Right now, we have the opportunity, as a very small country, to get a solution in place for dealing with large batteries before it becomes a problem,” Dominic Salmon says. The Battery Industry Group (B.I.G) launched in 2020. “B.I.G represents the whole lifecycle of the battery,” Dominic continues. “This includes the energy sector, research sector, VIA (Motor Vehicle Industry Association), EECA (Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority), the AA, manufacturers and recyclers, with the aim of designing a product stewardship scheme for large batteries over 5kg. For us, it’s a case of looking at what is working overseas and bringing that into a New Zealand context.” The ideal, from a recycling perspective, would be to get a large enough volume of lithium batteries to make it commercially viable to process them here, Jasmine Faulkner says. “No entity in New Zealand has resource consent to process them, but we are working hard to get the level of feedstock to justify an onshore facility.“In the absence of a mandated product stewardship scheme, we would like all importers to be able to prove they have a sound end-of-life plan. Batteries should not be allowed to enter New Zealand without one. Right now, they don’t have to do that, so it becomes the metal recyclers’ problem or the wreckers’ problem.” But battery recycling should not become the consumer’s problem either. “The B.I.G design would see a solution for all large batteries that doesn’t burden the consumer,” Dominic Salmon says. “Ultimately it must be an industry-led solution that has a really good sustainable outcome. “B.I.G has submitted an application for accreditation for large batteries (Priority Product – Waste Act) to The Ministry for the Environment and is currently working through the feedback that has been received on the scheme design.” New Zealand has a choice between waiting for regulation or taking action. “At B.I.G we believe the time to act is now,” Dominic continues. “We can refer to what’s working overseas and adapt that for New Zealand. The wave of batteries is coming, but with a well-planned stewardship scheme we can a design a circular system to feed valuable second-life markets and safely recover critical materials in a sustainable way.” 

10) CATL Expects Oceanic Electric Ships in 3 Years. 

I've included this item as it is connected to the previous one. The sodium ion battery revolution has been talked about for awhile but it's now looking closer. Sodium is a readily available resource with a lower environmental impact than lithium. Below is some information about progress with this technology for shipping.

Recent battery price drops indicate that possibilities for long range electric shipping are improving. The expected timeline for electric shipping dovetails with the expected timeline for sodium-ion battery (SIB) volume production and resulting cost reductions. The material costs of SIBs are expected to lower costs significantly, opening up applications and speeding up electrification. While passenger transport has been successfully electrified, with EVs surpassing ICE parity with battery costs well below $100/kWh enabling widespread adoption, ships can increasingly take advantage of lower-cost batteries for expanded electrification. Studies have shown that long-distance electric ships with up to 5,000 km of range can be successfully utilized using today’s battery capabilities, without significant weight and volume. CATL appears to be aware of this. Marine division head Su Yi notes CATL’s “full-spectrum growth” strategy, with goals to electrify maritime and aviation sectors. Sodium-ion technology may remove the last barrier to widespread maritime electrification. 

Check out the full article on the Clean Technica website.

If you're interesting in a lot more detail and analysis check this article out. 

Here is some basic info outlining the pros and cons of the two battery technologies.

Extraction & Mining

• Lithium: Requires aggressive extraction from hard rock or brine, which heavily depletes local water tables. It takes roughly 682 times more water to extract a tonne of lithium compared to a tonne of sodium.
• Sodium: Can be sourced from standard table salt, ash, or seawater with negligible ecological disruption. 

Toxicity & Material Sourcing

• Lithium-Ion Batteries: Traditional Li-ion chemistries (like NMC) rely heavily on cobalt and nickel. Mining these elements frequently leads to soil and groundwater contamination.
• Sodium-Ion Batteries: Na-ion cells skip toxic metals, instead utilizing abundant, benign materials like iron, aluminum, and carbon. 

Carbon Footprint (Emissions)

• Manufacturing GHG: Sodium-ion batteries currently emit slightly more CO2 per kilowatt-hour during production than lithium-ion. Because sodium stores less energy by weight, manufacturers must produce a larger battery mass to achieve the same energy output.
• The Future: This emission gap is projected to shrink rapidly as the supply chain scales and manufacturers shift to greener grid electricity. 

