On 20 March 2024, Climate Justice Taranaki was invited to speak at the fourth Ara Ake Offshore Renewable Energy Forum, on the topic of social licence. So for half an hour we shared our group’s thoughts on what we think is sustainable renewable energy and what is not. If it props up big agricultural exports (our biggest climate polluter) and chemical fertiliser production or is exported, then we will not support it. If it adds further pressure on our moana that is already stressed from overfishing, marine heatwaves, toxic algae blooms, plastic rubbish, effluent runoff, ocean acidification, mining and other harms, then we will not support it. We are not anti-renewable energy. We support community-focused, onshore solar, wind, micro-hydro, geothermal energy and maybe some biofuel generation. You can find our slides here.

During our presentation, we received 18 questions on slido but only had time to answer one on stage. So we have prepared our answers below for all. We welcome any feedback or discussions on the topics these questions traverse.

1. Are these solutions you could offer?

Yes, we see demand control and decentralised, community-scale renewable energy systems (including micro-grids that enable storage, optimisation and sharing) as the key solutions for energy sustainability, equity and resilience. Essential needs and services must be prioritised over energy intensive export industries. Based on the CLEVER – Collaborative Low Energy Vision for European Region framework, a reduction in energy demand to -55% by 2050 (compared to 2019) is do-able.

See also our answer to Q12 and Toitū Taranaki 2030 for more: https://climatejusticetaranaki.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/toitu-taranaki-2030-just-transition-community-strategy-apr21-web.pdf

2. What are the alternative industries, jobs, economic opportunities you would prioritise to replace those that currently drive our economy and exports like agri?

A more localised economy with distributed renewable energy systems and networks of local food production, woodlots for timber and fuel, timber processing and sustainable building hubs, natural restoration projects, etc. would create many more jobs than export driven industrial agriculture. Our public services notably education, health care, public housing and transport, deserve much greater level of investment which would support more fulfilling jobs and foster community wellbeing. Transformation to a progressive, people and community centred tax and monetary system is needed.

Export industries would be better focused on intellectual and technical transfer rather than energy intensive or environmentally damaging commodities (e.g. milk powder, meat, pine tree logs, fruit, exporting whole hoki fish & importing hoki fillets…).

3. Have you compared alternative energies (similar to Ngā Iwi o Taranaki) to compare lifecycle material use and environmental impact? How does ofw fare?

Our slides 6 & 7 compare the steel consumption and other metal intensity (kg/MW) to 2050 between onshore and offshore wind energy, the latter is more demanding in material use. In terms of comparative lifecycle emissions analyses on various electricity supply technologies, there is a technological annex to the IPCC 5^th Assessment Report (See Table A.III.2 in https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf ). The table suggests wind energy for electricity supply to have the lowest lifecycle emissions (gCO₂eq/kWh). The graph on our 5^th slide illustrates such comparisons using the median figures from this table. However, environmental impacts of different technologies, would depend very much on what and where the different stages of the life cycle occur. More specifically on offshore wind and seabirds, we recommend reading: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aec.13278  We intend to conduct a literature review and seek expert advice on the subject and would welcome any exchange of information and discussions with you.

4. Does the next PWC offshore wind impact report needs to address how we change what we do to downshift demand, then size renewables?

That would be great. Please consider collaboration with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and Transition Engineers. https://www.transitionengineering.org/

5. The developers have said how they have run community beach and evening events. How do we get deeper, sustained and more meaningful engagement?

Community events and engagement are only good when they tell the whole story or at least include both the positives and negatives, capabilities and constraints, and allow sufficient time and resources for participants to contribute meaningfully. Refrain from offering sponsorships to schools, community groups or events with strings attached. 

6. Are there any renewable technologies in particular you support?

See answers to questions 1 and 8.

7. What are the top 3 solutions you’d propose that would move the needle quickly and effectively to reduce carbon emissions?

• Phase out industrial dairying, dairy export, synthetic nitrogen fertiliser and palm kernel extract while providing adequate support for regenerative, diverse and more plant-based agriculture (if non-carbon emissions are included in this question)
• Reform the electricity market so that it stops incentivising the use of fossil fuels among gentailers but incentivise renewables at grid and local scales.
• End all coal, oil and gas exploration and mining and the use of fossil fuels in industrial process heat.
• Invest in electric rail and public transport and infrastructure that favours active and shared transport while disincentivising private vehicle ownership and use.
• See Toitū Taranaki 2030 for more. https://climatejusticetaranaki.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/toitu-taranaki-2030-just-transition-community-strategy-apr21-web.pdf

8. CJT seems 2 be against Hydrogen & steel production for windfarms etc, we have 2 start somewhere to create renewable energy, where do you suggest it starts then?

