The polycrisis is driven by ecological overshoot. Climate change is one symptom of a broader crisis caused by humanity exceeding the Earth’s ecological limits.
Climate change is only part of the challenge. Most planetary boundary breaches are unrelated to climate change, highlighting the need for policies that address biodiversity loss, pollution, freshwater decline and other interconnected crises.
Modern food production depends on fossil fuels. Industrial agriculture relies on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser made from fossil gas, making current food systems environmentally unsustainable.
Human activity is driving unprecedented biodiversity loss. Habitat destruction, intensive agriculture and resource extraction have caused rapid declines in wildlife populations and accelerated species extinctions.
Freshwater systems are in crisis. Water scarcity, pollution and nitrate contamination threaten ecosystems, drinking water supplies and human health in New Zealand and globally.
Industrial food systems consume way more energy than they produce. Fossil fuel dependence has turned food production from an energy-positive to an energy-negative system, which is not sustainable.
Resource use and waste have exceeded sustainable limits. Human-made materials now exceed all living biomass, while large quantities of food, water, energy and raw materials are wasted.
Economic growth is closely linked to environmental harm. GDP growth is a measure of higher energy use, resource extraction and ecological degradation.
Environmental impacts are distributed unequally. High-income populations are responsible for most global environmental damage, while lower-income populations bear a disproportionate share of the consequences.
Decarbonisation alone will not solve the polycrisis. Reducing emissions is essential, but addressing ecological overshoot requires tackling the wider drivers of environmental degradation.
Climate change is a political challenge, not a scientific one. Governments have understood the causes and solutions for decades, yet global carbon emissions have continued to rise, with around half of all historical CO₂ emissions released since 1990.
Carbon dioxide causes long-lasting warming. Because CO₂ remains in the atmosphere for centuries to millennia, every additional emission contributes to long-term climate change, meaning global warming will only stop when net carbon dioxide emissions reach zero.
Phasing out fossil fuels is essential but highly challenging. Fossil fuels underpin modern economies, powering transport, industry and the production of fertilisers and plastics, making the transition both urgent and difficult.
Climate impacts are already being felt. Even at around 1.3–1.5°C of warming, climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of floods, droughts, heatwaves and other extreme weather events, with growing impacts on food production, infrastructure and communities.
Current emissions trajectories are incompatible with international climate goals. Existing national commitments are projected to lead to around 3°C of global warming this century, while limiting warming to 2°C would require rapid, sustained reductions in global emissions.
Higher levels of warming could trigger irreversible global changes. Warming beyond 2°C substantially increases the risk of crossing major climate tipping points, including ice-sheet collapse, rainforest loss and large-scale disruption of ocean circulation.
Societies remain poorly prepared for climate impacts. Most public spending continues to focus on disaster recovery rather than preparedness, while growing climate risks are likely to make some homes and communities increasingly difficult to insure and protect.
The future depends on political choices made today. The technologies and knowledge needed to reduce emissions already exist, but avoiding the worst climate impacts depends on governments, businesses and societies choosing to rapidly phase out greenhouse gas emissions and invest in adaptation.
The polycrisis is rooted in systems of colonisation and white supremacy. The interconnected environmental and social crises stem from a theological doctrine that legitimised the domination of both indigenous peoples and the natural world.
The same worldview that justifies exploitation of people also justifies exploitation of nature. Hierarchical beliefs embedded in imperialism rationalised the extraction of land, resources and wealth by denying the rights and humanity of indigenous peoples.
Colonial legal frameworks continue to shape environmental governance in Aotearoa. Doctrines used to dispossess Māori of land and authority have had lasting effects on resource management, facilitating environmental degradation while continuing to alienate Māori of their rights and authority.
The costs of environmental degradation are distributed unequally. The harms associated with water pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change are experienced disproportionately by Māori (and other indigenous) communities, while the economic benefits of resource extraction accrue among the wealthy – predominantly white – populations.
Addressing the polycrisis requires that structural racism be confronted. Environmental and climate “sacrifice zones” depend on treating some people and places as expendable, making racial justice integral to effective environmental action.
Indigenous knowledge and constitutional reform are presented as central to long-term solutions. The briefing advocates honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and pursuing constitutional transformation that embeds indigenous values and strengthens protection for people and the environment.
