The latest update on the state of New Zealand’s environment paints a concerning outlook for marine environments, especially amid the increasing push to use the marine estate for economic gain.
But many shallow coastal ecosystems remain largely unexplored. As our latest fieldwork shows, many of these areas are hotspots for protected species, but are largely unprotected from human impacts.
Gardens of the red calcified stylasterid hydrocoral off the coast of Doubtful Sound, Fiordland.
Ecosystems in the ‘middle’ light zone
Subtidal rocky reefs have been the focus of scientific research for centuries. During the past eight decades, with the advent of SCUBA diving, they have been studied even more intensively.
However, rocky reefs extend much deeper than most SCUBA divers can typically reach, into what is known as the mesophotic or “middle” light zone.
While seaweeds dominate in the well-lit shallow waters, there is limited light to sustain photosynthesis in the mesophotic zone below around 30 metres. The decline in seaweed creates more space for animals, which leads to the development of communities containing species not found in the shallows.
Deep-water stony corals at around 100 metres off the coast of Northland.
Because these ecosystems are no longer affected by surface wave action, they are often dominated by large, fragile three-dimensional species.
We still know very little about the ecology of the species that live in mesophotic ecosystems. Many are likely to be slow growing and long-lived, with some living for hundreds or possibly thousands of years.
Research is ongoing and empirical data still sparse, but observations show many fish are associated with these mesophotic communities. We eat some of them, or they are important within the ocean food web.
Diverse ecosystems and protected species
We shared some of the first high-resolution videos of New Zealand’s mesophotic ecosystems in 2022. Back then, we thought these deep-reef communities were dominated by sponges.
However, we have since deployed a Boxfish remotely operated vehicle more than 200 times around New Zealand and found sponges are not always the most dominant organism.
In fact, mesophotic ecosystems along New Zealand’s coast are very diverse, with regional variation in the types of communities.
Our team found sea squirts dominated communities off Rakiura Stewart Island, anemone stands in the Wellington region, red coral beds along the Fiordland coast and coral “reefs” in Northland.
Asicidian or sea squirt beds at 130 metres off the coast of Rakiura Stewart Island.
Importantly, many of these reefs support species protected under the Wildlife Act.
During our most recent trip to Doubtless Bay in Northland, we explored more than 20 locations. At many sites we encountered protected coral species. The term coral is broadly defined in the Wildlife Act – it includes groups such as black corals (order Antipatharia), gorgonian corals (Gorgonacea), stony corals (Scleractinia) and hydrocorals (family Stylasteridae).
Protected black coral and seafans at around 90 metres offshore at Doubtless Bay, Northland.
Under the Wildlife Act, it is illegal to deliberately collect or damage these species. If they are brought to the surface accidentally (in fishing gear or by anchors, for example), they must be returned to the sea immediately.
Many of these corals are typically considered deep-sea species, but they are commonly found in New Zealand’s mesophotic ecosystems. Northland’s mesophotic communities have examples from all these groups of corals, as well as other fragile ecosystems dominated by glass sponges.
While glass sponges are not protected, they are thought to be very slow growing, with some species living for thousands of years.
Glass sponge gardens at around 100 metres off the coast of Northland.
Current and future impacts
Many mesophotic organisms grow slowly and rely on food carried in the water. This makes them particularly sensitive to activities that disrupt the seafloor, such as fishing and anchoring, and to the effect of higher sediment loads.
Sediment can either smother or clog mesophotic organisms such as corals and sponges. Many of these species show some tolerance to sediment, but prolonged exposure or very high levels can kill them off.
Many of the mesophotic ecosystems we have explored show clear evidence of human impacts, including lost recreational fishing gear and anchor lines.
The government plans to maximise the economic potential of the marine estate and much of this development is focused on coastal areas. Any activities that generate coastal sediment plumes are of particular concern.
Seabed sand mining operations already occur at some sites around the coast of New Zealand. More have been proposed, potentially generating sediment plumes that could reach these mesophotic communities.
Protected black coral in a sponge garden at around 80 metres at the Poor Knights marine reserve in Northland.