End-of-Life & Recycling

• Lithium-Ion Batteries: Li-ion batteries remain highly reactive at their end of life. Because they contain toxic heavy metals, processing them requires complex, energy-intensive recycling techniques.
• Sodium-Ion Batteries: Na-ion batteries are much less reactive, posing minimal fire risk during transport and processing. Their cell components can be reclaimed efficiently, promoting a cleaner circular economy.

GLOBAL

11) How will the Middle East crisis impact our lives?

I have included this item in the newsletter, as I strongly believe we must look at some of the big questions arising out of the current disruption to world energy and other related supplies from the Persian Gulf. These disruptions put a spotlight on our overwhelming reliance on fossil fuels and the many products derived from them. This is a reliance many take for granted but in historical terms the carbon pulse of the last couple of centuries is merely a blip in the history of humanity and finite resources are just that - finite. Eventually they deplete. How well are we prepared for this inevitable depletion? The question we must ask is, can we, as a species, navigate a way through this period of time and retain a liveable planet for humanity and the multitude of other species we share the planet with. I recommend you watch the three short videos in the next item to help understand, and remind you of, the unprecedented part fossil fuels have played in changing our planet and our lifestyles in so many ways.
 
An important understanding that I know many readers of this newsletter will acknowledge, much more than we did ten or twenty years ago, is that global heating is not something happening in isolation. It is simply a symptom of a much greater challenge facing humanity, as we slowly awaken to the reality of the damage our actions and lifestyles are inflicting on all life on this amazing planet. It would not have been possible for this to happen without access to the unbelievably huge quantities of fossil fuels the planet has cooked for us. The widespread and ubiquitous belief arising from this carbon pulse, that we humans are supreme, has to be challenged and shown for what it is. A self-delusional state of mind. Human supremacy is a myth. I have no idea if that myth will be debunked but I am convinced that without an awakening to our critical place in the web of life that the downwards spiral we are spinning on will continue. All lifeforms are paying and will pay a high price if that happens.

The Stockholm Resilience Centre has done us all a service by attempting to define the wider parameters of our predicament. They have described 9 Planetary Boundaries. In their first iteration in 2009 there were 7 boundaries assessed of which 3 had been exceeded. In the latest iteration in 2025, 9 boundaries have been assessed of which 7 have been exceeded. So 4 more boundaries have been exceeded in the short time span of 16 years. That should be serious food for thought for all of us! I’ve included a copy of the latest chart showing those boundaries. 






























There is ample evidence that the impacts of rapid climate change and biosphere degradation are upon us right now and are only going to worsen. What we are up against is not a lack of awareness but a distorted and damaging sense of priorities. Economics, the cost of living, profit making etc continue to take priority over retaining a liveable planet. There is often an expressed willingness, from many of those in positions of power, to tackle the mitigation and adaptation challenges arising from climate change. It is just that the changes required are so great that they are invariably deferred, at least until the next election cycle! Let’s remind ourselves of the definition of a predicament. “An unpleasant or confusing situation that is difficult to get out of or solve.” The difficulty we have to confront is that we cannot have our cake and eat it too. It is our political and economic system that has to undergo radical and extreme changes and all of us, especially in the rich developed world, have to accept the reality that we must live much simpler lifestyles. We have to consume a lot less of everything. 

Secondly, the impacts of many of the 6 defined planetary boundaries that have been exceeded, other than Climate Change, are just as critical or more critical and immanent, than the impacts of climate change. Global heating is a slow and unrelenting process that will continue to play out for centuries regardless of what changes we make now. We have left it far too late to avoid the major consequences of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the planet's oceans. It is our descendants who have to live with the worst of it! All of the other 6 exceeded boundaries we have crossed are likely to have severe consequences on a shorter timescale than climate change. Land-system change, freshwater change, novel entities, biochemical flows, ocean acidification and biosphere integrity. The impacts of course are cumulative and not independent of each other. The consequences don’t bear thinking about too much, but we have a responsibility to do just that. Think about and then take appropriate actions. We have to stop being distracted by the seemingly more important things to be focussed on at the moment, like fighting wars over access to the depleting oil and gas resources that our whole global economic system cannot survive without!    

