Bryce, you have that rare gift of making complex situations comprehensible. Thank you for this superb - and disturbing - analysis of the sort of manipulation we are constantly subjected to.
A more satisfactory settlement would have involved Z Energy spending the same amount on the apology as the original campaign. Sounds like a Tui moment though.
I think what is more disturbing is the pervasiveness of this sort of deliberate misinforming or 'lying' to the public by corporates & other government or quasi-government institutions. It is a type of deliberate dishonesty & amounts to a partial abandonment of the social 'compact' that we all tell the truth. In my view that is a very dangerous game. If it is OK for corporates to lie or mislead, it is OK for me to do the same. And then we're all in trouble.
"as climate change accelerates" is a superb example of widespread, apparently politically acceptable washing of the anti-green kind, or perhaps more like socialist red.
Z Energy is in reality up against a global alarmist cult, not just 3 small, cash strapped NZ "charities".
On that basis, whilst far from being an advocate of any kind of disingenuous marketing, I would question whether companies in the fossil fuel business can really be blamed for their own cynical washing campaigns where both sorts appeal, not to those would see the absurdities, but to those caught up in a global, ill informed, quasi religious cult who are desperate for an excuse to allay their cognitive dissonance, to feel better about the sacrilegious purchases required to keep their satanical engines burning.
Much appreciation again, Bryce. This stuff is just shouting at us right now. There HAS to be scrutiny.
Hearing you on the lobbyist register but surely this is far from sufficient when you have a revolving door between paid roles in industry, lobbying and being an MP, and Ministers actively courting industry as Luxon and Shane Jones do. When the lobbyist isn't just meeting with the parliamentarian, but the lobbyist IS the parliamentarian. And of course, 'bought' think-tanks directly writing policy for the government, Ministers emailing their think-tank pals for day to day advice, and of course not one of these pals is employed in any 'interested' industry - rather, they are the direct agents of such industries' interests.
Dear Bryce you write superbly, but are you quite sure of the evidence blaming human use of fossil fuels for climate change? There is increasing research now, the Antarctic core samples only one example, that temperatures rise ahead of CO2 levels, not as a result of them, that the historic record over millions of years shows the planet's temperature has been well above present day levels, and that CO2 and Methane have negligible influence on our climate. The truth is we understand so little of what affects our climate, solar flares, clouds, ocean currents etc; all this well demonstrated by the list of failed prophesies on inundated cities or arctic ice, even our inability to forecast the weather more than a few days in advance.
That does not mean we can forget the foolish waste of finite resources, but it does mean we do not have to waste billions of dollars in fighting a non-existent threat.
Who would I listen to - a random dude on the internet with dubious motives, or a person with a vast lifetime of figuring out how the science explains what we are observing ?
If you really have doubt about this, Peter, I suggest you Google "why millions of years of climate data are misleading if you don't look at the hockey stick".
Peter, sorry. The point of the famous hockey stick graph is the dramatic, almost vertical temperature rise following the industrial revolution. It has minor statistical errors apparently, but is generally quite valid. In the graph, we're not looking at the long almost flat line preceding this. It is the rise at the end that is the issue, unprecedented in intensity and speed.
You will find temperature rises before this of course, e.g. the interglacial period about 125,000 years ago, and who knows what it was like before dinosaurs roamed the earth. What is happening now, however, is an existential crisis. And the prophecies of inundated cities are not 'failed' at all. This is an inevitable result of warming, and will take a huge effort to prevent, if that is possible at all.
Thank you Susie, grateful for your ideas. I come from a staunchly IPCC supportive stance, having bought a bike and forsworn my car, only to find most people sublimely unaffected by what you term an existential crisis. Then I see predictions of flooded cities failing to happen, recent plans for offshore turbines around the Aussie coast abandoned, and current research by US, UK and German physicists absolving CO2 and CH4 of any great influence on our climate. And this research never challenged or answered by the IPCC. The fact that 'Climate' has now become a major industry with thousands of careers involved and the consequent protection of reputations and income, must play forcefully into the determination of academics and climate scientists to deny any contrary opinions. Add to this the enormous cost of transitioning to (subsidised) renewable energy and the short life spans of turbines and solar panels, and the ogre of international bankruptcy begins to loom. I respect your convictions, but there may be other factors we as yet know nothing of.
I understand that a wind farm was halted off the Queensland coast because of crazy publicity saying that it would kill whales. Similarly, social media claims that the turbines ‘kill koalas’ is typical of what’s being seen. I’m noting that Sky News reports that the wind turbines have been ‘abandoned’. Reuters reports that just one auction, of licences off Victoria, has been ‘delayed’ because more investment is needed. If we understand the hurdles here, it’s easier to see the bigger picture.