A fundamental step for effective management of biodiversity is to understand its distribution. Our work over the past five years has characterised a wide range of mesophotic ecosystems, but there are still large areas of the New Zealand coastline that have not been explored. They are likely to contain undescribed communities.
As many regional councils around New Zealand are working through revisions to coastal policy plans, these deeper rocky reefs need to be fully included to protect the species they support.
Professor James J Bell receives funding from the Department of Conservation, Environment Southland, the George Mason Charitable Trust, The Royal Society of New Zealand, and the Greater Wellington Regional Council.
As the election campaign draws to a close, it’s safe to say both major parties have been quiet on climate change. While Labor policies have made some progress to decarbonise, the Coalition threatens to scrap or weaken them.
Around the world, more and more electric vehicles are hitting the road. Last year, more than 17 million battery-electric and hybrid vehicles were sold. Early forecasts suggest this year’s figure might reach 20 million. Nearly 20% of all cars sold today are electric.
But as more motorists go electric, it creates a new challenge – what to do with the giant batteries when they reach the end of their lives. That’s 12 to 15 years on average, though real-world data suggests it may be up to 40% longer. The average EV battery weighs about 450 kilograms.
By 2030, around 30,000 tonnes of EV batteries are expected to need disposal or recycling in Australia. By 2040, the figure is projected to be 360,000 tonnes and 1.6 million tonnes by 2050.
Is this a problem? Not necessarily. When a battery reaches the end of its life in a vehicle, it’s still got plenty of juice. Together, they could power smaller vehicles, houses or, when daisy-chained, even whole towns.
For this to work, though, we need better information. How healthy are these batteries? What are they made of? Have they ever been in an accident? At present, answers to these questions are hard to come by. That has to change.
Gauging the health and reliability of a used EV battery is harder than it should be.Fahroni/Shutterstock
Huge potential, challenging reality
Old EV batteries have huge potential. But it’s not going to be easy to realise this.
That’s because it’s hard to get accurate data on battery performance, how fast it’s degrading and the battery’s current state of health – how much capacity it has now versus how much it had when new.
Unfortunately, vehicle manufacturers often make it difficult to get access to this crucial information. And once a battery pack is removed, we can’t get access to its specific data.
This comes with real risks. If a battery has a fault or has been severely degraded, it could catch fire when opened or if used for an unsuitable role. Without data, recyclers are flying blind.
Reusing EV batteries will only be economically viable if there’s sufficient confidence in estimates of remaining capacity and performance.
Without solid data, investors and companies may hesitate to engage in the repurposing market due to the financial risks involved.
Extracting minerals from a battery
EV batteries are full of critical minerals such as nickel, cobalt, lithium and manganese. Nearly everything in an EV battery can be recycled – up to 95%.
Here, too, it’s not as easy as it should be. Manufacturers design batteries focusing on performance and safety with recyclability often an afterthought.
Battery packs are often sealed shut for safety, making it difficult to disassemble their thousands of individual cells. Dismantling these type of EV batteries is extremely labour-intensive and time-consuming. Some will have to be crushed and the minerals extracted afterwards.
EV batteries have widely differing chemistries, such as lithium iron phosphate and nickel manganese cobalt. But this vital information is often not included on the label.
EV batteries require significant quantities of critical minerals. Pictured: lithium salt evaporation ponds in Argentina.Freedom_wanted/Shutterstock
Better ways of assessing battery health
Used EV batteries fall into three groups based on their state of health:
High (80% or more of original capacity): These batteries can be refurbished for reuse in similar applications, such as electric cars, mopeds, bicycles and golf carts. Some can be resized to suit smaller vehicles.
Medium (60-80%): These batteries can be repurposed for entirely different applications, such as stationary power storage or uninterruptible power supplies.
Low (below 60%): These batteries undergo shredding and refining processes to recover valuable minerals which can be used to make new batteries.
Researchers have recently succeeded in estimating the health of used EV batteries even without access to the battery’s data. But access to usage and performance data would still give better estimates.
What’s at stake?
An EV battery is a remarkable thing. But they rely on long supply chains and contain critical minerals, and their manufacture can cause pollution and carbon emissions.
Ideally, an EV battery would be exhausted before we recycle it. Repurposing these batteries will help reduce how many new batteries are needed.