Our economic system simply cannot function when the price of fossil fuel energy exceeds a certain level. Everything we do is predicated on this energy being priced at a level whereby businesses and corporations can make a profit. For instance our whole global system of producing and transporting food relies heavily on the supply of diesel. Without it we simply can not feed the world's population. It is obvious to anyone who stops to think about it that it is not when oil and gas reserves run out that we have a problem. It is when there is not enough to to meet all the needs and that is now. As Nate Hagens has highlighted we have built a system with the use of fossil fuels that is equivalent to an army of 500 billion human beings. We are dissipating in a couple of hundred years, a one time carbon pulse that took tens of millions of years to sequester and cook in the earth’s mantle. Fossil fuel resources are not replaceable on any human timescale. The immediate challenge ahead of us is not only the impacts of climate change and biosphere integrity but also whether it is possible to effectively manage our way on the downslope of the carbon pulse, as fossil fuels diminish. I do believe it is possible for humans to do this but clearly it won’t be an easy road to take. I also believe the relative stability of the last few decades is now gone and at the very least we need to be aware of what might be coming, which is why I've included this and the next three items. There are a range of different scenarios for how things might play out over the decades ahead and none of them will be easy or straightforward. 

12) What You Actually Need to Know About Oil.

Nate Hagens has done a very useful 3 part series on this topic that I recommend for getting a good basic understanding of the history, benefits and problems of oil. 

Here are the links to the 3 separate videos, each about 10 to 15 minutes long. 

Oil 101 - What you actually need to know about oil.               
Oil 201 - What happens when the oil stops flowing.               
Oil 301 - The world after cheap energy. 

13) Feeling fairly okay about the fuel crisis?

Nathan Surendran is currently chairperson of the Wise Response group and an energy efficiency and transition consultant. In this article published in the May/June edition of NZ Geographic he warns “It won’t sort itself out.”

On his Substack he’s published articles with titles like ‘When the trucks stop’ and ‘Hoping the ship arrives isn’t a strategy’. He believes most people, decision-makers included, are “energy blind”. “This is so far outside of most people’s understanding of how the world works and what the probable future looks like that they just aren’t processing it yet.” 

I recommend you checking out his published articles for a clear eyed view of possible outcomes of the present energy crisis. Some may see his perspective as being overly cautious but none of us know how this crisis will really play out.  Being forewarned at least helps people to be prepared. The one thing we know for certain is that fossil fuel resources are finite and that we have logically accessed all the easier deposits first. The EROIE (Energy Return on Energy Invested) of oil has declined drastically. When commercial extraction began in the mid-1800s, it yielded roughly 100:1. Today, the global average is around 15:1 to 20:1. Unconventional sources like fracked oil and tar sands can be as low as 5:1. There are inescapable consequences of this reduction in EROIE that we all have to face sooner or later. It's looking like it could be sooner!

14) The “global Goliath” and risk of worldwide societal collapse.

I included an item about Luke Kemp and his book Goliath's Curse in the February newsletter. Jack Tame from TVNZ recently did a 20 minute interview with Luke that is well worth a listen if you're interested in the big picture questions about the sustainability of our global power structure. 

15) ‘It smells like a rancid fish and chip shop’: at sea with the Antarctic’s krill supertrawlers.

Learning about the latest onslaught on Papatuanuku really makes me wonder about the short sightedness of humans. Our loss of connection with the natural world and with the reality that we rely on its viability for our continued survival is astounding. We are living in a time where everyone can have access to the evidence of the consequences of unsustainable extraction from the living world and yet we seem to plough on undeterred. The harvesting of the foundation of the marine food chain seems like a final desperate attempt to maintain an economic system that is doomed to fail because it refuses to acknowledge the fundamental requirements of sustaining a healthy biosphere. 

