This piece argues that despite rising electricity prices, total household energy costs can decrease by shifting to electric vehicles and electric appliances, emphasizing that policy should focus on broader energy access and efficiency rather than just power bills.
Stacked weekly counts; colour by lean. “n/a” covers government and iwi-Māori sources where lean isn't applicable.
How this topic has been named, week by week. A new alias winning out is usually a framing shift.
How the news corpus has covered this same topic over the last 12 weeks. 2 articles from RNZ, Stuff, NZ Herald, ODT, 1News, Newsroom and The Spinoff. Click through to the press view for the full panel.
Verbatim segments from politicians speaking on podcasts and radio shows about this topic. Sourced via the voice-reference library — each speaker has been confirmed manually from their voice clip. Click play to stream the original audio from the publisher, pre-seeked to the moment the quote starts.
Another eat your words moment for Heather. Many times recently she vehemently stated the LNG terminal was not going to happen. Well, I do have to eat my words. I still don't love the idea of the LNG terminal. I never have, and I probably never will, but I think I am fast coming around to the idea that there is no solution to our energy problem that we're going to love. Our electric electricity system, our wider energy situation is so broken now that whatever we do to try to fix it, I think is going to have to be so drastic or so expensive, it's just going to hurt. For the L and G terminal, the problem is the cost for what is a really short, really just a short-term band-aid, isn't it? Because what's going on is we're running out of gas, and we're running out of gas fast. The entire country is. So what this actually means is if we're being honest with ourselves, we all need to get off gas. That's not going to happen overnight, though, is it? It's going to take years. So we'll probably run out before we've all switched to alternatives like electricity, hence the terminal. The terminal tides us over with imported gas until we're all managing to disconnect off the gas. A billion dollars, though, this is the problem. A billion they say a billion dollars is going to be more than that. That to get us through just a few years is very pricey. But they're not doing it. Losing the pan packs of this world. That is so much more pricey. That's a billion dollars year after year after year after year in lost revenue and income and tax. This terminal is going to help the pan packs stay here. That company, PanPack, is the last big pulp mill that hasn't upsticks already. Now, maybe they will do it in the end, but the LNG terminal, they reckon will keep them here for longer, and that's got to be a good thing. Now, yes, the LNG terminal decision has not gone well for the government, right? It is going to divide opinion, much more so than it already is the closer we get to the election. They already have to backtrack on the gas levy that they've spent weeks already defending. It is hardly going to look climate-friendly to the towny swing voters. But it is a tough call that probably does need to be made. And we've got a lot more of these tough calls coming because the LNG terminal is not going to completely fix our broken energy system. It is that broken. It's an expensive solution for a short-term fix, but at least it is a fix.
Up to 12 framings spread across orientations. Each framing is a short phrase the topic extractor generated to characterise the piece's stance — not a quote from the source. Click through to read the original.
efficiency gains outweigh rising fuel prices
Power bills may rise, but total household energy costs can still fallSocial-media signal on the same topic, drawn from the social lens. Engagement is likes + 2×shares + 3×replies, the same weighting used across the digest cards. View on /social →
Spotted something wrong on this page? Report a correction.