If old batteries are stockpiled or improperly discarded, it leads to fire risk and potential contamination of soil and water.
Right now, it’s hard for companies and individuals to access each battery’s performance data. This means it’s much harder and more expensive to assess its health and remaining useful life. As a result, more batteries are being discarded or sent for recycling too early.
Recycling EV batteries is a well-defined process. But it’s energy-intensive and requires significant chemical treatments.
What needs to change?
At present, many battery manufacturers are wary of sharing battery performance data, due to concerns over intellectual property and other legal issues. This will have to change if society is to get the fullest use out of these complex energy storage devices. But these changes are unlikely to come from industry.
In 2021, California introduced laws requiring manufacturers to give recyclers access to data and battery state of health. Likewise, the European Union will require all EV batteries to come with a digital passport from January 2027, giving access to data on the battery’s health, chemistry and records of potentially harmful events such as accidents or charging at extreme temperatures.
Australia should follow suit – before we have a mountain of EV batteries and no way to reuse them.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
At the same time, climate change is getting worse. Last year was Australia’s second?hottest on record. Global warming is leading to more frequent and severe bushfires, floods and heatwaves.
These two crises feed each other. Energy-hungry homes strain the grid on hot days, and urban sprawl locks residents into in long car commutes. And dangerous, climate-driven disasters damage homes and push insurance bills higher.
It makes policy sense to deal with both crises in tandem. So what are Labor, the Coalition and the Greens offering on both climate action and housing, and are they fixing both problems together?
A returned Labor government would also allow first home buyers to use a 5% deposit to purchase a property. And it would invest in modern construction methods to speed up the building process and make housing more affordable.
The verdict: Labor’s plan represents progress on both climate and housing policy, but the two are moving on separate tracks.
Buildings account for almost a quarter of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. But Labor has not made any assurances that the promised new homes will have minimal climate impact.
Labor’s commitment to new construction methods is welcome. Modern solutions such as prefabricated housing can substantially reduce emissions.
However, the spending represents only a tiny proportion of Labor’s $33 billion housing plans.
A Dutton-led government would also freeze building standard improvements for a decade, because it claims some improvements make homes more expensive.
On climate change, it would review Labor’s 43% emissions-reduction target, expand gas production and build small modular nuclear reactors at seven former coal sites.
The verdict: The Coalition’s housing and climate policies are not integrated. And while freezing changes to the national building code might lower the upfront costs of buying a home, it may prevent the introduction of more stringent energy-efficiency standards. This would both contribute to the climate problem and lock in higher power bills.
The party says its housing plans slash energy bills and emissions, because more homes would be energy-efficient and powered by clean energy.
The verdict: The Greens offer the most integrated climate-housing policy vision. But its plan may not be feasible. It would require massive public expenditure, significant tax reform, and logistical capabilities beyond current government capacity.
An integrated fix matters
Neither Labor, the Coalition nor the Greens has proposed a truly integrated, feasible policy framework to tackle the issues of housing and climate together.
Resilient, net-zero homes are not a luxury. They are a necessary tool for reaching Australia’s emissions-reduction goals.
And government policy to tackle both housing and climate change should extend beyond new homes. None of the three parties offers a clear timetable to retrofit millions of draughty houses or protect low-income households from heat, flood and bushfire, or has proposed binding national policies to stop new homes being built on flood plains.
Whichever party forms the next government, it must ensure housing and climate policies truly pull in the same direction.
Dr. Ehsan Noroozinejad has received funding from both national and international organisations to support research addressing housing and climate crises. His most recent funding on integrated housing and climate policy comes from the James Martin Institute for Public Policy (soon to be the Australian Public Policy Institute).
Integrity organisation claims Australians for Natural Gas overstates role of gas in economy and failed to disclose directors’ links to industry on website
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has been asked to investigate allegedly misleading claims made by Australians for Natural Gas, a pro-gas group with directors who include a gas industry executive and a Liberal candidate running in the federal election.
Lawyers acting for Climate Integrity, a not-for-profit focused on corporate accountability, have filed a complaint with the ACCC. They argue that the website and advertising materials of Australians for Natural Gas have failed to disclose its directors’ links to the gas industry and Liberal party, and overinflated the role of gas in the economy and energy transition.