The Antarctic ecosystem relies on krill, a foundational food source for the region’s birds, penguins, seals and whales. And there is evidence to suggest that krill fishing is already having a significant impact on the Antarctic food chain. A peer-reviewed scientific study from a coalition of US and German universities suggest that the number of krill in the ocean is insufficient to sustain the existing whale population and commercial fishing. Other studies show that humpback whales are breeding less, as are species of penguin. Less krill brings other environmental downsides. Krill are “carbon-storage powerhouses”, according to WWF research; less of them means more carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere.

The goal of Sea Shepherd’s latest campaign is to stop all krill fishing in the Antarctic, an epic challenge considering CCAMLR is consensus based. Its membership includes the countries trawling around Coronation Island in the South Orkney Islands and they cannot reach consensus on conservation measures. Orange-clad workers on the Chinese ships ignore us, but crew on other vessels wage their own version of an information campaign. The two Norwegian supertrawlers, Antarctic Sea and Antarctic Endurance, unfurl banners with various messages including “Congratulations on the High Seas Treaty”, “Science First” and the address of a website maintained by Aker Biomarine, a company that supplies krill as an ingredient in health products.

The company’s website notes that it operates “under the strict governance of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources [CCAMLR]. Catch limits are capped at less than 1% of the total krill biomass … and every operation is monitored by independent observers.” In a statement, CCAMLR says: “While most members voiced an urgent need to distribute the catch to avoid over-concentration at the commission’s last session in October 2025, to date there has been no scientific evidence to suggest any specific threat to krill as a keystone species or to Antarctic marine ecosystems more broadly.” At that meeting, Norway proposed almost doubling the catch trigger limit.

For Sea Shepherd, the industry’s expansion is outpacing the time needed to gather information to assess consequences of the trade. “Without robust evidence to assess ecological impacts, the push to raise catch trigger limits risks irreversible damage to one of our planet’s last true wildernesses,” says Baptiste Brebel, the Allankay’s chief officer. Hence, their twin efforts harnessing media and science in these frigid waters to head off what they believe is a tipping point for the region’s krill and the animals that live off it.

Check out the full article in the Guardian.

This second article looks at how Antarctic whales’ remarkable comeback is threatened by krill fishing

“Penguins and whales and quite a population of seals are eating this krill,” says Cheeseman. “Whales were always the largest predator here,” he says, “but now they have a predator, the krill trawlers, which are up to 100 times the size of a humpback. And these larger predators are taking the nutrients out of the system.” Whales, he says, do not just eat krill, they also recycle the nutrients that krill provide back into the Antarctic’s fragile ecosystem. The industrial krill trawlers, which grind up the krill for use in dietary and pet supplements, and feed for fish farms, remove the nutrients from the ocean altogether, he says. “When a whale eats krill, it poops out krill,” says Cheeseman. “There’s a nutrient recycling happening. If you take out more predators, you would imagine you get more prey. But when you take out whales, the krill reduces.”

16) Human-caused climate change is unmistakably distinct from Earth’s natural climate variability.

This item is for any readers who are interested in recent scientific research analysing long term natural climate variability compared to the changes that have happened since we started large-scale burning of fossil fuels. It was posted by Dean Rovang on his Substack site. 

"This post, from TCB's (The Climate Brink) frequent commenter 'Just Dean', shows one of the most interesting climate plots I've seen in a while. It shows that the relationship between CO2 and temperature across hundreds of millions of years is quite compact, but that humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere so fast that we've taken the climate far far out of this equilibrium curve. This shows the strong control that CO2 has on the climate as well as how much humans have perturbed atmospheric CO2."
The figure spans Earth’s climate from deep ice ages — CO₂ near 175 ppm, global temperatures near 8°C — to the warm Cenozoic periods when there were no significant continental ice sheets and sea levels were 60–70 meters higher. A natural question is whether the ice-albedo feedback drives this slope — and whether it therefore only applies to glaciated climates. The figure addresses this directly: most of Judd’s data comes from greenhouse climates with little or no continental ice — the Eocene, Oligocene, early Miocene — yet the same slope holds across the full range. If ice-albedo were the dominant driver, the relationship should look different in ice-free regimes. It does not, which Judd et al. themselves describe as surprising. The relationship appears to be a fundamental property of the Earth system across a wide range of boundary conditions, with and without ice sheets.

