Wise Response Submission in response to the “Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Ministry for the Environment. 2025.
Building New Zealand’s Long-term Resilience to Hazards: Draft Long-term Insights Briefing. Wellington: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.”
Government’s “Resilience” Plan is a Fantasy, Puts Kiwi Households on a Path to Ruin, Warns Wise Response
WELLINGTON, NZ – 26 August 2025 – A new government briefing on New Zealand’s long-term resilience is based on a “dangerous fantasy” that ignores the fundamental laws of physics and energy, leaving Kiwi families and businesses exposed to catastrophic failure, according to a submission from the independent think-tank Wise Response.
Read the full submission here: bit.ly/wr_dpmcrd
The group warns that the government’s plan fails to address the true causes of our nation’s fragility: a profound and risky dependence on unstable global supply chains and the rapidly diminishing returns from our energy sources. Our current financial models encourage risky behaviour by discounting the future and ignoring ecological costs.
“The government is diagnosing the symptoms, not the disease,” says Wise Response spokesperson Thomas Neitzert. “They’re planning to patch up a system that is fundamentally broken. Continuing down this path is not just irresponsible; it’s a direct threat to the financial security of every New Zealander.”
The submission outlines a stark choice between two futures for New Zealand:
The Status Quo Future: A future of constant crisis management where families face increasingly volatile prices for imported fuel and food, businesses are crippled by supply disruptions, and taxpayers are forced to pour billions into failing infrastructure. It’s a future of stress, uncertainty, and economic pain.
A Wise Future: A future where we invest in what makes us genuinely secure. This means prioritising local food production to ensure our shelves are never empty, building resilient and decentralised energy systems that are less likely to fail in a storm, and strengthening our local communities. This is about taking back control and owning our future, not renting it from volatile global markets.
Wise Response argues that the government’s plan is built on the flawed assumption that technology and finance alone can solve a biophysical problem.
“You can’t print energy. You can’t download resources,” the Wise Response Society asserts. “For a century, we’ve been powered by cheap, high-return fossil fuels. That era is over. The ‘net energy’ we get from new sources is lower, meaning we simply won’t have the massive surplus energy required to support long, complex supply chains and endlessly rebuild after disasters. Pretending otherwise is planning for a fantasy world.”
The group’s submission urges the government to abandon its current trajectory and adopt a pragmatic, reality-based policy package focused on genuine resilience, including:
Of primary importance is a cross-party Energy Descent Action Plan leveraging ‘fit for purpose’ policy instruments like Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) to proactively manage our transition to a lower-energy society, avoiding the chaos of an unplanned collapse – assuredly the path that we’re currently on.
A National Food Security Strategy cognisant of the energy descent, to immediately reduce our dependence on imported food and fertiliser.
A mandatory National Energy Return on Investment (EROI) Assessment to stop wasting money on projects that are net-energy losers.
A National Relocalisation Fund to build resilient communities ensuring that they can meet their own basic needs in the energy descent. Carefully targeted funding, cognisant of the energy descent, to rebuild resilient local infrastructure like distributed energy systems (rooftop and community scale PV + BESS), and limited coastal shipping and rail where the needs are greatest, reducing our vulnerability to road networks that run on imported fuel.
Strong measures to protect the capacity of environmental systems and biodiversity to function and flourish, with environmental protections and emissions reductions.
“The choice is clear,” concludes the spokesperson. “We can continue gambling our children’s future on a brittle, high-risk global system, or we can make the wise choice to build a self-reliant, secure, and genuinely prosperous Aotearoa. The time to choose is now.”
ENDS
Wise Response Submission in response to the “Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Ministry for the Environment. 2025.
Building New Zealand’s Long-term Resilience to Hazards: Draft Long-term Insights Briefing. Wellington: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.”
Response to consultation document here: Building Resilience to Hazards Long-term Insights Briefing | Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) – this submission available at http://bit.ly/wr_dpmcrd
Executive Summary:
This briefing is a welcome first step, but it diagnoses the symptoms of our fragility, not the causes. The primary causes are our profound dependence on unstable global supply chains and finite energy resources, a reality this document largely overlooks. We face a stark choice between two possible futures:
Future A (Status Quo): We continue to pour money into patching up a brittle system. We face volatile prices for imported fuel and food, growing infrastructure failure, and the constant stress of waiting for the next crisis to hit our wallets and our well-being.
Future B (Wise Resilience): We invest in what makes us genuinely secure: local food systems, resilient energy generation, and strong communities. We shorten our supply chains, reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels, and build a more self-reliant Aotearoa that can weather any storm. This isn’t about cost; it’s about valuing and owning our future.
1. Commentary on the Implicit Assumptions in the Consultation:
The government’s briefing operates from an implicit assumption that our current economic structure can be made “resilient” with better information, smarter finance, and new technology. This overlooks the fundamental physical laws that govern all human societies.