Conservationists fear fallout from president’s proclamation on fishing in federally protected area of Pacific Ocean
Environmental conservation groups are expressing major concerns over Donald Trump’s recent proclamation to reverse fishing regulations across the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine national monument, a federally protected area in the central Pacific Ocean spanning nearly 500,000 sq miles.
As one of the most pristine tropical marine environments in the world, the monument is now at risk following Trump’s decision last week to unleash American commercial fishing in the area with far-reaching environmental consequences.
The cat-proof fence drops off a sheer cliff on one side of Kangaroo Island, and disappears into the ocean on the other. The top section is floppy and electrified – a rude shock for wily cats seeking to climb over – and the bottom is burrow-proof.
Gaps left for humans and wildlife funnel any would-be trespassers through a minefield of traps, which are closely monitored.
Years of fires, landclearing and introduced predators have seen Australia’s bilby population plummet but a glimmer of hope exists within six protected areas.
Despite recent environmental and animal welfare concerns, supporters of Tasmania’s salmon industry say it provides critical economic benefits to regional communities.
Port Augusta is one of seven locations across the country earmarked to host nuclear power plants if the Coalition wins the federal election, but the community has mixed views on the proposal.
There’s quiet optimism that gene-edited ‘Peter Pan’ tadpoles could help control one of the world’s worst invasive species
The toad’s eyes seemed to glow red, its warty and poison-soaked skin – normally splodged in browns – instead a porridge of creamy whites. This albino toad was produced by a team of scientists with one foot in a Sydney university laboratory and the other in a research station on the vast tropical savannahs and wetlands far away to the north near Humpty Doo.
It was September 2023 and for the man who dreamed it into being, the toad was but an opening act in a radical new play against one of the world’s worst invasive species.
Environment groups say Thursday order ignores effort to adopt rules to prevent harmful mining of ocean floor
Environmental groups are decrying an executive order signed by Donald Trump to expedite deep-sea mining for minerals, saying it could irreparably harm marine ecosystems and ignores an ongoing process to adopt international rules for the practice.
Trump’s Thursday order directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to fast-track permits for companies to mine the ocean floor in both US and international waters.
A devastating cyclone helped Kenn Parker build his rainforest home, and now his favourite neighbours are the cassowaries who come to visit with their chicks.
Our energy system is evolving at breakneck speed. Here we look at how our power grid works, what more renewables mean for energy prices, how nuclear fits into the picture, and how we might build a grid fit for the future.
Critical minerals, nuclear power and the ‘weaponisation’ of energy supplies were discussed at international conference
The UK and the International Energy Agency gathered ministers and high-level officials from 60 countries to Lancaster House in London for two days of talks on the future of energy security this week. The EU was out in force, the US sent a top official, but China stayed away. Here’s what we learned.
Energy secretary says countries must work together during conference at which US delegate called net zero ‘dangerous’
Britain will find “common ground” with the US on energy and the economy including on nuclear power, despite differences over climate policy, the UK energy secretary, Ed Miliband, has pledged.
He was speaking at the close of a two-day, 60-country conference in London on energy security, hosted by the government and the International Energy Agency (IEA), at which the US delegate Tommy Joyce attacked net zero policies as “dangerous” and “damaging”, and said it was in the interests of “our adversaries”.
If elected, the Coalition has pledged to end Labor’s substantial tax break for new zero- or low-emissions vehicles.
This, combined with an earlier promise to roll back new fuel efficiency standards, would successfully slow the transition to hybrid and battery electric vehicles (EVs).
The Albanese government pitched these tax breaks as a way to make EVs cheaper to buy and more competitive with internal combustion engine cars. Since the tax break came in, EV popularity has surged. Almost 100,000 people have taken out a novated lease on an EV between mid-2022, when the scheme began, and February 2025.
The Coalition has been consistently critical of the tax breaks on cost grounds. The scheme has been far more popular than government forecasts envisaged, leading to concerns about a cost blowout. Rather than the A$55 million forecast for 2024-25, the scheme has cost ten times that – $560 million. EV buyers are much more likely to be wealthy, meaning the tax break has been snapped up by people who need it less. The policy is, however, encouraging car suppliers to import more affordable EVs.