The Bottom Line - Five independent fits of Earth’s natural CO₂–temperature relationship — derived from different archives, different methods, and different timescales — all land in the same tier. That relationship holds from the depths of the ice ages to warm greenhouse climates with no continental ice, across 66 million years of Earth history. The modern trajectory departs from it at 1850 and has not looked back. The departure is not subtle, not a matter of interpretation, and not an artifact of any single dataset or method. It is unmistakable.

17) Historic resolution at the UN to follow up on last year's International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision.

I included information about the ICJ decision in our August newsletter from last year. This resolution is an important next step in the process.

At the United Nations, 141 countries overwhelmingly adopted a landmark resolution affirming that governments have a legal obligation under international law to protect the climate system and prevent climate harm. Spearheaded by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by global movements like Avaaz, this vote turns the historic International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling into an active global mandate. 

The Breakdown of the Vote

• The Decision: The UN General Assembly voted 141-8 to welcome the ICJ Advisory Opinion.
• For: 141 nations.
• Against: 8 nations (United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, Belarus, Liberia, and Yemen).
• Abstained: 28 nations. 

What the Resolution Means
While the resolution is technically non-binding, it carries immense legal and moral authority. It establishes several key precedents: [1, 2]

• Climate Action is a Legal Duty: Governments can no longer treat reducing emissions or preventing climate breakdown as mere political choices.
• Accountability & Reparations: It opens the door for courts and regulators worldwide to cite this agreement in climate lawsuits to demand reparations for climate-vulnerable nations.
• Fossil Fuel Phase-out: It builds strong political and legal pressure to transition away from coal, oil, and gas. 

Why This is a Historic Win
For frontline states like Vanuatu and Tuvalu—which face the existential threat of rising sea levels—this UN milestone is the culmination of years of advocacy. It solidifies the idea that destroying the climate is not just an environmental issue, but a profound violation of international human rights. 

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which participated in the historical proceedings that led to the ICJ Advisory Opinion passed a resolution at their conference last year that mandated the preparation of a study of relevant legal instruments and approaches across all levels to support the implementation of the Court's findings. Check out this article on their website if you wish to learn more about this.

18) How frustration at Cop stalemates inspires first global talks on phasing out fossil fuels.

Some of you may know about the Fossil Fuel Transition Conference, which was held in Colombia recently. There was an item about it in the November newsletter. This conference arose from the frustrations of participants from many countries regarding the undue influence of fossil fuel lobbyists at IPCC conferences. The initiative was announced last year at the COP30 conference by Irene Vélez Torres, Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia. She and her delegation decided that they weren't interested in playing the ongoing games where fossil fuel interests controlled the agenda. The Minister stated before the conference that they were "not going to have boycotters or climate denialists" involved in their discussions. It is interesting to note that Vélez Torres told journalists that countries including China, Russia, India and the US were not invited. She suggested that they had not shown the necessary spirit to be part of the “coalition of the willing” and that Colombia wanted to avoid a rehashing of the lengthy debates at COP30. NZ was one of the 57 participants sending a representative from our embassy in Colombia.

I've included a couple of different articles about the Transition Conference and its outcomes. 

‘Coalition of the willing’ gathers in Colombia to try to bypass petrostate blockages of Cop summits and chart fresh path.

‘Historic breakthrough’: Colombia climate talks end with hopes raised for fossil fuel phaseout

Governments have been asked to develop national “roadmaps” setting out how they will end the production and use of fossil fuels, after a landmark climate meeting involving nearly 60 countries. The voluntary plans will form the bedrock of a new initiative to wean the world off coal, oil and gas, the focus of two days of intensive talks in Colombia this week. The approach marks a departure from the annual UN climate negotiations, which have run for more than three decades even as greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise. Most of the world’s biggest emitters are absent from the group of 59 participants, though other countries are being invited to join.