I can find nothing much on your US, UK and German physicists, though a small minority of scientists have denied anthropogenic climate change all along. Among others, Richard Lindzen is prominent: he's been unable to get a positive peer review for his papers on this, and has had to publish in Korea, I think. He is known to work for the Cato Institute, which is one of those think-tanks known as proponents of neoliberal economics. In other words, when looking at ‘scientific views’, it’s important to follow the money. I don’t think the IPCC would take these theories seriously, as there is such an overwhelming amount of data to the contrary.
And I think too that the fossil fuel industry, with revenue around US$6.5 trillion, has a lot more to lose here than climate scientists and green investors who you feel may cling to their views out of self-interest.
And we are all at liberty to believe what we do, though it is important to filter information before accepting it at face value. I recommend this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial - it’s a long read but may convey something of the scale of the problem, and what drives climate change denial.
And with that suggestion, maybe you’d like to respond after you’ve read it?
It may be too late to get a response from folks, but I'd really like one, and from you, too, Bryce.
I'm thinking to ask a few others who may have some sharp insight, too.
NZ Labour Party right now is going through the process of identifying policies to commit to. There has been a huge amount done by way of proposals and ideas across a whole set of categories/target areas. I'm actually impressed. The deadline for edits and proposals etc is November 14th.
I think I'm offering no surprises by saying that one of these topic areas is how to address 'regulatory capture', and for example, to have a register of lobbyists, a code of conduct and so on.
I'm pondering this. I don't think it's enough. I'm thinking, as a Labour member, to propose something additional.
Lobby register doesn't prevent Ministers who are themselves lobbyists from substantially influencing lawmaking.
It doesn't prevent NZ Initiative from having an inordinate influence - - who needs actively to lobby when ministers are contacting you for advice all the time? And when you're already rewriting the school curriculum and drafting laws?
What could a draft policy proposal look like, to address this? One which is future-proof, too.
It's not much use if e.g. a Conservation Minister of the future can't ask an environmental NGO for input, or if the Law Society is restricted from giving influential advice.
All genius, concise, well worded ideas very welcome!
When I was job-searching recently (I am thankfully employed again now) there was an ad for a comms role at Z. It was very heavy on things Maori- and Treaty-related. Nothing wrong with that but it did stand out as I was perusing Seek.
Lobbyist Register? Yes please! How can we best get this done?
Bryce, you have that rare gift of making complex situations comprehensible. Thank you for this superb - and disturbing - analysis of the sort of manipulation we are constantly subjected to.
A more satisfactory settlement would have involved Z Energy spending the same amount on the apology as the original campaign. Sounds like a Tui moment though.
A great report thank you.
I think what is more disturbing is the pervasiveness of this sort of deliberate misinforming or 'lying' to the public by corporates & other government or quasi-government institutions. It is a type of deliberate dishonesty & amounts to a partial abandonment of the social 'compact' that we all tell the truth. In my view that is a very dangerous game. If it is OK for corporates to lie or mislead, it is OK for me to do the same. And then we're all in trouble.
"as climate change accelerates" is a superb example of widespread, apparently politically acceptable washing of the anti-green kind, or perhaps more like socialist red.
Z Energy is in reality up against a global alarmist cult, not just 3 small, cash strapped NZ "charities".
On that basis, whilst far from being an advocate of any kind of disingenuous marketing, I would question whether companies in the fossil fuel business can really be blamed for their own cynical washing campaigns where both sorts appeal, not to those would see the absurdities, but to those caught up in a global, ill informed, quasi religious cult who are desperate for an excuse to allay their cognitive dissonance, to feel better about the sacrilegious purchases required to keep their satanical engines burning.
Much appreciation again, Bryce. This stuff is just shouting at us right now. There HAS to be scrutiny.
Hearing you on the lobbyist register but surely this is far from sufficient when you have a revolving door between paid roles in industry, lobbying and being an MP, and Ministers actively courting industry as Luxon and Shane Jones do. When the lobbyist isn't just meeting with the parliamentarian, but the lobbyist IS the parliamentarian. And of course, 'bought' think-tanks directly writing policy for the government, Ministers emailing their think-tank pals for day to day advice, and of course not one of these pals is employed in any 'interested' industry - rather, they are the direct agents of such industries' interests.
Dear Bryce you write superbly, but are you quite sure of the evidence blaming human use of fossil fuels for climate change? There is increasing research now, the Antarctic core samples only one example, that temperatures rise ahead of CO2 levels, not as a result of them, that the historic record over millions of years shows the planet's temperature has been well above present day levels, and that CO2 and Methane have negligible influence on our climate. The truth is we understand so little of what affects our climate, solar flares, clouds, ocean currents etc; all this well demonstrated by the list of failed prophesies on inundated cities or arctic ice, even our inability to forecast the weather more than a few days in advance.
That does not mean we can forget the foolish waste of finite resources, but it does mean we do not have to waste billions of dollars in fighting a non-existent threat.
Who would I listen to - a random dude on the internet with dubious motives, or a person with a vast lifetime of figuring out how the science explains what we are observing ?
https://revkin.substack.com/cp/176249184
If you really have doubt about this, Peter, I suggest you Google "why millions of years of climate data are misleading if you don't look at the hockey stick".