Addressing the polycrisisrequires rejecting systems that treat people, land and nature as disposable in the pursuit of wealth and power.
Energy use is a fundamental driver of the polycrisis. Rapid growth in global energy consumption has led to increasing resource extraction, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, making energy central to addressing climate and environmental challenges.
Renewable energy is growing, but fossil fuels continue to expand. Despite rapid growth in solar and wind power, global fossil fuel consumption continues to increase, meaning the current energy transition is adding renewables rather than replacing fossil fuels.
Transport is New Zealand’s biggest energy challenge. Although electricity generation is largely renewable, around 70% of New Zealand’s total energy still comes from fossil fuels, most of it oil used for transport.
Reducing transport emissions requires both technological and behavioural change. Expanding walking, cycling, public transport and electric vehicles is important, but long-term progress also depends on changing infrastructure, planning and social expectations around travel.
Strong public policy can accelerate the energy transition. The example of the Zero Carbon Act is evidence that legislative direction and political leadership can stimulate investment, reduce fossil fuel use and shift wider social and economic behaviour.
While new technology offers a solution in some cases, this must be accompanied by efforts to reduce demand. In aviation, for example, technological alternatives remain uncertain and reducing demand for air travel will be essential to reducing emissions.
Lower energy use does not necessarily mean lower living standards. Research suggests that healthy, comfortable lives can be supported with much lower energy consumption through efficient buildings, renewable electricity, public transport and reduced waste.
Phasing out fossil fuels should remain the central objective. Expanding renewable energy is not enough on its own; governments and society must also actively replace coal, oil and gas and associated technologies, while addressing high-emitting sectors such as aviation.
Public finance shapes governments’ ability to respond to the polycrisis. Prevailing ideas about fiscal responsibility underestimate the government’s capacity to invest in climate resilience, public services and infrastructure and community wellbeing.
Governments are not financially equivalent to households. Unlike households, governments can borrow on different terms, refinance debt indefinitely and levy taxes, making common household budget analogies misleading when applied to public finance.
The real constraint on government spending is productive capacity, not money itself. Inflation arises when spending exceeds available labour, infrastructure and natural resources, rather than simply from higher levels of government expenditure.
The greatest burden on future generations is underinvestment, not public debt. Failing to maintain healthy ecosystems, resilient infrastructure and effective public services leaves future generations with fewer productive resources and greater economic risks.
Public finance should be directed towards long-term resilience and wellbeing. The current narrow focus on fiscal management should be replaced with an approach that prioritises environmental sustainability, essential public services and a minimum social standard for all New Zealanders.
Government spending creates money within New Zealand’s monetary system. Government spending is not operationally dependent on prior tax collection or borrowing. The government has unlimited financial capacity to make good on its spending commitments as approved by Parliament.
Taxes remain essential, but not primarily to fund spending. Taxation plays important roles in managing inflation, redistributing wealth and supporting the monetary system, but taxes are not required to finance government expenditure.
A better understanding of public finance could expand policy options. Improving public and political understanding of how government finance operates would enable more informed decision-making on investment in climate mitigation and adaptation, healthcare, housing and other public priorities.
Trade policy must adapt to a more unstable world. New Zealand’s long-standing assumption of an increasingly stable and integrated global economy no longer holds, requiring trade policy to prioritise resilience alongside openness.
New Zealand is especially vulnerable to global disruptions. As a small, geographically isolated economy that relies heavily on shipping, imported energy and a narrow export base, New Zealand is highly exposed to geopolitical, energy and supply chain shocks.
Trade liberalisation alone has not transformed the economy. While free trade agreements have improved market access, they have not substantially diversified New Zealand’s exports or reduced dependence on commodities, shipping and a small number of overseas markets.
A resilient economy requires more than trade agreements. Building resilience also depends on investing in domestic capability, including skills, infrastructure, innovation and processing capacity, alongside stronger international relationships.
Efficiency should not come at the expense of resilience. Backup capacity, diversified supply chains and strategic reserves may be considered inefficient in stable times but will be essential in an increasingly unstable global environment.
Trade policy should account for physical and environmental constraints. Energy availability, climate change and resource limits will increasingly shape global trade, requiring systems that can adapt to changing conditions rather than assuming continued low-cost transport and stable supply chains.
