Jim Sinner was a senior scientist and group manager at Cawthron Institute from 2007 to September 2023. He resides in Nelson.

OPINION: As governments are engaged in climate negotiations at COP28 to phase out the use of fossil fuels, New Zealand’s new coalition government has announced its intention to repeal the existing ban on offshore oil and gas exploration.

This is short-sighted and dangerous, and scientists should say so.

At this year’s climate change negotiations, known as COP28, there is widespread recognition of the need to substantially reduce fossil fuel usage by 2030 and phase out these fuels entirely by 2050.

The International Energy Agency produced for COP28 a Net Zero Roadmap showing how nations can rapidly transition from fossil fuels to clean energy to limit warming to 1.5C. The report noted that the last few years have seen remarkable progress in developing and deploying some key clean energy technologies.

Yet earlier this week, New Zealand attracted global publicity for all the wrong reasons – it was called out as Fossil of the Day by the Climate Action Network for our government’s intention to reverse the ban on offshore exploration.

These “awards” are given to the countries who are “doing the most to achieve the least” and “doing their best to be the worst” in terms of climate action. Not surprisingly, the Climate Action Tracker rates NZ’s climate policies as “Highly Insufficient”.

NZ’s intention to re-open its seas to oil and gas exploration runs directly contrary to global efforts to limit the most harmful effects of climate change.

The world already has far more known oil and gas reserves than we need for a transition to clean energy and far more than we can safely burn without pushing the Earth’s temperature well past 1.5oC of warming.

More fossil fuel exploration will simply lead to greater pressure on governments to let companies mine and burn the oil and gas they discover.

New Zealand’s science community is well aware of the dangers of runaway climate change and the folly of continued exploration for more fossil fuels. Scientists are also in a unique position to do something about it.

Fossil fuel companies require scientists’ expertise not only to advise where to explore, but also to meet environmental requirements for exploration and development, such as biosecurity inspections for drilling rigs, protection for marine mammals from acoustic surveys, and provisions to minimise disturbance of seabed ecosystems.

Cawthron, Niwa, GNS and other science providers should take a stand by refusing to work for any company engaged in fossil fuel exploration or development. In 2019, as a then-Cawthron staff member (I retired this year), I called on Cawthron’s board and management to take such a stance, after the IPCC released yet another report warning of the dangers of exceeding 1.5C of warming.

Cawthron chose to remain silent and has no public position on working for fossil fuel companies.

Since then, the evidence of climate change and its impacts has mounted, as each year sets a new record for the highest global average temperature and as New Zealand and other countries experience one weather-related disaster after another.

Cyclone Gabrielle and last year’s floods and slips in Nelson are but two examples in New Zealand – more will follow.

The previous Government’s ban on offshore exploration took the pressure off the science community – who arguably didn’t need to take a position because there was no new exploration activity anyway.

But the time for sitting on the fence is over. Cawthron has a well-earned reputation for providing independent, top-quality environmental science without fear or favour, and I am proud to have worked there for 16 years. As New Zealand’s leading independent provider of environmental science, Cawthron should state publicly and clearly that it will not be complicit in the exploration for, or development of, new fossil fuel reserves.

It should set an example and challenge Niwa, GNS and other science providers to follow.

Exploring for more oil and gas has only one ultimate purpose – to burn it. Yet we already have enough. Burning more will exacerbate ocean warming, sea level rise, and extreme weather events and bring untold suffering to hundreds of millions of people.

Enough is enough. Scientists and science institutions know this and have a moral responsibility to take a stand.