Start with identifying and cutting the most energy intensive, wasteful and/or non-essential energy uses. For the remaining demands, select the renewable energy systems that incur the least life-cycle material, emissions and environmental impacts while enabling flexibility and community management (e.g. roof top solar, maybe floatovolvaics, small-scale onshore wind, micro-hydro, micro-grids, community coppicing woodlots). Also, work on innovations and technologies that create co-benefits and enable reuse, recycling and regeneration rather than perpetuate extractivism. 

9. Given the pressures already on various species from climate change, do you think there are ecological benefits of renewables to species?

• It is possible that some species might benefit because ecosystems are complex, and we know so little about species, especially how they might cope in unprecedented changes in climate, ocean chemistry and currents. We do know that there are threatened species that are unlikely to survive additional stresses.
• Location and scale matters, see https://climatejusticetaranaki.info/2023/06/02/press-release-climate-justice-group-cautions-unconstrained-renewable-energy-push/

10. Degrowth acknowledged and necessary. Which renewables would you back to improve things? No planet B, we need to make this one work!

• See answers to questions 1 and 8.  And our submission points on energy transition: https://climatejusticetaranaki.info/2023/10/27/energy-transition-submission-keypoints/
• Re degrowth, visit: https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/ and https://www.degrowth.nz/

11. Is opposing everything from the government throwing the renewable OFW baby out with the Shane Jones bath water?

• We cannot support this coalition government which represents a neo-liberal and power-hungry establishment without regards for people or the environment. Our presentation lays out some of our concerns over large-scale offshore wind energy development.
• The neo-liberal infinite growth economy is unsustainable and harmful. GDP is a human construct which does not represents wellbeing. Here’s an interesting read: https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/03/12/nobel-laureate-economist-angus-deaton-capitalism-power/

12. Green energy development can slow global warming. If we don’t develop renewables we risk further climate warming. Is this better or worse for flora and fauna?

• Climate change is only one of many crises species including ourselves face. Research shows that globally we have breached six of the nine known planetary boundaries. “We don’t know how long we can keep transgressing these key boundaries before combined pressures lead to irreversible change and harm,” Johan Rockström of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2023. https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2023-09-13-all-planetary-boundaries-mapped-out-for-the-first-time-six-of-nine-crossed.html and https://environment.govt.nz/publications/a-safe-operating-space-for-new-zealandaotearoa-translating-the-planetary-boundaries-framework/
• Large scale renewable energy development and use is not as green as portrayed, and its development does not necessitate the end of fossil fuel exploration and combustion. 
• We urgently need to reduce humanity’s impacts on the biosphere, the land and our oceans and allow their life-supporting capacity to be restored. We also need to address the growing social shortfalls globally and in NZ. https://doughnuteconomics.org/about-doughnut-economics

13. You mention carbon zero future. What about the govt. view (of both left and right) of net zero future. i.e. there will be offsets for hard-to-abate industry.

Our view on offsets is informed by Dr Mike Joy’s well-articulated essay: https://theconversation.com/were-burning-too-much-fossil-fuel-to-fix-by-planting-trees-making-net-zero-emissions-impossible-with-offsets-217437

14. Studies show that overall mining and fossil fuels needed for renewables, is less than that for fossil fuels. How can we address the misinformation?

• We are not comparing fossil fuels with renewables, because indeed fossil fuels must stay in the ground to avert the worst of climate change, as international authorities have stated.
• We need to compare and select a mix of renewable energies that have the least life cycle material and ecological impacts and best address the need and situation.

15. Thank you. Absent industrialised economy, presumably you want education, healthcare, social security and safe communities. How would you propose that be funded?

See answers for Q2 & 11.  Here’s a relevant read: https://www.jasonhickel.org/less-is-more

16. How do we balance the fact that at least some impacts from O.W. are inevitable but we know that the impacts from climate change will be massive?

See answer for Q12.

17. Do you have concerns that developers will be offshore owned thinly capitalized companies so profits are not here, tax not paid in NZ and community misses out?

Yes, but mainly we are concerned about the environmental and social costs here and overseas (e.g. rare earth mining) and the financial burden and ecological impacts from infrastructure development such as major port extension to support an offshore wind industry and Power to X. Government budget is in high demand for many things, notably our water infrastructure, education, healthcare, and increasingly for climate mitigation and adaptation, as well as building community resilience.

18. You state renewables shouldn’t be used in ag or dairy production due to emissions. But Methane mitigation tools are also evolving. Does this make a difference?

No, because industrial dairying is problematic on multiple fronts, not just emissions, but nitrate pollution of rivers, groundwater contamination, soil compaction and wellbeing of farm workers. Industrial dairying is only possible because of high stocking rates and high use of nitrogenous fertilisers and imported feeds. Techno-fixes may mitigate one problem but not another, and they are largely unproven and risky.  On the other hand, regenerative agriculture, especially diversified and more plant-based farming, would offer numerous co-benefits including resilience environmentally, socially and economically.