![Green Party co-leaders James Shaw and Marama Davison on election night in 2023](/sites/default/files/2024-05/james-shaw-green-party.jpg)
The former Minister of Climate Change James Shaw says solutions to climate change are “largely an infrastructure issue” and represent the greatest investment opportunity for New Zealand since the rebuild after World War Two.
Shaw spoke at the Building Nations Conference – like ComicCon for infrastructure enthusiasts – which was held in Auckland on Wednesday.
Shaw said while he knows a lot of people feel “quite daunted” about the scale of what needs to happen, it needs to be seen as an enormous opportunity.
“If you accept that this is basically a royal asset replacement programme, and in New Zealand, that there are a number of, shall we say, timely opportunities for asset replacement, then the next question is, how do you unlock that? And that requires gargantuan amounts of investment, for which reason this is also the biggest investment opportunity since World War Two. So that's kind of exciting,” he said.
The former co-leader of the Greens Party left Parliament in May after a 10-year career in politics, stepping back into the private sector via infrastructure investment firm Morrison.
The firm manages over $38 billion in assets, on behalf of institutional investors and sovereign wealth funds like the NZ Super Fund.
During his decade as a politician, Shaw served as Greens Party co-leader (2015-2024), Minister of Climate Change (2017-2023), Minister of Statistics and Associate Minister of Finance (2017-2020), and Associate Minister of Environment (2020-2023).
Before leaving Parliament, Shaw announced his goal to reduce or eliminate 150 million tonnes of global climate pollution by 2030 through his future work in the private sector, aiming to prove that if he could achieve it, the Government could too.
He wagered to the Coalition Government’s Climate Change Minister Simon Watts that the last person to reach the goal would buy the winner drinks.
At the Building Nations conference, Shaw said he had picked 150 million tonnes of climate pollution because it happened to be New Zealand's commitment under the Paris Agreement.
“And because I'm bloody minded and we were taking forever to get cracking on it, I thought, well, I'll just do it and demonstrate that it's actually not nearly as hard as everybody says it is. And that we can stop hand wringing and just do some stuff.”
Shaw described climate solutions as being infrastructure related in “virtually every category that you can think of” ranging from electricity generation and distribution, stationary and industrial energy, building and construction, waste management and data infrastructure.
“And if you think about those categories, then you kind of go, well, what do we need to shift in each of those categories in order to decarbonise the economy as a whole?” he said.
“In each of those categories, there are solutions to be found.”
Shaw said climate change is the single greatest risk that civilization and species have ever faced, calling it the “omnicrisis” – a situation where multiple crises are happening at once.
“So stopping climate change really is something that's going to take everything. That's going to take all of us, and it's going to take everything that we've got.”
He remarked, that before the election last year, he had floated the notion that one of the reasons why infrastructure is politicised in this country “is because we're really cheap”.
“So you can choose to have a road or light rail system. Actually, most countries in the OECD have roads and light rail systems and they tend to both get paid for [with] private finance. That's how we've got a lot of ability to kind of have both.”
That was a different story in NZ, Shaw said, with the country only prepared to pay for one of those assets at a time.
65 months
“Climate change is an economic policy under this government,” Simon Watts told conference attendees on Wednesday.
“Why? Because the interlinkages between climate change, renewable and clean energy adaptation and infrastructure investment, innovation in terms of agricultural emissions reductions, all are underpinned by the integrity of our economy.”
Watts had the last speaking slot of the day and used it to give an overview of the work the Government was doing around climate change, like Parliament's climate inquiry, agriculture being taken out of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the decision to cut the number of units available in the ETS by 24 million (more than half) between 2025 and 2029.
He said the Government particularly wanted to work with the infrastructure sector in order to deal with the impacts of climate change that NZ was already facing but also prepare for future impacts.
“We're in the critical decade of delivery. We need to get on and do the doing and we've only got 65 months between now and 2030.”
NZ is set to very narrowly meet its current second emissions budget of 303 million tons of carbon emissions between 2026–2030, however the Climate Change Commission believes there are “significant risks” of NZ not meeting its second or third emissions budget.
In mid-July, the Ministry for Environment (MfE) publicly released documents on its second emissions reduction plan which revealed NZ is set to narrowly meet its first and second emissions budgets for 2022-25 and 2026-30.