Thanks Suzie, an you give me a link. The only hockey stick I can find goes back only 1000 years.
Peter, sorry. The point of the famous hockey stick graph is the dramatic, almost vertical temperature rise following the industrial revolution. It has minor statistical errors apparently, but is generally quite valid. In the graph, we're not looking at the long almost flat line preceding this. It is the rise at the end that is the issue, unprecedented in intensity and speed.
You will find temperature rises before this of course, e.g. the interglacial period about 125,000 years ago, and who knows what it was like before dinosaurs roamed the earth. What is happening now, however, is an existential crisis. And the prophecies of inundated cities are not 'failed' at all. This is an inevitable result of warming, and will take a huge effort to prevent, if that is possible at all.
PS I am sure you can find a link yourself. WIkipedia is usually reliable.
Thank you Susie, grateful for your ideas. I come from a staunchly IPCC supportive stance, having bought a bike and forsworn my car, only to find most people sublimely unaffected by what you term an existential crisis. Then I see predictions of flooded cities failing to happen, recent plans for offshore turbines around the Aussie coast abandoned, and current research by US, UK and German physicists absolving CO2 and CH4 of any great influence on our climate. And this research never challenged or answered by the IPCC. The fact that 'Climate' has now become a major industry with thousands of careers involved and the consequent protection of reputations and income, must play forcefully into the determination of academics and climate scientists to deny any contrary opinions. Add to this the enormous cost of transitioning to (subsidised) renewable energy and the short life spans of turbines and solar panels, and the ogre of international bankruptcy begins to loom. I respect your convictions, but there may be other factors we as yet know nothing of.
Peter, on ‘flooded cities failing to happen’ (not sure of the source of this denial?) the abandoned areas are not hitting big news sites because they probably have little political significance. But it is happening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_depopulated_due_to_climate_change
I know only scraps about the Australian windfarm issue, but I do know that opposition from climate deniers has been huge. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/26/why-australias-most-prominent-climate-deniers-have-stopped-talking-about-the-climate-ntwnfb
I understand that a wind farm was halted off the Queensland coast because of crazy publicity saying that it would kill whales. Similarly, social media claims that the turbines ‘kill koalas’ is typical of what’s being seen. I’m noting that Sky News reports that the wind turbines have been ‘abandoned’. Reuters reports that just one auction, of licences off Victoria, has been ‘delayed’ because more investment is needed. If we understand the hurdles here, it’s easier to see the bigger picture.
I can find nothing much on your US, UK and German physicists, though a small minority of scientists have denied anthropogenic climate change all along. Among others, Richard Lindzen is prominent: he's been unable to get a positive peer review for his papers on this, and has had to publish in Korea, I think. He is known to work for the Cato Institute, which is one of those think-tanks known as proponents of neoliberal economics. In other words, when looking at ‘scientific views’, it’s important to follow the money. I don’t think the IPCC would take these theories seriously, as there is such an overwhelming amount of data to the contrary.
And I think too that the fossil fuel industry, with revenue around US$6.5 trillion, has a lot more to lose here than climate scientists and green investors who you feel may cling to their views out of self-interest.
And we are all at liberty to believe what we do, though it is important to filter information before accepting it at face value. I recommend this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial - it’s a long read but may convey something of the scale of the problem, and what drives climate change denial.
And with that suggestion, maybe you’d like to respond after you’ve read it?
Keep up the biking. You’re on the right track.
It may be too late to get a response from folks, but I'd really like one, and from you, too, Bryce.
I'm thinking to ask a few others who may have some sharp insight, too.
NZ Labour Party right now is going through the process of identifying policies to commit to. There has been a huge amount done by way of proposals and ideas across a whole set of categories/target areas. I'm actually impressed. The deadline for edits and proposals etc is November 14th.
I think I'm offering no surprises by saying that one of these topic areas is how to address 'regulatory capture', and for example, to have a register of lobbyists, a code of conduct and so on.
I'm pondering this. I don't think it's enough. I'm thinking, as a Labour member, to propose something additional.
Lobby register doesn't prevent Ministers who are themselves lobbyists from substantially influencing lawmaking.
It doesn't prevent NZ Initiative from having an inordinate influence - - who needs actively to lobby when ministers are contacting you for advice all the time? And when you're already rewriting the school curriculum and drafting laws?
What could a draft policy proposal look like, to address this? One which is future-proof, too.
It's not much use if e.g. a Conservation Minister of the future can't ask an environmental NGO for input, or if the Law Society is restricted from giving influential advice.
All genius, concise, well worded ideas very welcome!
When I was job-searching recently (I am thankfully employed again now) there was an ad for a comms role at Z. It was very heavy on things Maori- and Treaty-related. Nothing wrong with that but it did stand out as I was perusing Seek.