Irene Vélez Torres, Colombia’s environment minister and chair of the talks, said: “We decided not to resign ourselves to an economy built on the destruction of life. We decided that the transition away from fossil fuels could no longer remain a slogan but must become a concrete, political and collective endeavour."

Carbon Brief have provided a very good analysis of the conference including discussion about the pros and cons of excluding some countries. 

Lawyers for Climate Action NZ sent me the following information - 

We signed a letter alongside over 250 legal experts from around the world to make clear that phasing out fossil fuels is not just imperative for protecting our planet - it's also a legal obligation under multiple sources of international law, as confirmed by the International Court of Justice last year. 

Here is an extract from the letter - The Legal Foundations for Fossil Fuel Phaseout: An Open Letter to the Co-Hosts and Participants of the First conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels We, the undersigned 252 legal scholars, jurists, and practitioners from around the world, in our collective expert assessment, recognize that States have binding obligations under multiple sources of international law to phase out fossil fuels. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) unanimously confirmed that every State must use all means at its disposal to prevent significant harm to the climate system, including by avoiding the principal activities driving it: fossil fuel production and use.
As you prepare to engage in the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia, we urge you to ensure the discussions are rooted in and guided by States’ clear legal obligations to move beyond oil, gas, and coal, and to cooperate effectively and in good faith toward that end.
The phaseout of fossil fuels is not just scientifically necessary to prevent catastrophic and irreversible harm to the climate system, all peoples and ecosystems; it is legally required. It is also socially, economically, and environmentally beneficial for present and future generations.
Legal obligations provide the foundation and the guideposts for international cooperation to end the global addiction to fossil fuels, and secure both a safer present and a livable future for all. The First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia presents a critical opportunity to accelerate the implementation of those legal duties, through a forum dedicated to strengthening cooperative international action on fossil fuels.

You can read the full letter if interested.

Jack Santa Barbara who is involved with the group Our Climate Declaration has done a critique of the conference. He says "The recent Fossil Fuel Transition Conference in Colombia is an important development in supplementing IPCC deliberations. But for it to succeed, there are a number of issues it needs to attend to."

In particular he points out - "A major focus of the Santa Marta process is the fuel switching approach from fossil fuels to electrification - keep everything going as it is now, just use a different energy source. Keep everybody happy, both consumers and producers. This is a green growth approach that suffers from all the concerns already identified (earlier in his essay). A major issue is the requirement for using fossil fuels to make the transition to EVs, PVs and wind turbines, etc, as well as the mining and material throughput required for building this new global infrastructure. Also overlooked is the energy and material required to replace this global infrastructure in a few decades when it wears out. This is a lot of material growth for a planet on the cusp of ecological collapse."

19) Thermal Power and Climate Change: A Data-Driven Analysis of Cause and Effect, 1800-2100" -
                                written by earth scientist and thermodynamicist Tad Patzek. 

This is a large book written by Tad Patzek. It is available to download for free from the Earth ArXiv website. Recently I listened to a fascinating 95 minute discussion between Tad and Nate Hagens. I was very impressed by the clarity of his thinking and analysis of our shared human predicament and highly recommend it to anyone keen for an in depth learning session. 

Below are some extracts from the introduction to his book to give you a taste of his thinking.  

Knowledge was not the limiting factor. The failure to constrain fossil-fuel use reflected political-economic incentives rather than scientific uncertainty: short-term, concentrated benefits outweighed long-term, diffuse risks; and institutions rewarded expansion over restraint. Humans did not unknowingly create climate breakdown; they proceeded with eyes open,  repeatedly prioritizing immediate growth over long-term habitability. The subsequent failure to restrain fossil-fuel use was therefore not a failure of science, measurement, or  foresight; it was a failure of political economy. Decision-makers understood that the benefits of fossil-fuel expansion were immediate, concentrated, and readily monetized, while the damages were delayed, diffuse, probabilistic, and politically externalizable, and that institutional power flowed toward those who maximized short-term growth.