On Wednesday, Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop also announced a National Infrastructure Agency (NIA) will be established from December later this year.
Bishop said the NIA will, among other things, act as the Crown’s “shopfront” to facilitate private sector investment in infrastructure. The agency will also partner with agencies – and in some cases local government – on projects involving private finance, administer central government infrastructure funds.
The NIA will be established by repurposing Crown Infrastructure Partners which currently manages the delivery of several billion dollars' worth of government projects.
“Our intention is that the NIA will unlock access to more capital for infrastructure and give the private sector a one-stop shop to partner with the Government,” Bishop said.
Bishop said if the private sector was looking for an investing opportunity around infrastructure in NZ or wanted to pitch a project, the NIA would be opening for business “very shortly”.
50 Comments
Apart from the GDP boost while the green infrastructure is being made, the long term investment proposition is fairly tricky.
Global green investment is through the roof. In some areas, energy prices can go into the negatives. If everyone is overbuilding on renewable energy, how do you turn a profit with it?
This is not to undermine other benefits, energy security, resource consumption, etc.
Building Nations
Utopia: season 2 trailer (youtube.com)
As I posted last night, you couldn't make this shyte up.
Shaw is of the past, as are the neolib-steeped brigade.
Growth is over - the need is to de-grow, and fast. Even then, we''ll be too slow and events will overtake.
Essential learning: Do the Math | Using physics and estimation to assess energy, growth, options—by Tom Murphy (ucsd.edu)
Chuckle.
Utopia is worth watching - every one.
John Clarke did it in less time: Clarke and Dawe - Growth first. Then these other things can be dealt with, whatever they are. (youtube.com)
... statistics show that the world population is growing more because of us living longer , than because of birth rates ... funeral directors say that theirs is a dying industry ...
As a for instance : the population of China is predicted to nearly halve by year 2100 ...
PDK - unlike yourself, it appears, understands trajectories, relativities and timelines.
I suggest you learn about Systems - because that will be the only kind of thinking applicable as time goes on.
Earth Overshoot Day: Human consumption vs biocapacity | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)
I always find that getting informed is the best way. Try it.
To change we need a broadly accepted plan that isn't based in magical thinking and where implementation won't be sabotaged for political ends by one side or the other.
We need political change first: data driven decision making, collaboration and compromise rather than blinkered doctrine, reflexive adversarialism and the intransigent winner/loser mentality.
Governance isn't a bloody competition, unless it's to do better for the citizens than you did before. We don't seem to grasp that.
References please.
I find it interesting to note when 'GBH' is wheeled out...
But the concept that we can sprawl track housing over food-production land forever, is nuts. And the idea that we can feed 8+ billion ex Faber Bosch, is nuts too. And the idea that we can consume/discard NNR's at ever-growing rates is likewise. Or pollute.
There seems no end to short-sighted stupidity, that I'll grant you.
What's stopping the use of high-rise hydroponic growing facilities such as in Netherlands, powered by renewable energy, and using high-rise or underground areas to house more people? I struggle to understand how we cannot achieve further growth with renewable energy, lab-grown proteins, and potentially fusion energy.
It's cathartic to preach that the world is ending, you're definitely not the first in history and certainly not the last, but nobody has been right so far so the odds aren't in your favour.
Also, no idea what your abbreviations mean, never heard of NNRs before. (This doesn't make me dumber than you, by the way).
... there is enormous research & a few practical applications into " vertical gardens " ... certainly , super cities such as Tokyo or New York could produce much fruit & vege from utilising the walls of skyscrapers ... not to mention the incredible potential of rooftop gardens ... several international airports have rooftop vineyards , producing wine ...
I don't mean as a supplementary purpose to existing structures. I'm referencing the established practice of vertical farming and indoor grows, as the Netherlands is one of the smallest nations, with one of the largest agriculture export sectors.
https://www.wur.nl/en/research-results/dossiers/file/vertical-farming.h….
"The Netherlands produces 4 million cows, 13 million pigs and 104 million chickens annually and is Europe’s biggest meat exporter. But it also provides vegetables to much of Western Europe. The country has nearly 24,000 acres — almost twice the size of Manhattan — of crops growing in greenhouses. These greenhouses, with less fertilizer and water, can grow in a single acre what would take 10 acres of traditional dirt farming to achieve. Dutch farms use only a half-gallon of water to grow about a pound of tomatoes, while the global average is more than 28 gallons."
https://www.grozine.com/2022/11/23/dutch-vertical-farming/
... it is true that we fail to respect that which is free ... if I could , I'd slap a water tax across the nation , plus a land tax , and air ... those who use our natural resources ought to pay something to the state for doing so ...