Energy Return on Investment (EROI): Society runs on net energy, not gross energy. For the last century, we have been powered by fossil fuels with a very high EROI – a small investment of energy yielded a large surplus. The EROI of most renewable energy sources is structurally lower and more variable. This means we will have less surplus energy to support complexity, long supply chains, and constant rebuilding. Policy that ignores the approaching EROI cliff-edge is planning for a fantasy world. (Murphy, “Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet“).
Infrastructure and Timing Constraints: The briefing correctly identifies a ‘$210 billion infrastructure deficit’. However, it frames this as a financial problem. It is a
biophysical problem. Building and maintaining infrastructure requires immense amounts of energy and physical resources, many of which are imported. The transition to a new energy system is not a simple swap; it requires a complete rebuild of almost everything, a task that may be beyond the net energy and resource capacity of the coming decades. (Moriarty & Honnery, “Switching Off”).Demand-Side Realities: The only viable path to a more resilient state is a managed energy descent utilising policy instruments fit for this reality like Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQ’s and Alexander and Floyd “The Political Economy of Deep Decarbonization: Tradable Energy Quotas for Energy Descent Futures”). The focus must shift radically from simply increasing supply (e.g., more renewable generation) to drastically reducing aggregate demand. This is not about individual austerity; it is about redesigning our communities, transport systems, and food production to function with significantly less energy and material throughput. (Holmgren, “Energy Descent Action Plan“, ).
Dry-Year and Network Constraints: The briefing mentions battery storage as a solution for energy resilience. While useful, batteries address short-term intermittency, not long-duration seasonal shortfalls (e.g., a “dry year” in our hydro-dominant system). Furthermore, they do not solve the vulnerability of the grid itself—a centralised network susceptible to physical and cyber-attacks. This aligns with the “Islands for the Future of Humanity” submission’s call for ‘Plan B’ infrastructures and a focus on catastrophic electricity loss, and also with the recent demonstration of the economic benefits of rooftop and community scale PV + BESS from Rewiring Aotearoa. A truly resilient system requires massive decentralisation and a focus on local, redundant power generation and storage.
Hazard identification: There are natural hazards and man-made hazards. Most of the latter can be attributed to an economic system that focuses on exponential growth and not stability and wellbeing. To pandemics, earthquake, Tsunami, volcanic activity, weather and flooding, space weather, key additional ones that need to be added include, natural resource and mineral depletion, diminishing net energy, biodiversity and ecosystem loss, nutrient pollution, energy-negative landuse, neoclassical economics and wealth inequity, failing democratic political system and ecologically-illiterate politicians and law.
2. Risk & Resilience Mapping to the Five Wise Response Domains:
(Manifesto 2025: wiseresponse.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/WR_Manifesto_2025.pdf)
Economic Security: This lens reduces exposure to volatile global energy prices and supply chain disruptions, insulating our economy from external shocks. It shifts focus from brittle “efficiency” to resilient local production.
Energy & Climate Security: By prioritising demand reduction and EROI, we ensure our energy transition is physically viable and not just wishful thinking. This is the most direct path to both decarbonisation and energy independence.
Business Continuity: Relocalised supply chains for food and manufacturing mean local businesses can continue to operate even when international trade is disrupted, preventing the cascading failures seen during recent crises.
Ecological Security: An economy grounded in biophysical limits inherently protects and restores the natural systems (stable climate, clean water, healthy soil) upon which all life and economic activity depend.
Genuine Well-being: Security in the basics—food, shelter, community connection—is the foundation of well-being. This package prioritises these essentials over the empty pursuit of material accumulation, creating a more stable and less anxious society.
3. Submission-Specific Response:
Here are the key points from the government’s briefing, contrasted with a biophysical and ecological economics perspective from Wise Response.
3.1. On the Nature of Prosperity and Resilience
Claim from the Long Term Insight Briefing (LTIB): “Resilience is… the foundation of long-term wellbeing and prosperity… one where communities, councils and businesses can plan, invest and grow with greater certainty.”(page 5)
Our Rebuttal: Resilience in a finite world is about stability and sufficiency, not perpetual growth. The pursuit of ‘prosperity’ as endless material growth is the root cause of our ecological and energy vulnerabilities. True well-being comes from security in our basic needs, not infinite accumulation.
Evidence: The concept of a steady-state economy and the inherent conflict between infinite growth and finite ecological limits is a central principle of ecological economics (Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications). The slowdown of global GDP growth and productivity of debt is a well-documented phenomenon driven by increasing resource constraints and diminishing returns (Heinberg – The End of Growth, Morgan – Surplus Energy Economics).
Policy Implication: Redefine ‘prosperity’ in national policy. Move away from GDP growth as the primary measure of success and adopt genuine well-being indicators (like the Genuine Progress Indicator or Better Life Index) that account for ecological stability, resource security, and social health.
3.2. On Global Supply Chains
Implicit claim from the LTIB: New Zealand’s resilience depends on managing risks to global supply chains and strengthening international cooperation (page 9).
