A new Talbot Mills survey released today reveals voters
across all parties want long-term solutions to lower energy
and transport bills and favour the government setting a
long-term National Energy Strategy rather than leaving
energy decisions to the market.
This should be a call
to action for political leaders across all parties in the
final days before the election, and when they come to
negotiate terms of the next government: No matter the
election outcome, New Zealanders want a long-term strategy
for accelerating the renewable energy transition and
bringing household bills down, according to 350
Aotearoa.
“We all need warm, dry homes and
affordable ways to get to school and work. Decades of
underinvestment in our renewable energy potential has locked
New Zealand families into relying on expensive fossil fuels.
After a winter of high energy bills, it shouldn’t be a
surprise to any politician that New Zealanders want a
long-term strategy to enable a fast and just transition to
renewables, and investment in community-led solutions for
affordable energy for everyone.” Alva Feldmeier,
Co-Director, 350 Aotearoa
Key
findings
- Nearly 70% of people said long-term
solutions to lower energy and transport bills would be
critical or one of the main factors in their vote, and 63%
favour a binding, long-term National Energy Strategy. Across
all parties, the majority favoured this over market
solutions. - If the Government were to spend $1
billion on energy security, an overwhelming majority of 75%
want investment in renewable energy or supporting people and
businesses to transition, and only 12% support spending it
on a terminal in Taranaki to import LNG.- Of National,
Act, and NZ First voters, all are more likely to support
renewable energy investment than an LNG
port.
- Of National,
- 74% support limiting the profits
power companies can pay out to shareholders by requiring
them to invest in new renewable energy generation that
provides greater security and affordability for households
and businesses. - 73% support requiring power
companies’ excess profits to be used to fund community solar
on schools, marae, and public housing, providing greater
community resiliency and affordability.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
“The
current government’s commitment to fund a new LNG terminal
shows they’re stuck looking in a rear-view mirror. Some
politicians have failed to wake up to the wind of change:
New Zealanders know that the best way to bring down bills is
to invest in renewable energy. Let’s hope in these final
weeks before the election, they choose to listen to NZ
families, businesses and manufacturers who want a strategic,
affordable energy transition”, said
Feldmeier.
Catherine Cheung, Climate Justice Taranaki
researcher, said “The LNG import plan for Port Taranaki is
dangerous, expensive and unnecessary. The Government has
been using misleading information to justify its plan. The
procurement process has been questionable. Forcing such a
major fossil fuel import project through, potentially with
an ‘Enabling’ legislation, would lock New Zealand into
volatile international fuel prices and contradict NZ’s
climate obligations. Rather than talking to a preferred
provider to proceed with the LNG plan, the Government and
Ministry of Business should halt everything now.
A
responsible incoming Government would instead invest in
energy conservation, demand management and community-based
renewable energy systems that benefit all – people and the
planet.”
Sarah Roberts, spokesperson for Taranaki
Energy Watch, said, “The proposed LNG import terminal in
Port Taranaki has a potential worst- case fatality scenario
identified at approximately 2000 metres. There are thousands
of people within 2 kilometres of Port
Taranaki.”
“What is completely missing is good
practice land use planning. This means the weighing of
alternative locations, other energy technologies, the
quantitative and qualitative risk assessments, and costs of
the proposed LNG import terminal against putting several
thousand people in harm’s way. TEW feel the intended
enabling legislation and focus on safety cases purposefully
sidestep this and leaves everyone vulnerable,” concludes
Sarah
Roberts.
