But they show indecision on two key matters – the legal framework and the agency that would be in charge.
The plan relates primarily to conventional carbon capture and storage technologies, which remove carbon dioxide from an industrial gas flow and dispose of it deep underground.
It also covers some methods of carbon dioxide removal, an emerging but as yet commercially untested suite of technologies such as enhanced rock weathering, bio-energy capture and direct air capture.
The latter technologies are not predicated on fossil fuel consumption and could operate in many different situations.
Neither kind of carbon removal is a simple answer to the climate challenge and the priority remains on cutting emissions. But we need to have regulatory frameworks in place for both reduction and removal technologies of all kinds, and soon.
Earning credits from emissions trading
Both types of technologies will benefit from the government’s decision to allow companies to get credits in the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for the disposal of carbon dioxide from any source. Credits will not be tied to any one technology, according to the released policy discussion documents.
It’s also a positive development that an operator can get credits as a separate removal activity, not merely as a reduction of an existing emissions liability (although official advice was initially against separate credits). This allows for diversity in the players and the systems for removals.
The government has decided it will assume liability for any carbon dioxide leaks from geological storage, but only after verification that fluids in the subsurface are behaving as expected after closure, and no sooner than 15 years after closure.
Leaks this long after injection are unlikely, but we nevertheless need strong regulation, financial assurance to guarantee remedial action and clear liability rules.
Companies will be able to earn credits for the permanent disposal of carbon dioxide.Shutterstock/VectorMine
The government also states ETS credits will only be available for removals that can be recognised internationally against New Zealand’s commitments to cut emissions. This would apply only to geological storage but not deep-ocean deposition or rock weathering.
But that’s not quite right. The general international rules already allow the inclusion in a national greenhouse gas inventory of removals from any process. Detailed methodologies for carbon dioxide removal are likely to become available within the next few years.
With change underway, New Zealand’s new regime should allow a wide range of removal methods to receive credits.
A new regulatory regime
The documents acknowledge that New Zealand needs a broader regulatory regime, beyond the ETS, to cover the entire process of carbon dioxide removal. The suitability of a disposal site must be verified, a detailed geological characterisation is required and the project design and operation need to be approved.
Approval is also required for closure and post-closure plans, and systematic monitoring. Monitoring is everything; it must be accurate and verifiable but also cost effective. The operator will have to pay for monitoring for decades after site closure.
In agreeing on these features, the government is following the examples of many countries overseas, including Australia, Canada, the UK and the EU.
However, it is intriguing that the government hasn’t decided where this new regime should sit in the statute book, and who should manage it. Much of the apparently relevant text in the documents has been redacted.
Given that carbon dioxide would be stored underground, the Crown Minerals Act is one possibility. But this legislation is all about extraction, not disposal. Although the New Zealand petroleum and minerals unit at the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment has expertise in regulating subsurface operations, it focuses largely on oil and gas, not on innovative climate projects.
The Resource Management Act certainly provides a regulatory approval regime, but it is awaiting reform and would need much more than the currently proposed changes to deal with carbon capture and storage or removal properly. So would legislation covering activities within New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone.
Indeed each act would require a whole new part to be added, with its own principles and procedures. There is a lot to be said for a standalone new act, in a form that would fit with the emerging Natural Environment Act that will replace the Resource Management Act.
The new legislation and regulation regime could be administered by the Environmental Protection Authority, which is already involved in Resource Management Act call-ins and fast-track approvals, the legislation covering the exclusive economic zone and the ETS.
One can only guess there might be tensions between contending factions in government. What we should ask for is a legislative and institutional arrangement that allows carbon capture and storage or removal technologies to evolve and grow without being a mere offshoot of the oil and gas industry or any other existing sector.
As part of our efforts to reduce emissions, we must make sure all kinds of removal technologies are available that truly suit New Zealand.
Barry Barton is part of the project "Derisking Carbon Dioxide Removal at Megatonne Scale in Aotearoa" which is funded by the MBIE's Endeavour Fund. In the past, he has received funding from MBIE and the gas industry for research on CCS legal issues.
He is a director of the Environmental Defence Society.
Three scent-detection dogs help to locate an elusive orchid that is “almost impossible to find with the naked eye”, as part of efforts to protect the plant.
Our backyards should be safe and inviting spaces all year round, including during the summer months.
But the choices we make about garden design and maintenance, such as whether to have artificial turf or real grass for a lawn, can have serious consequences. Children, elderly people and pets are particularly susceptible to burns from contact with artificial turf on a hot day.
Watering your lawn or planting a shady tree can also dramatically change how hot your backyard feels in summer. Ultimately, these factors will influence how much time you and your family spend outside.
No matter where in the world you live, it is never too late to find out how to make your backyard safer and cooler next summer.
