Latest news with #ClimateChangeCommission
The Spinoff
2 days ago
- Business
- The Spinoff
Changing our methane standards could set a ‘dangerous precedent', scientists warn
A group of scientists from around the world is urging the New Zealand government to ignore a methane report it commissioned that 'redefines the goal of climate action'. Shanti Mathias explains. I hear there's an open letter. What's that about? Twenty-six climate scientists have signed an open letter urging the government not to adopt a standard that would limit the amount of methane reduction New Zealand needs to achieve to reach its climate target. A review of New Zealand's methane targets, conducted in 2024 by a government-appointed group separate from the independent Climate Change Commission, looked at the goal of 'no additional warming'. The open letter says that 'no additional warming' is a goal that 'ignores scientific evidence' and could jeopardise New Zealand's ability to achieve the goals set out in the Paris Agreement. What does 'no additional warming' mean? This term is a way to avoid responsibility, says the open letter. 'It redefines the goal of climate action as simply stabilising the warming impact of emissions from any given source at current levels – rather than seeking to 'minimise all greenhouse gas emissions' and their contribution to global warming.' The concept of 'no additional warming' is supported by agricultural lobby groups like Beef and Lamb and Federated Farmers. It would mean that methane emissions could be kept at current levels, as long as they don't increase; essentially an endorsement of the current amount of climate change. 'It's kind of like saying 'I'm pouring 100 barrels of pollution into this river and it's killing life. If I go and pour 90 barrels of pollution in, I should get credit for it,' Paul Behrens, a professor at Oxford University and signatory of the letter, told the Financial Times. Farming lobby groups are pushing for the government of Ireland to adopt a similar approach, which scientists have also criticised. Why are New Zealand and Ireland being singled out? Both countries have large agriculture sectors which produce a lot of dairy and beef for export, and have very high per-capita methane emissions. The vast majority of methane emissions come from agriculture; more than 85% in New Zealand, from grass-eating animals like cows and sheep burping it out as they digest their food. Methane made up 28.9% of Ireland's emissions in 2022 and 43.5% of New Zealand's emissions in 2020. By comparison, methane is about 12% of the United States' emissions. Drew Shindel, an American professor who chaired the UN Environmental Programmes 2021 global methane assessment, told RNZ that the 'no additional warming' target set a 'dangerous precedent'. If New Zealand and Ireland adopted this standard and were followed by other countries, methane emissions wouldn't be reduced fast enough to meet Paris Agreement targets that are already in jeopardy. Methane is a particularly dangerous source of emissions. While it stays in the atmosphere for less time than carbon dioxide, it causes 80 times as much heating, and causes that heating almost immediately – meaning that if methane continues to be emitted, its dangerous warming effects will continue, too. As a recognition of its more short-lived nature, the amount of methane New Zealand needs to reduce by 2050 is a separate goal to carbon emissions reductions. By 2050, New Zealand is aiming to have net-zero carbon dioxide emissions and a 24% to 47% reduction of methane. By 2030, New Zealand is aiming to have a 10% reduction of methane from 2017 levels. How have New Zealand politicians reacted to this call to reduce methane? Fairly predictably. Christopher Luxon, to whom the letter was addressed, said that the scientists, whom he described as 'worthies', 'might want to direct their focus and their letters to other countries'. He told RNZ 'I'll stack New Zealand's record up against any other country on the planet Earth around our methane emissions,' saying that if New Zealand limited dairy or beef production, those emissions would be produced elsewhere by countries with less environmental efficiency. Chlӧe Swarbrick, co-leader of the Green Party, said that the 'no additional warming' measure could damage New Zealand's reputation and threaten its exports. 'It's really clear that Christopher Luxon has to end any further speculation that his government is on the climate denial bandwagon, they have wasted a year playing around with this mythical notion of 'no additional warming' and now international alarm bells are ringing,' she said. Following the report of the methane panel last year, Cabinet will decide whether to adopt a different methane target. Is New Zealand on track to meet its climate targets otherwise? No. Current policies rely on tree planting and a carbon capture and storage project in the Kapuni gas field, which currently seems completely unviable. The second emissions reduction plan, released last year, put the net zero 2050 target out of reach with domestic targets, meaning New Zealand will likely have to buy millions of dollars of international carbon credits. The organisation Climate Action Tracker rates New Zealand's progress as 'highly insufficient' with current policies headed towards heating of more than four degrees Celsius. Changes to climate finance in the recent budget also mean that New Zealand is not doing its part to support less well-off countries adapt to a warmer planet and reduce their emissions.