The goal should be resilience not efficiency. Trade policy should strengthen New Zealand’s ability to withstand shocks while supporting long-term economic security, regional resilience and community wellbeing.
Climate change threatens the future insurability of homes, businesses and infrastructure. As climate-related disasters become more frequent and severe, insurance costs are rising, insurance retreat is accelerating, and more properties are likely to become uninsurable.
An insurance crisis could become a broader financial crisis. Declining insurability threatens property values, mortgage lending and financial stability, with the potential for systemic economic impacts extending well beyond the insurance sector.
Rising insurance costs will deepen social and economic inequality. Higher premiums and reduced access to insurance disproportionately affect lower-income households, while uninsured and underinsured communities face greater hardship and slower recovery after disasters.
Current trends are increasing New Zealand’s exposure to insurance retreat. More frequent extreme weather, accelerating sea-level rise and continued development in high-risk areas are increasing the number of properties vulnerable to flooding, erosion and other climate hazards.
A market-led response is unlikely to deliver a resilient or equitable outcome. Relying solely on risk-based pricing would leave many households unable to relocate or recover from disasters, increasing long-term social and economic costs.
A stronger public role is needed to manage growing climate risks. The talk proposes expanding the role of the Natural Hazards Commission to include weather-related risks, support adaptation, and help maintain affordable insurance through collective risk-sharing.
Long-term insurability ultimately depends on reducing climate change. Even the strongest insurance system cannot manage unchecked climate impacts, making rapid emissions reductions and effective climate adaptation essential to maintaining an insurable future.
New Zealand’s apparent food abundance masks significant vulnerabilities. Although the country produces more food than it consumes, it remains heavily dependent on imports for staple foods such as cereals and plant proteins, leaving it exposed to climate, trade and geopolitical disruptions.
Food production depends on fragile global supply chains. Industrial agriculture relies on imported fuel, fertiliser, machinery and agricultural chemicals, meaning disruptions to international trade could significantly reduce New Zealand’s capacity to produce, process and distribute food.
The current food system prioritises efficiency over resilience. Highly centralised production and distribution systems minimise costs in stable conditions but are increasingly vulnerable to extreme weather, fuel disruptions and other shocks.
The dominant model of food production carries high environmental costs. Livestock production requires substantially more land, energy and water than plant-based foods, while contributing disproportionately to greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss and water pollution.
Food insecurity exists despite national food surpluses. Many New Zealand households struggle to access affordable, nutritious food, with Māori, Pasifika and children disproportionately affected by food insecurity.
A national food security strategy is needed. The expert talk recommends a comprehensive assessment of food security to guide land use, strengthen domestic production of staple foods and improve resilience to future global disruptions.
Diversifying food production would strengthen resilience and deliver multiple benefits. Expanding production of cereals, legumes and other plant foods, protecting highly productive soils and supporting local food systems could improve food security while reducing environmental impacts and improving public health.
Building food security requires systemic change. Reducing food waste, decentralising food systems and supporting community and iwi-led food initiatives will strengthen resilience, but systemic change at government level will be required to fully address food security.
Climate change is already harming public health. It threatens the fundamental conditions for good health – including safe water, food security, housing and protection from infectious diseases.
The health impacts of climate change are widespread and often indirect. Heatwaves, floods, bushfires and storms not only cause immediate injury and death but also disrupt healthcare, damage infrastructure and increase illness long after the event has passed.
Changes to the biosphere are creating new and unpredictable health risks. Ocean warming, ecosystem disruption and more intense climate patterns such as El Niño are increasing the likelihood of novel hazards, while amplifying existing public health threats.
Climate change is a major challenge for health equity. The greatest health impacts fall on people and communities that are already vulnerable, despite contributing least to climate change, further deepening existing inequalities.
Many climate and health interventions deliver multiple benefits. Resilient healthcare facilities, healthier diets and low-emissions transport can improve public health while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and strengthening resilience.
Reducing transport emissions would generate substantial health gains. Expanding public transport, walking and cycling would improve air quality, improve overall population health and help lower New Zealand’s largest source of carbon emissions.
We already have effective responses using existing technologies. While climate change poses serious risks to public health, we already have access to effective solutions that, if implemented at scale, can enhance human wellbeing while mitigating climate and environmental degradation.