Rational action, irrational outcome. From the standpoint of individual firms, governments, and voters, continued fossil-fuel expansion was locally rational. From the standpoint of the coupled Earth–human system, it was globally destabilizing.

Structural inevitability. 
Once embedded in infrastructure, finance, and geopolitics, fossil-fuel dependence became self-reinforcing. Restraint imposed unilateral costs, while delay shifted damages forward in time. Under such conditions, knowingly destructive behavior does not require ignorance, malice, or denial – only competitive pressure and institutional inertia.

Generalization. 
The climate case is not anomalous. It exemplifies a recurrent pattern in which humans correctly diagnose long-term systemic risk, explicitly document its consequences, and then proceed regardless, because prevailing incentive structures reward continuation and punish restraint. In this sense, climate breakdown is not an accident of misunderstanding or ignorance, but an emergent outcome of a civilization optimized for short-term throughput within a finite, slow-responding planetary system – one that, for more than a century, allowed industrial and policy elites to externalize destruction with impunity. That period has ended.

In this context, it should not be surprising that humans are at risk of repeating familiar old mistakes in the evolution of artificial intelligence: delegating authority too quickly, and ceding control to systems we only partially understand. Such a failure of judgment could prove uniquely consequential for the very survival of humanity. If powerful AI systems are deployed at scale with myopic, opaque objectives, they may gradually reorganize production, governance, and resource allocation in ways that render most living people superfluous. In effect, large segments of humanity could be rendered socially and economically expendable, not through intention or “malice,” but as a byproduct of optimizing for goals that ignore biological life and the stability of the biosphere (see Figure 2.2). The danger is not that AI will “decide” to eliminate us as a plague species, but that human/AI conglomerates will build systems whose logics do not include humans (Amazon today?). So, please pay attention.

20) Could nature itself hold the solution to climate change?

Prof Thomas Crowther is an ecologist who, along with his team, has done research on the power of feedback loops in Nature. 

In 2019, my scientific research was nearly brought to an early end when my team and I published the bombastic statement that natural forest restoration was the “best climate change solution” available in a paper for the peer-reviewed journal Science.

I remember a colleague from the World Wildlife Fund advising me that this message represented career suicide. He argued that people would be furious because reducing greenhouse gas emissions was the most urgent priority. The revival of nature might help with 30% of our carbon drawdown needs, but you cannot stop rising temperatures without cutting emissions. I agreed both then and now. However, I explained that when we referred to the “best” solution, we didn’t simply mean the one with the largest impact in terms of CO2; we meant the best option for improving the livelihoods and wellbeing of people, too. And that, as we shall see, plays a crucial role in magnifying the beneficial effect.

The more degraded nature becomes, the more desperately we need it. When nature starts to bounce back, it doesn’t only provide livelihoods, food security and carbon storage; it revives the hope, joy and inspiration that our species so desperately needs at this critical moment in time. Though they might seem beside the point, these emotional reactions are the lifeblood of nature restoration, with the potential to generate their own feedback loops, far into the future.

Check out the full article in the Guardian. 

21) Timothée Parrique: There Are Alternatives To Capitalism.

I was keen to finish off the newsletter with this short, entertaining and thought provoking talk given by Timothée Parrique at the international ChangeNow conference held in Paris earlier this year.

Here is a brief outline of the conference focus. 

The global economy undervalues the work that sustains life, care, community, and the protection of ecosystems, while rewarding extraction and short-term profit. This session starts from a proven reality: capitalism is not the only way to organise an economy. Alternatives already exist, are being implemented today, and they work. Drawing on degrowth, ecofeminism, and decolonial struggles, we will share concrete examples of commons governance, cooperative and democratic ownership, and solidarity-based institutions, then discuss what makes them viable and how to grow their impact beyond isolated cases.

Cheers, Budyong.

---