I don't see an explicit mention of solar. The only bit that mentions renewables says;
"Other options, including renewable projects, were considered but not advanced due to a range of
factors such as expected time to construct, feasibility of generating power reliably on the required scale, and effects on electricity market incentives."
Would be nice to see some details of these comparisons, and exactly what they mean by "effects on electricity market incentives". That sounds like a great place to hide a bunch of shady reasoning ...
@Me:
@absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
So ... no. TOP, like Winston First, or United Future, or Māori Party 2005-2017, will prop up any government that allows them to sit under the table and get thrown the odd bone. That hasn't changed. Good to know.
The Greens are willing to work with both sides too, where there is policy alignment, and have done, even in the current term. For example, Chloe's work with Matt Doocey on the Mental Health and Addiction Wellbeing cross-party group, which has led to significant changes to the availability of ADHD diagnosis and medication, and free up scarce psychiatrist time for other work.
The Greens would consider forming a government with National if they weren't pushing obviously ecocidal policy on every front, for example, making plans to can the Ministry for the Environment. If it was Labour pushing that policy, and National opposed it, do you really think the Greens would go into coalition with Labour out of some kind of tribal allegiance? Whereas TOP were and are willing to work with a National party that is profoundly opposed to their entire policy framework, to 'get a seat at the table'.