Climate solution all but buried before it begins
It is sold as a bold step into the future, a technological fix to one of the world's dirtiest problems.
But is New Zealand's climate solution, its first carbon-capture and storage project, over before it begins?
'Having read the submissions from the various companies on the Government's regulatory plans, it just doesn't seem like it's going to happen in the next four-and-a-half years before 2030,' RNZ's climate correspondent Eloise Gibson tells The Detail.
'Maybe after that, but I can't see it happening at a scale that's going to take the pressure off, in terms of having to cut our emissions. It's going to be one of the things in the Swiss army knife, I hope, but we are not going to be putting it out in the next couple of years.'
The project, led by Todd Energy and backed by the Government, aims to capture carbon dioxide from industrial processes and inject it deep underground in Taranaki, at the Kapuni gas field, locking it away for centuries.
The start date has been pencilled in for around 2027, and from then until 2030 it is expected to store a million tonnes of CO₂, with a further almost million tonnes stored over the following five years.
It's a big part of the Government's broader plan to meet its legal obligations to cut emissions by 2030 – about a third of the carbon savings needed.
But Gibson tells The Detail the project's future is now uncertain unless Todd Energy gets 'more money or less liability or a combination [of both]'.
'There is a whole raft of things that have changed, one is the carbon price is low compared to other countries … then there is the issue of the liability regime, so if there is a leak 15 years after you have filled up a field and closed it off, who is responsible for that … so there is wrangling going on around the rules.'
Globally, carbon capture and storage has a mixed track record. Some projects, like Norway's Sleipner, have stored CO₂ safely for decades. Others have failed spectacularly, costing billions and storing less than promised.
New Zealand's unique geology – riddled with seismic faults – adds a layer of risk.
And if CO₂ does leak, it could undo years of emissions gains and pose unknown threats to groundwater and ecosystems.
Then there is the fear that the method becomes a get-out-of-jail-free card for polluters.
But putting that aside, if the project does not go ahead in New Zealand, what replaces it so the Government can meet its emissions targets?
'I approached the climate minister, and he did stress that the Government takes an 'adaptive approach' with their emissions budget, which I guess means they can pivot if something doesn't pan out,' Gibson says.
'But given they have cut a bunch of Labour-era policies that could have given them about a million tonnes of savings – which is what they need if this falls over – they are not likely to start these up again and there's absolutely nothing on the table that I have seen that would fill that gap, that this Government would support, so it does give them a problem.'
Ultimately, Gibson says she wants the Government to use 'everything in the toolbox'.
'I don't think this is a time to be ruling out solutions. But it's also not a time to be distracted by expensive solutions, when we have other stuff that we know works, right there.'
Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Absence of economic evaluation of commercial GMO raises concerns
Photo / Food HQ Letter of the week Gene technology - at what cost? The Government is hypocritical in claiming it is over-riding local government powers for economic reasons when it is already doing so in the Gene Technology Bill without any economic risk-benefit analysis. The absence of an economic evaluation of the
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The real cost of Government retreat on gender equity
Dellwyn Stuart is critical of the Government for halting pay equity claims and gutting the Equal Pay Amendment Act. Photo / Marty Melville There's a reason The Emperor's New Clothes is an enduring story. It's not just a children's tale – it's a sharp allegory for political vanity, wilful blindness and the cost of silence. In the story, the emperor is convinced to parade through town in invisible garments, woven only for
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Newsroom
Seymour's ‘light up' message alarms tobacco researchers
Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour's comments to a London audience calling smokers 'fiscal heroes' – and declaring people should 'light up' to save their government's balance sheet – are reprehensible and make light of addiction, tobacco researchers say. Seymour largely stands by his remarks, arguing smokers are a net economic positive through tobacco tax and reduced superannuation from early deaths – but has conceded he was wrong to describe as 'quite evil' the Labour government's plan to create a smokefree generation. Early in its term, the coalition Government sparked controversy by repealing a law that would have banned the sale of tobacco to anyone born after January 1, 2009 and dramatically reduced both the number of outlets able to sell tobacco and the nicotine levels in cigarettes. Seymour spoke about the decision following a speech to the Adam Smith Institute, a neoliberal think tank based in London, during a visit to the UK this month. Asked about the smokefree generation concept, which has been taken up by the British government, Seymour said the New Zealand policy had been 'quite evil, in a way' and described smokers as 'fiscal heroes'. 'If you want to save your country's balance sheet, light up, because … lots of excise tax, no pension – I mean, you're a hero,' he said to laughter from the audience. Seymour told Newsroom his remarks were based on arguments he made before about the role of the Government when it came to smoking. 'I'm not seriously suggesting that we should encourage people to smoke to save the Government money. It's clearly an absurd statement, but you do have to have a bit of a sense of humour in this life, otherwise it would be too dull.' The state should make sure the public was aware of the dangers of smoking, while stopping smokers from doing harm to others (such as through second-hand smoke) and ensuring they did not impose financial costs on others. 'As far as I can tell, that condition is well and truly satisfied: I mean, the Government gets $2 billion of tax revenue from about, what is it now, 8 percent of the population?' (The Customs Service collected $1.5b in tobacco excise and equivalent duties in 2023/24, while that year's NZ Health Survey reported a daily smoking rate of 6.9 percent.) Seymour said it was 'just a sad fact' that smokers were also likely to die younger, reducing the amount of superannuation they collected, while he was unconvinced their healthcare costs would be markedly higher than those who died of other illnesses. 'If anything, smokers are probably saving other citizens money.' However, he backtracked on his suggestion the last Government's smokefree generation plans were 'quite evil', saying: 'I'm not sure that was the right word, on reflection. 'I certainly think the idea that, in 30 years' time, someone's going to have to prove that they're 49 rather than 47 does seem draconian – it seems almost a bit of an Orwellian situation.' While the Adam Smith Institute's event page billed Seymour as the Deputy Prime Minister, he said his speech was delivered in a private capacity rather than on behalf of the Government, while he had not used taxpayer money for his travel (he also confirmed the Institute did not cover any of his costs). Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall says the last Labour government's smokefree policy was fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds. Photo: Marc Daalder Labour Party health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall told Newsroom the minister's remarks showed the Government had the wrong priorities when it came to its smokefree policy. 'They are prioritising balancing the books on the misery done to smokers due to the harms of tobacco.' Verrall said there was clear evidence of tobacco's cost to the health system, and the last government's smokefree generation policy had been 'fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds'. 'This is an addictive product: it is unique in that it kills half the people who use it. It's not like the more nuanced debates we have about … social media for kids.' University of Otago associate professor Andrew Waa told Newsroom Seymour's 'perverse' arguments were further evidence of the Government placing tobacco tax revenue over other concerns. 'It's literally blood money: it's money that the Government taxes on a deadly product, and yet they're still treating it as a profit margin for them.' Waa said the minister's comments ignored the social costs of tobacco, and would only help an industry 'intent on exploiting addiction at whatever cost'. 'I don't know if it's naive, or if it's [his] ideology that it's all personal choice – there's no choice when it comes to smoking some of these things. 'There's a reason why certain communities are more likely to smoke, because they get tobacco products shoved in their face all the time; by the time they decide to think that they don't wanna use the stuff, it's too late.' Janet Hoek, the co-director of tobacco control research partnership ASPIRE Aotearoa, told Newsroom that the comments were 'really ridiculous and reprehensible'. 'It just seems incredibly disappointing that Mr Seymour apparently thinks it's amusing to suggest that addiction, and early and often painful death, are a good way to generate government revenue.' Hoek said the environmental and productivity costs associated with smoking also needed to be taken into account, as did the social harm done to communities when their loved ones died prematurely. While some politicians dismissed public health experts as 'muppets … living in ivory towers', the suggestion that smokers were making an informed choice was itself out of touch with reality.