The case against artificial turf
Artificial turf or synthetic grass, commonly used on sports fields, has become popular in private outdoor spaces such as backyards.
People may think it’s cheaper and easier to maintain than real turf. Perhaps they like the idea of saving water and having the look of lawn without the hassle of mowing and fertilising it.
But this type of plastic surface is known to become very hot on a sunny day.
We wanted to find out just how hot artificial turf can get in a suburban backyard over summer.
So we set up an experiment to compare the temperatures of artificial turf, dry natural turf, and watered natural turf in Melbourne. We took surface temperature measurements continuously for 51 days during the summer of 2023–24.
The research was part of a project demonstrating the benefits of green space in residential properties. The project received funding from Horticulture Innovation Australia, a grower-owned not-for-profit research and development corporation. That funding, in part, came from three water authorities.
Thermal imaging reveals artificial turf is hotter than natural turf on a hot sunny day.Pui Kwan Cheung
Feeling the heat
In adults, irreversible burns occur when the skin is in contact with a surface that is 48°C or hotter for ten minutes.
The temperature needed to cause skin burns in children is approximately 2°C lower, because their skin is thinner and more sensitive.
Contact skin burns due to the high surface temperature of artificial turf has been identified as a health risk.
In our latest research, the artificial turf reached a scorching 72°C, which is sufficient to cause irreversible skin burns in just ten seconds. In contrast, the real turf was never hot enough to cause such burns (maximum temperature of 39°C).
Over the course of our experiment, the artificial turf was hot enough to cause adults irreversible skin burns for almost four hours a day. While adults might be expected to move away from the heat before it burns, vulnerable people such as babies and the elderly, as well as pets, are most at risk because they may be unable to move away.
We also took measurements in real backyards on a hot sunny summer’s day. We compared the risk of skin burns on four different surfaces: artificial turf, mulch, timber and real turf. The only surface that did not get hot enough to cause skin burns in adults was real turf.
Watering the grass can cool your backyard in more ways than one.Stephen Livesley
Why should I water the lawn?
Grass and other plants release water vapour from little holes in their leaves into the atmosphere. This process helps the plant maintain a liveable leaf temperature on a hot day, but it also cools the air around the leaves.
If you’re worried about wasting drinking water on your lawn, you can install a rainwater tank or household water recycling plant. Having access to alternative water sources will become increasingly important as the world warms and the climate dries.
More shade will cool your backyard.Stephen Livesley
What about shade?
The most effective way to make you feel cooler in your backyard is to provide adequate shade. This reduces the amount of sun energy hitting your body or the ground, heating the surface and warming the surrounding air.
A single tree can lower the level of heat stress from extreme to moderate. This may be the difference between wanting to spend time outside on a hot day and avoiding your backyard altogether.
Even small trees can still make you feel cooler, if they provide some shade.
However, too-dense tree canopy cover may prevent air flow – so there is a happy medium. Air flow is necessary to move the heat away from your backyard and cool your body down.
Taking all the above measures will keep your backyard safe and cool throughout summer. This will allow you and your family to spend more quality time in your backyard, cool your home, and improve your quality of life.
Pui Kwan Cheung receives funding from Horticulture Innovation Australia (Hort Innovation) for the research project "demonstrating the benefits of increasing available green infrastructure in residential homes”, which is relevant to this article. The project involves co-investment from South East Water, Greater Western Water, Yarra Valley Water, the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (Victoria), Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (New South Wales), The University of Melbourne, and the Australian Government. Hort Innovation is the grower-owned, not-for-profit research and development corporation for Australian horticulture.
Stephen Livesley receives funding from Horticulture Innovation Australia, the Australian Research Council and various water authorities.
Apartment owners across the state can now access government grants to offset half the cost of new rooftop solar systems, filling in a major gap in coverage on units.
Campaigners say targets for woodland creation are unlikely to be met because 95% of grants are for planting
The government is failing to support the natural regeneration of trees in England owing to an overwhelming focus on planting, campaigners have said.
Recent figures show only 5% of Forestry Commission grants for woodland creation have been spent on the natural regeneration of trees, while the remaining 95% is spent on tree planting.
The world needs huge quantities of critical minerals to make batteries, electric vehicles, wind turbines, mobile phones, computers and advanced weaponry.
Many of these minerals lie under Australian soil. Australia is able to produce 9 out of 10 mineral elements required to produce lithium-ion batteries, such as lithium, nickel and cobalt. It also has the highest total reserves of battery minerals.
But at a time of major geopolitical upheaval, critical minerals are also contested. China controls many critical mineral supply chains, allowing it to dominate clean energy technologies. The ongoing United States–China trade war has intensified competition for access to critical minerals.
