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.

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

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:

© Scoop Media