Our Rebuttal: Over-reliance on long, complex global supply chains is a fundamental vulnerability, not just a risk to be managed. True resilience is built by intentionally shortening supply lines and reducing our dependence on “just-in-time” global systems, a point that aligns with the “Islands for the Future of Humanity” submission’s concern about cascading global failures.
Evidence: Highly optimised (lean), over complicated and interdependent global systems are inherently fragile. A single distant shock—be it a conflict, pandemic, or financial crisis—can trigger cascading failures across the entire network (Hagens – Reality Blind; Korowicz – Trade Off).
Policy Implication: Develop and fund a national “Economic Descent Action Plan.” This plan must prioritise the strategic relocalisation of critical supply chains, starting immediately with food, essential medicines, and basic manufacturing components.
3.3. On Technological Solutions
Implicit claim from the LTIB: Advanced technologies like AI and battery storage are key opportunities to build resilience (Page 16 and 19).
Our Rebuttal: Technology is a tool, not a magic wand; it is constrained by the laws of physics and net energy. We cannot build a resilient future on a foundation of diminishing Energy Return on Investment (EROI). Our first priority must be to radically reduce energy demand, then apply technology if and where it is most effective.
Evidence: All technology requires energy and material inputs. The “Maximum Power Principle” shows that systems evolve to make the best use of energy, but many modern technologies involve compounding conversion losses that make them inefficient from a whole-system perspective. Furthermore, renewable technologies themselves have varying EROI profiles and depend on finite, often imported, minerals (Murphy – Energy & Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet; Hall & Klitgaard – Energy and the Wealth of Nations).
Policy Implication: Mandate that all major infrastructure and technology proposals include a full lifecycle EROI assessment and a biophysical resource audit. Prioritise low-tech, passive, and demand-reduction solutions over high-tech, energy-intensive interventions.
3.4. On Funding and Investment
Claim from the LTIB: New funding and investment strategies are needed to capture the full value of resilience.
Our Rebuttal: The wisest investment is avoiding future costs by not creating vulnerabilities in the first place. Our current financial models encourage risky behaviour by discounting the future and ignoring ecological costs. The “value” of resilience is effectively infinite when the alternative is societal collapse.
Evidence: Conventional cost-benefit analysis is ill-suited for a world of systemic risk and non-linear tipping points. It systematically fails to account for the biophysical realities of resource depletion and ecosystem decline, a core theme across the provided reference materials (Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications).
Policy Implication: Implement a national land-use planning framework based on biophysical realities—soil quality, water availability, energy constraints, and clear hazard zones. This framework must have the power to prohibit new development in high-risk areas and create incentives for managed retreat and ecological restoration.
4. Proposed Alternative Policy Package & Timelines:
Action: Energy Descent Action Plan (EDAP).
Lever/Owner: Cross-party parliamentary commission, supported by MBIE and MfE.
Cost: Administrative, planning, and public consultation costs.
Benefit Pathway: Creates a proactive, managed degrowth transition to a lower-energy society, avoiding the chaos of forced economic contraction in the face of tightening energy supply. Fosters innovation in efficiency and sufficiency.
Equity Guardrails: Use citizens’ assemblies (as suggested by “Islands for the Future of Humanity” ) to ensure a just and fair distribution of the remaining energy budget.
Timeline: Mid-term (3–7y).Action: National Food Security Strategy.
Lever/Owner: Ministry for Primary Industries, working with regional councils.
Cost: Admin cost initially, redirecting existing subsidies from export-focused industrial agriculture to local food production.
Benefit Pathway: Reduces dependence on imported fertilisers and fuels, shortens supply chains, improves food security during crises. Targets regional level food sufficiency.
Equity Guardrails: Prioritise community gardens, urban farming, and support for small-scale farmers to ensure equitable access to healthy food.
Timeline: Near-term (≤2y).
Action: Mandatory National EROI Assessment.
Lever/Owner: Treasury and MBIE.
Cost: Administrative.
Benefit Pathway: Prevents mal-investment in technologies and projects that are net-energy losers, directing capital towards genuinely productive infrastructure.
Equity Guardrails: Ensure assessments are public and transparent, preventing corporate capture.
Timeline: Near-term (≤2y).
Action: National Relocalisation Fund.
Lever/Owner: NZTA, KiwiRail, MBIE.
Cost: Significant capex, funded by redirecting funds from motorway expansion and resilience-negative projects.
Benefit Pathway: To build resilient communities ensuring that they can meet their own basic needs in the energy descent. Carefully targeted funding, cognisant of the energy descent, to rebuild resilient local infrastructure like distributed energy systems (rooftop and community scale PV + BESS), and limited coastal shipping and rail where the needs are greatest, reducing our vulnerability to road networks that run on imported fuel.
Equity Guardrails: Prioritise investment in regions that are most isolated and economically disadvantaged.
Timeline: Long-term (>7y).