This term, issue by issue · Climate, energy and environment
Climate and energy: Opportunity and the Greens build for 2050; ACT and NZ First would unwind current settings
Opportunity and the Greens build the 2050 position most, pairing new renewable supply with emissions pricing and a funded adaptation fund.
What is at stake now and by 2050
This term
Power bills and fuel exposure are what households feel: gas supply is falling, dry years push up wholesale prices, and a Middle East shock this year exposed reliance on imported fuel. Flood and coastal risk is now arriving through insurance, with insurers restricting cover in flood-prone towns before any public adaptation funding is in place.
Number to know
97% of central government natural hazard spending since 2010 went on response and recovery, 3% on reducing risk (Sapere for IAG, 2025).
Source: Insurance Business NZ, Flood cover restrictions arrive before adaptation funding (July 2026)
By 2050
Net zero for long-lived gases by 2050 is in law, and meeting it means roughly doubling electricity supply while gas runs down. The cost of climate damage grows each decade, so the open question is who pays when places become uninsurable: owners, councils or the Crown.
Number to know
Net zero emissions of long-lived gases by 2050 is written into the Climate Change Response Act 2002.
Source: Climate Change Response Act 2002 (as amended by the Zero Carbon Amendment Act 2019)
Current settings
Net zero 2050 is in law, the ETS runs with an auction price floor ($71 in 2026) and agricultural emissions are not priced. The offshore exploration ban was repealed in 2025; adaptation cost-sharing and managed retreat rules were deferred to the next term.
The options on the table
| Option | Backed by |
|---|---|
| Keep net zero and strengthen the ETS, including farm emissions |
|
| Keep net zero, keep farm emissions out of pricing, focus on renewables and electricity market rules |
|
| Repeal net zero or leave Paris; cut carbon costs and expand gas |
|
| Public or community ownership of new generation and firming |
|
| A dedicated, funded adaptation and resilience fund |
|
| Large new marine protection (30% to 50% of ocean area) |
|
Where each party stands
Voter priorities out of 15 (the four core tests plus relief this term) and Readiness to 2050 out of 21 (the four core tests plus the three long-run tests). Current settings come first, as the bar to beat. Open a party for every test score, the rationale and the sources.
Current settings
- Voter priorities
- 9/15
- Readiness to 2050
- 13/21
Test scores, rationale and sources for Current settings
Test Score /3 Counts towards Diagnosis 2 Both scores Mechanism 2 Both scores Funding 2 Both scores Delivery 3 Both scores Relief 0 Voter priorities Future effect 1 Readiness to 2050 Durability 2 Readiness to 2050 Candour 1 Readiness to 2050 Rationale
Net zero and the ETS give a legislated path with a price floor and agencies in place, but farm emissions are unpriced and adaptation cost-sharing has been deferred, so long-run risk is pushed forward (Future effect 1). The Zero Carbon framework has survived one change of government, but two governing partners want it repealed (Durability 2).
Relief this term
Current settings add nothing new on power bills: gas supply keeps falling, the ETS price floor rises, and adaptation cost-sharing is deferred while insurers restrict flood cover.
Sources
National
- Voter priorities
- 9/15
- Readiness to 2050
- 12/21
Electrify through market rules and home solar; keep farm emissions out of pricing; expand ocean protection.
- Electrify NZ 2.0: dry-year back-up power contract, affordability made an Electricity Authority objective, cheaper transmission access, sell solar to any retailer
- Home Energy Fund: 10-year low-interest loans for solar and batteries; consent-free rooftop solar
- Agricultural emissions stay out of the ETS; $300m concessional loans for water storage
- Protect 50% of the EEZ by 2040; ratify the High Seas Treaty; double QEII National Trust funding to $8.5m a year
Test scores, rationale and sources for National
Test Score /3 Counts towards Diagnosis 2 Both scores Mechanism 2 Both scores Funding 2 Both scores Delivery 2 Both scores Relief 1 Voter priorities Future effect 1 Readiness to 2050 Durability 2 Readiness to 2050 Candour 1 Readiness to 2050 Rationale
Electrify NZ 2.0 names real energy drivers (the dry-year back-up gap as gas runs down, lines charges) and gives named legal changes, with QEII and fiscal items in the fiscal plan. It keeps farm emissions unpriced and says nothing on adaptation or who pays for managed retreat, so the long-run effect is neutral at best; marine protection to 50% of the EEZ by 2040 is the strongest durable item.
Relief this term
Electrify NZ 2.0 rule changes (dry-year back-up contract, affordability objective for the Electricity Authority, two-day solar connections) and the Home Energy Fund's 10-year solar and battery loans for homeowners with 20% equity could start this term, but no start date or bill saving is given and market fixes act slowly.
Sources
Labour
- Voter priorities
- 10/15
- Readiness to 2050
- 12/21
Fix the ETS so the carbon price bites, back home solar, reinstate the exploration ban.
- Urgent ETS review; pause new forestry registrations; rules against whole-farm conversions
- SolarSaver: lines-company and ratepayer loans plus up to $3,000 kickstart subsidy ($153m over four years in the fiscal plan)
- Reinstate the ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration permits
- Stay in Paris; work towards a Pacific agreement on mitigation, adaptation and displacement
Test scores, rationale and sources for Labour
Test Score /3 Counts towards Diagnosis 2 Both scores Mechanism 2 Both scores Funding 2 Both scores Delivery 2 Both scores Relief 2 Voter priorities Future effect 1 Readiness to 2050 Durability 2 Readiness to 2050 Candour 1 Readiness to 2050 Rationale
Labour names a driver (a carbon price too low to cut emissions) and SolarSaver is in its fiscal plan ($153m), but the ETS fix is a review with no target or timeline. It is silent on adaptation, conservation and fresh water, so the whole offer is a modest emissions and solar package rather than a long-run build.
Relief this term
SolarSaver loans plus up to $3,000 kickstart subsidy for low and middle income households, booked at $153m over the four years of its fiscal plan, give noticeable bill relief to those who take it up within the term; the ETS fix is a review only.
Sources
Greens
- Voter priorities
- 10/15
- Readiness to 2050
- 14/21
Price all emissions including farms, build public firming, end fossil extraction, fund adaptation.
- Kiwipower: a public Crown entity buying renewable firming (about $980m over four years, funded by the wealth tax)
- ETS as true cap-and-trade: phase out free allocation, price agricultural emissions, cut gross not net
- Dedicated adaptation and resilience fund; extend the Natural Hazards Commission to climate events (uncosted)
- Protect 30% of oceans; nitrogen caps; Warmer Kiwi Homes expansion ($970m over four years); repeal Fast-track
Test scores, rationale and sources for Greens
Test Score /3 Counts towards Diagnosis 3 Both scores Mechanism 2 Both scores Funding 1 Both scores Delivery 2 Both scores Relief 2 Voter priorities Future effect 3 Readiness to 2050 Durability 1 Readiness to 2050 Candour 2 Readiness to 2050 Rationale
The fullest diagnosis (gross emissions, firming, farm emissions, hazard risk) with named vehicles (Kiwipower, ETS reform, a resilience fund) and a clear long-run build. Kiwipower and the energy programme are costed against the wealth tax, but the adaptation fund and farm pricing transition are uncosted (Funding 1), and much depends on the Greens alone (Durability 1).
Relief this term
Warmer Kiwi Homes expanded to 50,000 upgrades over four years ($970m) and zero-interest clean energy loans for up to 90% of homeowners give noticeable bill relief within the term; Kiwipower firming ($980m) mostly lands later.
Sources
ACT
- Voter priorities
- 8/15
- Readiness to 2050
- 9/21
Repeal net zero, cut the carbon price, open up gas and mining, and free up the power market.
- Repeal the Zero Carbon Act; tie targets to trading partners; abolish the Climate Change Commission
- Remove the ETS price floor; return 100% of auction money as a tax refund; agriculture permanently out
- Keep offshore gas exploration; insure LNG import infrastructure; statutory compensation if permits are withdrawn
- Private transmission investment; sell surplus solar to any buyer; ban scallop dredging in closed fisheries
Test scores, rationale and sources for ACT
Test Score /3 Counts towards Diagnosis 2 Both scores Mechanism 1 Both scores Funding 2 Both scores Delivery 2 Both scores Relief 1 Voter priorities Future effect 0 Readiness to 2050 Durability 1 Readiness to 2050 Candour 1 Readiness to 2050 Rationale
ACT names a driver (carbon costs and regulatory barriers raising prices) and books the auction refund in its fiscal plan, but tying targets to trading partners is asserted, not shown to work. Repealing net zero and the Commission while saying nothing on adaptation shifts large unpriced liabilities forward (Future effect 0), and the repeal would likely be reversed (Durability 0).
Relief this term
Removing the ETS price floor could lower the carbon cost in fuel and power, but it has no start date or modelled price effect; the auction refund is a household income payment already credited in G01, and repealing net zero does not lower bills this term.
Sources
NZ First
- Voter priorities
- 6/15
- Readiness to 2050
- 7/21
Leave Paris, split the gentailers, and search for more oil, gas and minerals.
- Leave the Paris Agreement (a stated bottom line)
- Split generation from retail; guarantee long-term fixed-price contracts for new generation
- $1b subsurface survey for oil, gas, geothermal and minerals; half of mining royalties kept in the regions
- Special Economic Zone at Marsden Point for energy and port use; Coastguard funding up $12m a year
Test scores, rationale and sources for NZ First
Test Score /3 Counts towards Diagnosis 2 Both scores Mechanism 1 Both scores Funding 1 Both scores Delivery 1 Both scores Relief 1 Voter priorities Future effect 0 Readiness to 2050 Durability 1 Readiness to 2050 Candour 1 Readiness to 2050 Rationale
NZ First names a driver (gentailer market power, energy security) but the split and fixed-price contracts are asserted with no design or costing, and the $1b survey has a cost but no funding source. Leaving Paris is a bottom line with no stated trade or cost consequences (Candour 0); silent on adaptation.
Relief this term
Splitting the gentailers and guaranteeing fixed-price contracts for new generation are structural reforms with no design or date; the $1b subsurface survey yields nothing by 2029.
Sources
Te Pāti Māori
- Voter priorities
- 6/15
- Readiness to 2050
- 8/21
Energy sovereignty through Māori and community ownership; end oil and gas; fund at-risk communities.
- $1b Energy Sovereignty Fund for marae, papakāinga and Māori land
- National energy independence plan, energy sovereignty by 2035; fair pay for household exports
- Withdraw oil and gas permits within five years; ban seabed mining
- Adaptation funding prioritised to at-risk communities; Māori authority over freshwater
Test scores, rationale and sources for Te Pāti Māori
Test Score /3 Counts towards Diagnosis 2 Both scores Mechanism 1 Both scores Funding 1 Both scores Delivery 1 Both scores Relief 1 Voter priorities Future effect 1 Readiness to 2050 Durability 1 Readiness to 2050 Candour 1 Readiness to 2050 Rationale
Names fossil import dependence and energy shocks as the driver, with a $1b fund and a 2035 goal, but the path from fund to supply is not set out and the fund is only loosely matched to its tax package. Withdrawing permits within five years without a replacement supply plan leaves the energy-security effect unclear.
Relief this term
The $1b Energy Sovereignty Fund targets marae, papakāinga and Māori land, a narrow group; household solar support and fair export pay have no detail or date; withdrawing oil and gas permits within five years could tighten gas supply.
Sources
Opportunity
- Voter priorities
- 10/15
- Readiness to 2050
- 16/21
30 GW of renewables by 2050, a stronger ETS with farms in, and a $5b resilience fund.
- 30 GW by 2050 via an Australian-style capacity investment scheme, funded from about $500m a year in gentailer dividends
- $1b Industry Energy Resilience Fund (green bond against ETS revenue) to get industry off coal and gas
- ETS with an agricultural mechanism, no new exotic forestry; keep the Climate Change Commission (bottom line)
- $5b climate resilience fund incl. $500m nature-based; 30% marine reserves by 2035; inshore bottom trawling out by 2030
Test scores, rationale and sources for Opportunity
Test Score /3 Counts towards Diagnosis 3 Both scores Mechanism 3 Both scores Funding 1 Both scores Delivery 2 Both scores Relief 1 Voter priorities Future effect 3 Readiness to 2050 Durability 2 Readiness to 2050 Candour 2 Readiness to 2050 Rationale
A measurable 30 GW target delivered through a tested Australian capacity investment scheme, an industry decarbonisation fund tied to ETS revenue, and a $5b resilience fund: the most complete answer across emissions, energy and adaptation. Funding is a stated source (gentailer dividends, green bonds, infrastructure borrowing) but not in a full fiscal plan (Funding 1); the Commission and climate credibility are bottom lines, and it would book the NDC cost on the Crown balance sheet (Candour 2).
Relief this term
30 GW by 2050, distributor consolidation and a single regulator are structural and slow; the $80m a year Warmer Kiwi Homes expansion gives narrow relief, and the $5b resilience fund is undated.
Sources
- Abundant Energy Policy
- Industry Energy Resilience Fund
- Intergenerational Infrastructure
- Bottom Lines
- Climate Action (19 August 2026)
- Healthy Oceans Policy (1 February 2026)
Place yourself
Agreeing sometimes means change and sometimes keeping current settings. Take the quiz to compare across every issue.
| Statement | National | Labour | Greens | ACT | NZ First | Te Pāti Māori | Opportunity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keep net zero 2050. New Zealand should keep its net zero 2050 target. | Agrees | Agrees | Agrees | Disagrees | Disagrees | Agrees | Agrees |
| Oil and gas exploration. New oil and gas exploration should continue to be allowed. | Agrees | Disagrees | Disagrees | Agrees | Agrees | Disagrees | Disagrees |
| Price farm emissions. Agricultural emissions should be priced through the ETS or a similar scheme. | Disagrees | No stated position | Agrees | Disagrees | No stated position | No stated position | Agrees |
| Climate adaptation fund. The Government should set up a dedicated fund to pay for climate adaptation. | No stated position | No stated position | Agrees | No stated position | No stated position | Mixed | Agrees |
| Split power companies. The big power companies should be split into separate generators and retailers. | Disagrees | Mixed | Mixed | Disagrees | Agrees | Mixed | Mixed |
✓ Agrees, ○ Mixed, ✗ Disagrees, · No stated position. Silence is a finding.
Why each statement matters
Keep net zero 2050 New Zealand should keep its net zero 2050 target.
- What it means
- Net zero means New Zealand's long-lived greenhouse gases are balanced by removals by 2050. It is in law now; disagreeing would repeal the target or leave the Paris Agreement.
- The case for
- A fixed target gives business certainty and keeps New Zealand's climate promises.
- The case against
- Meeting it adds costs to households and industry while far bigger countries emit much more.
- The trade-off
- Lower emissions and credibility versus lower costs now.
Oil and gas exploration New oil and gas exploration should continue to be allowed.
- What it means
- The ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration was repealed in 2025, so new permits are allowed again. Disagreeing would bring the ban back or end fossil fuel extraction.
- The case for
- Gas supply is falling, and new local fields could ease power prices and reliance on imports.
- The case against
- New fields lock in emissions for decades when the 2050 target needs gas to run down.
- The trade-off
- Energy security now versus the path to net zero by 2050.
Price farm emissions Agricultural emissions should be priced through the ETS or a similar scheme.
- What it means
- The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) makes emitters pay for each tonne of greenhouse gas. Farming is about half of gross emissions but is not priced now; this would add it.
- The case for
- Pricing every big source treats all emitters alike and gives farmers a reason to cut emissions.
- The case against
- It adds costs to a key export industry and could shift production overseas rather than cut emissions.
- The trade-off
- Lower farm emissions versus farm incomes and export earnings.
Climate adaptation fund The Government should set up a dedicated fund to pay for climate adaptation.
- What it means
- Adaptation means preparing for floods and rising seas, such as stopbanks or moving homes. This would create a dedicated fund; none exists now.
- The case for
- One study found only 3% of central government hazard spending since 2010 went on reducing risk; a fund invests before disasters hit.
- The case against
- A fund could cost billions and may encourage people to stay in risky places at taxpayers' cost.
- The trade-off
- Shared public cost versus owners and councils carrying the risk as insurers pull back.
Split power companies The big power companies should be split into separate generators and retailers.
- What it means
- Most big power companies both generate electricity and sell it to households. A split would separate those two parts; now the market is managed through regulation and market rules.
- The case for
- Separation could stop firms favouring their own retail arms and bring more price competition.
- The case against
- Splitting firms is costly and disruptive, and could slow investment in new generation.
- The trade-off
- More competition versus slower building of the power supply needed by 2050.
The 2050 test
Opportunity and the Greens build the 2050 position most, pairing new renewable supply with emissions pricing and a funded adaptation fund. ACT borrows from it by repealing net zero and the Commission, while National, Labour, NZ First and Te Pāti Māori offer energy fixes that leave long-run emissions and climate damage costs largely where they are. Nobody sets out who pays when a town becomes uninsurable, or a managed retreat law with cost shares.
| Party | Effect to 2050 | The policy that drives it | Would it last? |
|---|---|---|---|
| National | Neutral | Electrify NZ 2.0 dry-year back-up contract; no adaptation policy. Improves energy security, but unpriced farm emissions and silence on adaptation leave climate risk unaddressed. Source | Partly |
| National | Neutral | Electrify NZ 2.0 market rules. Lower connection and lines costs may ease prices, but no new supply target. Source | Yes |
| Labour | Neutral | ETS review and SolarSaver. Tightens carbon pricing over time, but with no adaptation or managed retreat plan. Source | Partly |
| Labour | Neutral | SolarSaver loans. Cuts household bills for those who take it up; small effect on wholesale prices. Source | Partly |
| Greens | Builds | Kiwipower, full ETS coverage, adaptation fund. Adds firming capacity, prices all emissions and funds adaptation, lowering long-run damage and supply risk. Source | No |
| Greens | Builds | Kiwipower firming entity. Cheaper firming lowers the price-setting peaks that drive wholesale prices. Source | No |
| ACT | Borrows | Repeal net zero and the Climate Change Commission. Removes the target and the independent body while doing nothing on adaptation, pushing emissions and damage costs forward. Source | No |
| ACT | Neutral | Private transmission; remove ETS price floor. Lower carbon and connection costs may ease prices, but net effect on supply is unclear. Source | No |
| NZ First | Neutral | Leave Paris; $1b resource survey; fixed-price generation contracts. More domestic gas and generation may help supply security, but leaving Paris and ignoring adaptation leave climate risk unpriced. Source | No |
| NZ First | Neutral | Split gentailers; fixed-price contracts. Could lower prices if designed well; no design published. Source | No |
| Te Pāti Māori | Neutral | $1b Energy Sovereignty Fund; withdraw oil and gas permits. Builds local renewables, but ending gas without a replacement supply plan raises dry-year risk. Source | No |
| Te Pāti Māori | Neutral | Energy independence plan and price fairness framework. Price regulation without new supply has unclear effect. Source | No |
| Opportunity | Builds | 30 GW target, Industry Energy Resilience Fund, $5b resilience fund. Adds renewable supply through a tested scheme and funds adaptation ahead of damage. Source | Partly |
| Opportunity | Builds | 30 GW by 2050 and capacity investment scheme. Abundant renewable supply lowers wholesale prices and supports electrified industry. Source | Partly |
All sources for this grouping are listed on the sources page.