And , offset those monies raised by cutting business & income tax rates ...
For someone expert in everything, you seem rather ignorant of the financial costs to farmers of using water? From set up costs, water charges, infrastructure charges, to compliance charges, adding irrigation water to farming business is a significant financial burden!
….and of course would be passed directly down the supply chain to the end user/consumer driving up food costs, increasing inflation and resulting in higher interest rates. So, yet another stupid ideas. Greenies encouraging further increasing farming costs is economically and environmentally a very stupid idea.
"Not being able to secure energy supply at all times can have a substantial impact on lives. This became apparent when a large-scale power outage in Texas, during the Texas Freeze in February, lead to 150 deaths and trapped millions of people in freezing cold and darkness. Besides, when security of supply is under pressure, energy prices will rise and may affect affordability. Research organization TNO calculated that 7% of Dutch Households will experience ‘Energy Poverty’ caused by increased energy prices. Energy Poverty means that households must spend up to 20% of their income on gas and electricity, having major impact on their financial situation.1
With the energy transition at full speed and the phasing out of Dutch natural gas, our national security of supply is under increasing pressure leading to higher dependency on import of energy. While only 15% of our energy consumption was imported in 2016, 5 years later this increased to 65%, calculated by Energiebeheer Nederland (EBN). And this dependence will increase even further up to 80% in the coming years as can be seen in figure 1.
The consequences of this dependency are already felt everywhere in our economy. A combination of factors is pushing up the price for natural gas. Now that production in Groningen is phasing out, supply of natural gas must, to a large extent, come from gas storages. These are controlled by private parties such as Gazprom. The filling rate of those gas storages is now 58%, instead of the usual 80%. At the storage of Gazprom in the Bergermeer this is as low as 27%.2 On top of that, the Netherlands hardly has any long-term supply contracts with providers, unlike other import-dependent countries. We are already experiencing the capricious spot market, dominated by the same Gazprom."
https://www2.deloitte.com/nl/nl/pages/energy-resources-industrials/arti…
What do you need to grow food in controlled environments?
93% of people in the Netherlands will not experience energy poverty. This is impressive and good.
The Netherlands is phasing out gas, and as a result, is importing energy. This is neither good nor bad, please elaborate. They are part of the EU and comparative advantages mean that different states should specialise in their respective areas.
As a result of divesting from gas energy, less gas reserves are available, and further to this gazprom is a Russian state entity, and it is expected that supplies would reduce with less trade between the EU and Russia. Additionally, as this states gas is imported, are you simultaneously suggesting that imported energy is bad (above) but imported gas is reliable and/or good?
You linked a source, great, but you didn't have an argument, just lots of words.
The Dutch are facing an energy shortage and reliant upon imports in a fracturing world....their own analysis finds that in one of the richest countries in the world faces 7%of the population spending 20% of income on electricity and gas in the near term and a reliance on hydrogen, an infant energy at scale.
The proposal that the model of growing the required calories in high energy consuming controlled environments will only exacerbate that energy shortfall....not to mention the supply risks.
NZ used to grow a lot of produce (out of season) with the aid of simple heated greenhouses....we no longer do, why not? the energy costs make it non viable.
We will not solve a complexity problem by adding further complexity
Or, we could stop covering the planet in ever more asphalt and grow food in actual soil? Grow in soil where plants have a symbiotic relationship with millions of other organisms and provide microflora and fauna essential to gut and overall health in humans.
Techno utopia is an expensive, overhyped flop!
Thank you for your insightful response.
Are you suggesting that a grassy field is a better ecological use than forest, which also is not able to be used to grow food?
Or are you suggesting that we have excellent microflora and fauna where we blast inefficient farmland with fertiliser and let animals absolutely demolish the existing ecosystems with their waste?
"Are you suggesting that a grassy field is a better ecological use than forest, which also is not able to be used to grow food?"