It’s against this backdrop that Labor has proposed a A$1.2 billion strategic reserve of critical minerals. It’s a timely and welcome step in the right direction.
Why is this reserve needed?
Critical minerals are vital to the industries of the future. But supply can be hard to secure and disruptions can be devastating.
After US President Donald Trump jacked up tariffs on China, Beijing responded by clamping down on critical mineral exports. Almost 80% of US weaponry depends on Chinese critical minerals.
China now dominates mining and refining of many critical minerals. Beijing controls 90% of the world’s rare earth refining, 80% of lithium refining and 68% of nickel refining. The US and other nations are belatedly trying to catch up.
Mining has long been a major Australian industry, particularly iron ore and coal. But Australia has huge reserves of many critical minerals, producing the largest volume of lithium ore in the world as well as stocks of cobalt, manganese, rutile and others. Australian miners Lynas and Australian Strategic Materials are two of the few rare-earth mining companies not owned by China.
That’s where this strategic reserve comes in. If it comes to fruition, the federal government would buy agreed volumes of critical minerals from commercial projects, or establish an option to purchase them at a given price. It would then keep stockpiles of these key minerals to prevent market manipulation by China and stabilise prices by releasing or holding stocks strategically.
The reserve would give Canberra more leverage in negotiating with trading partners and enable a rapid response to supply disruptions. Government backing for the industry would boost onshore processing, scale up domestic production and encourage more high-wage, high-skill jobs in regional areas.
Which minerals will be stockpiled? That’s yet to be determined. The list of ‘critical minerals’ can vary between countries, and a mineral critical to one nation may not be to another.
The minerals most commonly included in these lists include cobalt, gallium, indium, niobium, tantalum, platinum group minerals and rare earth elements.
Why is the government intervening?
In 2023, major miners produced close to a billion tonnes of iron ore in Western Australia.
By contrast, critical mineral volumes are small. For instance, only 610 tonnes of gallium were mined in 2023. Major miners such as Rio Tinto, BHP and Vale don’t tend to bother.
Critical mineral markets are often opaque and highly concentrated. The barrier to entry is high. Globally, the market for the 31 critical minerals on Australia’s list is valued at around A$344 billion – about the size of the global aluminium market.
That leaves it to mid-tier and small miners to bridge the gap between rapidly growing demand and supply. The problem is, raising capital is often very difficult. The price of critical minerals can fluctuate wildly. The price of lithium and nickel have fallen sharply over the last two years due to market oversupply.
The strategic reserve would make it easier for these miners by providing access to capital through loans from Export Finance Australia and private investors, reducing financial uncertainty and cost overruns and acting as a buffer against market volatility.
For instance, mid-tier miner Illuka Resources is building Australia’s first rare earths refinery in Western Australia. The project already has significant government support, but it is likely to need more.
Despite Australia’s significant mineral resources, it faces an uphill battle to gain market share. China’s dominance has been driven by low production costs; low environmental, social and goverance standards; and a competitive labour market. But intensifying geopolitical competition between China and the US means Australian minerals would likely be sought by the US.
How can Australia best play its hand?
In volatile market conditions, cheaper operations have a significant advantage, while new mines face an uphill battle.
Australia’s critical minerals hub framework could help offset capital costs. Smaller miners could form cooperatives to share infrastructure and manage logistics, processing and access to international markets. Sharing infrastructure such as roads, rail, energy and ports would reduce the investment risk.
There are other challenges to overcome, such as the long lead times of 10 years or more to go from discovery to production, limited access to low-cost renewable energy and a shortage of technical and scientific capabilities.
Labor’s strategic reserve would help. But it won’t be enough to make Australia into a critical mineral giant. The government should consider:
building more regional processing hubs with shared infrastructure and microgrids
offering royalty exemptions, tax incentives and energy subsidies early on
giving incentives to retrofit facilities to produce critical minerals found alongside main ores, such as cobalt found alongside copper and antimony with gold
encouraging models where rare earths are concentrated in Australia and processed overseas in partner countries
establishing Centres of Excellence on critical minerals and creating shared libraries of intellectual property to support research, avoid duplication and optimise resource allocation.
Overall, the proposed reserve is an excellent idea. Government intervention will be necessary to absorb and mitigate risks from price fluctuations and geopolitical shocks.
Mohan Yellishetty receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Geoscience Australia, Defense Science Institute, Boral Limited, AGL Loy Yang, Indian Ministry of Education. He is affiliated with AusIMM as its fellow, Honorary Academic Fellow, Australia India Institute, Foreign Fellow, Indian Geophysical Union, and affiliated with Indian Institute of Technology (Dharwad, Mumbai, Hyderabad). David Whittle contributed to the research base and data for this article.
