Latest news with #ClimateActionNZ
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
New Zealand faces court action over ‘unlawful' emissions reductions plan
Listen to article Two environmental legal groups have filed a lawsuit against New Zealand's government, accusing it of weakening climate action through a reliance on unproven offsetting strategies and a lack of public consultation. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and the Environmental Law Initiative submitted a judicial review application to the Wellington High Court on Tuesday, targeting the second Emissions Reduction Plan released in December. The legal challenge alleges the government's revised strategy is 'neither credible nor capable' of achieving its net-zero target, relying heavily on tree planting, carbon capture, and other offsetting mechanisms instead of cutting emissions at the source. It also accuses the right-leaning coalition, which came to power in November 2023, of repealing at least 35 climate policies — including the clean car discount and a decarbonisation fund — without public consultation, in breach of national law. 'This will be one of the first legal cases in the world challenging a government's pursuit of a climate strategy that relies so heavily on offsetting rather than emissions reductions at source,' the Environmental Law Initiative said in a statement. The government's plan includes a 'technology-led approach' that emphasises economic growth alongside emissions reduction. It features investments in carbon capture, afforestation, landfill gas recovery, and organic waste management. By 2050, the government projects 700,000 hectares of new forest. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said in April that the country remains committed to limiting global warming to 1.5°C and that current policies will meet emissions targets up to 2030. On Tuesday, a spokesperson for Watts said the minister was 'aware' of the legal proceedings but declined to comment while the matter is before the courts. New Zealand's Climate Change Commission has warned of an 'urgent need' to strengthen existing policies to ensure long-term climate resilience. Though New Zealand accounts for a small share of global emissions, the island nation faces severe climate impacts, including coastal erosion, biodiversity loss, extreme weather, and displacement risks. The Green Party has backed the legal challenge, saying the government's climate plan is 'not worth the paper it is written on.'
Scoop
2 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Legal Experts Sue Climate Minister Over Glaring Holes In Emissions Plan
Press Release – Lawyers for Climate Action 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:
Scoop
3 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Legal Experts Sue Climate Minister Over Glaring Holes In Emissions Plan
Press Release – Lawyers for Climate Action 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:
