Legal Experts Sue Climate Minister Over Glaring Holes In Emissions Plan
Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and co-applicant the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) allege the Governments plan fails to meet key requirements of the Climate Change Response Act.
A coalition of legal experts has launched major legal proceedings against the Minister of Climate Change, alleging that the Government's emissions reduction plan fails to fulfil basic requirements of the law.
'Under the Climate Change Response Act, the Government has to put in place a credible emissions reduction plan for Aotearoa that will meet our climate targets and set us up for success,' says Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc Executive Director Jessica Palairet.
'Yet, in the face of warnings from our Climate Change Commission that there are 'significant risks' around whether New Zealand will meet its climate targets, the plan misses the mark. It takes a high-risk, forestry-led approach to emissions reductions. Our law requires more.'
Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and co-applicant the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) allege the Government's plan fails to meet key requirements of the Climate Change Response Act. 'As it stands, the Government's emissions reduction plan will carry huge consequences for our country. We don't take this step lightly, but the plan needs to be challenged,' says Ms Palairet.
Under the Climate Change Response Act, governments must set an emissions reduction plan every five years. These plans outline economy-wide policies and strategies for meeting corresponding emissions budgets – which are stepping stones towards achieving our 2050 net-zero target. In 2024, the Government published the second emissions reduction plan, which will be operative from 2026 – 2030.
Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and ELI challenge decisions relating to both the first emissions reduction plan (2021-2025) and the second emissions reduction plan (2026-2030).
ELI's director, research and legal, Dr Matt Hall says 'the Government cancelled 35 climate policies and actions which were part of the first emissions reduction plan – without consulting the public first, as required by law. It then put in place a second emissions reduction plan which is almost devoid of actions or policies for reducing emissions at their source.'
The NGOs allege that the second emissions reduction plan is unlikely to ensure emissions stay within the budget, has an unrealistic approach to risk management, and assumes that 95% of the planned emissions reductions will occur by themselves without policies or strategies.
Instead of focusing on reducing emissions at source, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts instead relied heavily on offsetting the country's emissions with forestry plantations.
'This was despite warnings from the Climate Change Commission that tree planting is no substitute for reducing emissions at source. It locks-in vast pine plantations for future generations, and runs up against our obligations under the Paris Agreement. The science is clear that forestry is important, but it's not a substitute for reducing our combustion of fossil fuels,' says Dr Hall.
Dr Hall says the Minister was required to publish a sufficiently detailed plan that could assure the public New Zealand will meet its emissions budget. The Government's plan does not give confidence; in our view, it is neither credible nor capable of achieving the purpose, which is to reduce emissions'.
Lawyers for Climate Action NZ's Jessica Palairet says, 'The Minister has made the pathway for achieving the third emissions budget incredibly difficult. Left unchallenged, it will be a huge burden for the future.'
'We believe it is necessary to take this case to protect the interests of the public now and in the future, and to test these important legal provisions for the first time.'
The application for judicial review has been filed with the High Court and is awaiting a court date.
Notes:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
an hour ago
- 1News
Govt announces foreign visitor charges at popular DOC sites
Foreign visitors will soon need to pay a charge to access some of New Zealand's most famous tourist destinations on conservation land, the Government announced today. It was also announced that concessions would be widened to allow for more business activity on conservation land. The charges announced today would mean foreign tourists visiting Cathedral Cove / Te Whanganui-a-Hei, Tongariro Crossing, Milford Track, and Aoraki Mount Cook would need to pay between $20 and $40 per person. New Zealanders would not be charged for access. Conservation Minister Tama Potaka said foreigners made up 80% of all visitors at the destinations. Conservation Minister Tama Potaka. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT He estimated the charges could make up to $62 million a year in revenue, which would be directly reinvested into those same areas. 'Tourists make a massive contribution to our economy, and no one wants that to change," Potaka said. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said sites that were "truly special" to Kiwis needed to be protected, and said the charges would give the Department of Conservation more support. "But I have heard many times from friends visiting from overseas their shock that they can visit some of the most beautiful places in the world for free." Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. File photo. (Source: Getty) Luxon said it would create more economic opportunities out of underutilised Department of Conservation land. The charge would be similar to the cost of admission for international visitors to the Auckland War Memorial Museum, where an adult currently paid $32 and child, aged between five and 15, paid $16. ADVERTISEMENT Alongside the charges, the Government also announced widening concessions, for businesses to operate on conservation land. Aoraki / Mount Cook along the Hooker Valley Track on a sunny day in the South Island. (Source: "We're going to fix the Conservation Act to unlock more economic activity through concessions – like tourism, agriculture, and infrastructure, in locations where that makes sense," Luxon said "That means more certainty for businesses, less bureaucracy, and much faster decisions, so the businesses that should be operating can get up and running." Luxon said there would still be restrictions to protect the natural environment. "Of course it won't make sense for businesses to be operating on every part of the DOC estate," he said. "But where it does make sense, we need to get to the 'yes' much faster – instead of being bogged down in process and uncertainty." Tourist enjoying views of upper Clinton valley on Milford Track. (Source: Luxon said the current concessions scheme was "totally broken", saying it often took years to obtain or renew, "leaving businesses in a cycle of bureaucratic limbo". 'Outdated rules mean we've got examples of modern e-bike users being turned away from potential touring opportunities because they have to be considered as proper vehicles. "And tourism on the Routeburn is being held up because the trail crosses artificial boundaries, with different rules and different limits."
1News
10 hours ago
- 1News
How bad is the tariff news for NZ, really?
New Zealand has been hit with a higher tariff rate than Australia on exports to the US – but economists say the situation could have been worse. It was revealed today that New Zealand exports would have a 15% tariff applied, up from 10% announced earlier. Australia remains at 10%. Brad Olsen, chief executive at Infometrics, said that was a clear challenge for New Zealand. "There is now a wedge between us and Australia." ADVERTISEMENT There were other parts of the world that previously had a higher tariff rate that were now on the same level as New Zealand, such as Europe. "Wine, for example, under the original tariffs, we might have had a slight advantage. Now we don't." But he said it was not necessarily true that the country would have been better off had it negotiated a deal. He said New Zealand did not have a lot to "give up" in those negotiations, and it could have ended up being costly. "I'm a little bit surprised by comments, including from the opposition's trade spokesperson, that the Government failed to achieve a lower tariff rate. "The comments seem to make the implication that New Zealand could have found a way to come up with a trade agreement that might have given us a lower tariff rate. "That might be true, but we have no idea what we would have had to give up to achieve that… some of what had to be given up by other countries to get a 15% tariffs rate is consequential – Japan and other countries had to give up to half a trillion dollars of further investment into the US." ADVERTISEMENT US President signs an executive order for new tariffs on a wide swath of US trading partners to go into effect in seven days. (Source: 1News) He said the impact on New Zealand's trading partners might not be as bad as had been expected, which should prove positive for the economy. "It will be slightly more challenging to export to the US from a New Zealand point of view, but our trading partner activity might not be hit as bad as was feared in April. That's probably a net benefit for us." Mike Jones, chief economist at BNZ, said the increase was not unexpected given indications of the past few weeks. "It's obviously unhelpful for NZ exports into the US, particularly how we line up with those coming from Australia and the UK, given the lower 10% baseline tariff rate for those countries. "Beef and wine exports could be affected. It's interesting in this context that we've seen the NZD/AUD exchange rate fall a little today in the wake of the announcements." 'Quite myopic' ADVERTISEMENT Cranes and shipping containers are seen at a port in Busan, South Korea, Thursday, July 31, 2025. (Source: Associated Press) Kelly Eckhold, chief economist at Westpac, said he thought New Zealand was in roughly the same position as in April. "On one hand, the tariff is higher, so there is a bigger direct cost, but it's a bit lower for a lot of our trading partners, so it's better for the economy than would otherwise be the case." He said how the lingering elements of uncertainty played out over the coming weeks would be important. "The legal basis of these tariffs, whether they're going to be able to continue or need to be replaced with a different type of tariff, is an issue. And the sectoral tariffs have not yet really been negotiated. "While I don't think these things affect the sort of goods New Zealand trades with the US, there may be some impact on our trading partners." He said it seemed strange that the US was calculating tariffs based on which countries exported more than they imported. ADVERTISEMENT "The concept that US authorities have had of countries ripping them off by selling more stuff to America than they're been buying is quite myopic. "We're only talking about goods trade here, we buy a lot of services from the US. "In large part, the trade imbalance is a cyclical rather than a structural story. "In the last few years, the economy has been relatively weak compared to the US. We're not sucking in as many imports, and the exchange rate has been lower than would normally be the case, which has encouraged export revenues. "I would have thought trade policy metrics like tariffs would be determined on the basis of structural, not cyclical factors. "All those things could easily be the other way around in a few years' time."
RNZ News
11 hours ago
- RNZ News
Pacific Waves for 2 August 2025
NZ in Cook Islands domestic affairs 'improper' - Henry Puna; Paris agreement 'not enough' for Kanaks - Roch Wamytan; Pacific shoppers in NZ unhappy with locked up corned beef. Tags: To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