I'm suggesting growing food is actually a starvation alleviating activity that needs to take place somewhere, preferably a place that can provide optimum nutrition for the biological organism known as Homo sapiens. You on the other hand, can eat whatever food like substance you choose. Even from an industrial robotic highrise structure using 100% synthetic inputs, if you can find one.
Forgetting the one-eyed monster/slanger-offer for a minute
The problem is simply stated. With the questionable exceptions of nuclear (finite resource, only does electricity) and geothermal (limited sites and rates) all energy is solar in origin.
We can think of it in terms of solar acres - area perpendicular to sunlight. There is a limit to the per-sq/m energy landing, and a thermodymnamic limit to the amount of that we can capture.
We got ourselves overshot, by tapping into historical acres - the fossil fuels - as if they were permanent. And we are grossly overshot as an unsurprising result. The fossil acres are leacing us rapidly, and we will revert by default to above-ground acres. The stored solar in trees, will be razed in a blink - 8+ billion trying to survive. Then we'll be down to seasonal storage (food) and real-time. How many of us can live on that, at what level, is the only question in town.
I've gotten past getting angry as the boors - I'm starting to feel sorry for them; bombast usually cloaks insecurity, when you get right down to it.
What's stopping the use of high-rise hydroponic growing facilities such as in Netherlands, powered by renewable energy, and using high-rise or underground areas to house more people?
Vertical farming is problematic to do, and commercialise at scale. Barriers include:
- you are having to replace what would normally be free (sun, soil, water and wind) with artificial equivalents that cost money.
- issues related to monocrops, like disease and pests. Amplified by the closed environment.
- it's really only good for certain low yield/caloric value crops.
- can be much more labour intensive
Much of that initial wave of vertical farming has failed to find a market, and gone bust. Having personally tried a variety of farming methods, it is very hard to improve on nature's way.
Even if you are aiding with fertilisers and selective crops designed to grow fast, there's always a cost. Degraded soils, lesser flavour profile, etc.
They worked out the world wasn't flat, a wee while ago.
GHGs are only one manifestation of the polycrisis; merely the entropic exhaust of our energy-burn.
Energy underwrites money 100% - energy is required to do work, if no work is done nothing is produced (all else is parasitic); if nothing is produced money is worth nothing. So valuing energy in money - especially now that it debt is accruing faster than GDP (and the latter chooses to overlook much).- is flawed. It should be the other way around - as Soddy pointed out a wee while back, Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt - Wikipedia
Efficiencies run into diminishing returns, complexity, and inevitablty peak.
Valuable employment? You think people will be able to buy MORE stuff (or inbuilt 'value') on less real energy, using ever-worse NNRs?
Sorry , all just poorly thought through greenwash.
Fossil fuels are used exactly BECAUSE they are the most reliable, efficient, portable, cost effective, available on call energy source we have. This underwrites the energy-slave surplus (read Debt / consumption) which allows us all to consume like kings. Its what pays our wages. This is far more than just some electricity.
Do you really think industry wont use "renewables" because they are cheaper??!!
Shaw doesnt preach green, he preaches "you can still live like kings but be green".
Its a fairytale.
He is the guy that got punched in the face by a total stranger in a public park right. He was very annoying and hopeless as a politician and some random had enough of him, and took action (obviously illegal). Its good that he is out of the public eye mostly now but he still chimes in occasionally with his hopelessly thought out ideas. Like most greenies.
Amazing the way you connect dots.
Shaw was attempting the impossible, trying to make a modern economy (essentially extracting, consuming then excreting pasts of the planet) sustainable. Sorry, but the physics/chemistry/biology doesn't care about political hue, stupidity of comments, or anything else. It does, however, note when sinks are being filled too fast, when stocks are being depleted too fast, and doesn't allow sustained overshoot.
Yes, a lot of the green echelon are stuck away back at the 'fix climate and party on' stage - but they are a dwindling band. The echelon who know something is wrong, is growing, and it transcends traditional political allegiances. That has been a surprise to me; the old 'right wing' is fracturing into the idiot 'we can grow forever' brigade, and the 'I think we timed it right; our kids won't be as well off' brigade. We are all stuck being part of the System, but it is well into injury-time. Some of us are looking ahead - but Shaw missed the same bus the 3-Clown Circus missed.
Green funds...the express pass to financial ruin.
https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/esg-fund-launches-slump-to-five-year-…
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.