These concerns don’t mean Labor’s policy is bad. Far from it – this tax break is currently the only policy working to drive down transport emissions, now the second-largest source of emissions in Australia. The Coalition has given no indication it would replace the EV tax break with other ways to cut transport emissions.
Electric vehicles still cost more than their internal combustion engine counterparts.meowKa/Shutterstock
What is this tax break – and did it work?
In mid-2022, the Albanese government introduced a tax break to encourage uptake of electric vehicles. The measure initially covered hydrogen fuel-cell, battery-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, but plug-in hybrids are no longer eligible as of April 1.
The tax break works by giving EV buyers who are current employees a fringe benefits tax exemption for low- or zero-emissions vehicles both held and used for private use.
The fringe benefits tax is a flat tax of 47% levied on the car benefit provided by the employer. For the exemption to apply, the retail price of the car has to be under the threshold for the luxury car tax of $91,387.
People in high incomes brackets often like to negotiate with their employer to have a car included as part of their salary package so they can reduce their taxable income. The fringe benefits tax is levied on these types of benefits.
A battery electric Hyundai Kona retailed for around $60,000 last year – 32% more in price than its internal combustion engine equivalent. The fringe benefits tax of around $11,700 annually ends up being larger because of the EV’s high sale price. Without this exemption, the tax acts as a major disincentive for the uptake of EVs.
By and large, electric vehicles cost significantly more than their traditional counterparts. This price gap is dropping as new manufacturers enter the market, but it’s still there. While EVs have lower fuel costs, the higher upfront cost has put off many prospective buyers. This is the issue Labor’s tax exemption was intended to fix.
Has the scheme worked? Overall, yes. In 2022, EVs accounted for just 3.3% of all new cars sold in Australia. By 2023, almost two-thirds of battery electric, vehicles were sold to private buyers, a 145% increase. And in 2024, the figure had almost tripled to 9.6%. Without this tax incentive, Australia’s uptake of EVs would most likely be much lower.
If a future Coalition government ended the tax break, Australia would return to the pre-2022 era, where fringe benefits tax acted as a significant disincentive for EVs.
The tax break isn’t perfect – but it’s better than nothing
Australia’s main power grid now runs on an average of 40% clean energy. As a result, emissions have been tracking downward in these sectors. But transport emissions are still rising. Transport is now Australia’s second-largest source of emissions – almost 100 million tonnes (Mt) out of our total emissions of 434 Mt. By 2030, transport is projected to be the largest source of domestic emissions.
Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, nations agreed at least 20% of light vehicles on their roads would be low- or zero-emissions by 2030. But Australia is lagging well behind the pack on the shift to cleaner transport.
At present, just 1% of Australia’s car fleet is electric. Even EVs make up close to 10% of new sales, changing the makeup of the entire fleet (16.8 million) will take years.
By contrast, almost 90% of new cars sold in Norway are electric, according to a 2024 report from the International Energy Agency. In China it’s just under 60%, Sweden it’s 60%, Netherlands 30%, the UK 25% and the United States 10%.
These countries have used a combination of tax incentives and fuel efficiency regulations to drive rapid uptake. While Labor has moved to introduce both of these, progress hasn’t been as fast.
Back to the fuel guzzlers?
Australians rely heavily on cars. But the long lack of fuel efficiency standards mean many models sold here emit much more than in other OECD countries – 150 grams per kilometre versus 107 across 29 European Union nations as of 2023. Put another way, a new car in Australia uses 40% more fuel than its equivalent in the EU. Many drivers prefer big cars, such as the top-selling Ford Ranger.
If the Coalition ends the tax break and pulls the teeth of new emissions standards, it would bring recent modest progress to a halt.
The Coalition has rightly pointed out the inequity of the tax break as it stands. My research has shown this could be fixed. Throwing the scheme out without proposing another way to cut transport emissions is disheartening.
Anna Mortimore receives funding from Reliable Affordable Clean Energy Cooperative Research Centre for 2030 (RACE for 2030).