Otago Daily Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Climate scientists decry govt's approach to methane
By Eloise Gibson of RNZ The prime minister has dismissed international climate scientists as "worthies" for criticising the government's approach to methane. But the Green Party says New Zealand appears to be on a "climate denial bandwagon" and needs to end the speculation over what it plans to do about the country's single biggest source of emissions. Christopher Luxon received a letter from 26 international climate change scientists accusing the government of "ignoring scientific evidence" over plans to lower its methane target. New Zealand has one of the highest per-capita methane rates in the world because of its farming exports and the current target is reducing methane by between 24 and 47 percent by 2050. Farmer lobby groups are demanding the government lower the target, and back away from any plans to put a price on methane. Carbon dioxide - a slower acting but longer lived planet-heater than methane - has been priced in New Zealand since 2008. Side-stepping advice from the independent Climate Change Commission, the government last year appointed its own scientific panel to tell it what level of cuts would be consistent with a goal of creating "no additional warming" from farming. "No additional warming" is a concept approved by Federated Farmers and Beef + Lamb, but criticised by many climate scientists as a weak basis for climate action. Adopting a target of "no added warming" would allow the farming sector, which produces more than half of New Zealand's emissions, to keep up its contribution to global heating at today's levels, indefinitely, regardless of new technology and farming methods promising to lower the impact. The panel found cutting methane 14-24 per cent off 2017 levels by 2050 would achieve no added warming, but Cabinet has not said whether it will adopt that range as a target. In the open letter, the scientists say aiming for "no additional warming" implied that current methane emissions levels were acceptable, when they were not. It said the government's approach ignored the weight of evidence showing that methane had to reduce to get control of global heating, which saw 2024 again break heat records globally. The letter says the government's path "creates the expectation that current high levels of methane emissions are allowed to continue [and] that it is acceptable to ignore emissions responsible for 30 percent of the current level of global warming". It says this jeopardises New Zealand's climate commitments and its commitment to the Global Methane Pledge Luxon came out swinging when asked about the criticism, which was prominently reported in UK business newspaper the Financial Times. He said it was lovely there were "worthies" who wanted to send him letters, but academics "might want to direct their focus and their letters to other countries" because New Zealand was already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". "I'll stack New Zealand's record up against any other country on the planet Earth around our methane emissions," said Luxon. "We're not shutting down New Zealand to send production to other countries that are infinitely less carbon efficient." Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick said Luxon was missing the point, by confusing carbon efficiency with criticism of how the country was setting its future targets. "It's really clear that Christopher Luxon has to end any further speculation that his government is on the climate denial bandwagon, they have wasted a year playing around with this mythical notion of 'no additional warming' and now international alarm bells are ringing," said Swarbrick. "Obviously the Climate Commission has been really clear that any entertainment of "no additional warming" would mean households and business carrying a far higher burden and its time to draw a line in the sand." Swarbrick said the government's approach posed huge risks for exports. 'Dangerous precedent' Paul Behrens - a global professor of environmental change at Oxford University - was one of those who signed the letter. In a statement supplied to RNZ he said: "Setting a "no additional warming" target is to say that the wildfires in America, drought in Africa, floods across Europe, bushfires in Australia, increasing food insecurity and disease, and much more to come are all fine and acceptable." "The irony is that agriculture, one of the sectors most vulnerable to climate impacts, has many large, vested interests that resist and lobby against the very changes and just transitions needed to avoid those impacts," he said. Another scientist behind the letter told the Financial Times that the New Zealand government's approach was an "accounting trick" designed to hide the impact of agriculture in countries with big farming sectors, namely Ireland and New Zealand. Drew Schindel - a professor of climate science at Duke University in the US and chair of the 2021 UNEP Global Methane Assessment - said locking in heating from farming at today's levels would mean richer countries with big livestock sectors could avoid responsibility for reducing their climate impact, while poor countries with small animal herds would not be able to grow their farming sectors to produce more of their own meat and milk. "The New Zealand government is setting a dangerous precedent," he said. "Agriculture is the biggest source of methane from human activity - we can't afford for New Zealand or any other government to exempt it from climate action," he said. Federated Farmers has said it will never accept the current target of reducing methane, while Beef + Lamb says its "bottom line" is reducing the target in line with causing "no additional warming." But lowering the target would go against advice from the independent Climate Change Commission, which says reductions of 35-47 percent are needed for New Zealand to deliver on its commitments under the Paris Agreement. It says there are good reasons for New Zealand to raise the target but no basis to lower it. Cabinet needs to respond to the commission's advice before the end of the year. Both Swarbrick and Beef + Lamb say the ongoing delays in making a decision were a problem, with Beef + Lamb saying the delay was creating confusion and concern. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said Cabinet was still carefully considering the matter. He said he did not take the letter's commentary to heart and "it doesn't stop the direction of travel we are following in undertaking a scientific review". Watts said he remained happy with the context of the review and the expertise of the scientists the government selected to conduct it. New Zealand has separate targets for methane and carbon dioxide, recognizing that methane is shorter lived. Carbon dioxide needs to fall much more steeply to net zero by 2050, affecting drivers, energy users and non agribusiness. When Watts was asked which sectors of the economy would be asked to do more to cut emissions, if methane contributed less to the overall 2050 goal, he said no sector would necessarily need to do more, in contrast to what the Climate Change Commission has found. Methane has caused most of New Zealand's contribution to heating so far, partly because it acts more quickly than carbon dioxide, front-loading the impact before it tails off. Scientists - including the government's pick for prime minister's chief science adviser John Roche - expect methane-quashing drenches and other options to be available to farmers as soon as next year, and that consumers of dairy will be open to farmers using them. But Federated Farmers and Beef + Lamb say farmers should not have to use new technology to reduce their climate impact. Fonterra, meanwhile, is under pressure from its customers over its climate impact and is offering its dairy farmers cash incentives to achieve emissions goals. The open letter is not the first time the government has been criticized for convening a panel to advise on a "no added warming" target. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has dismissed the science review as a purely political exercise, saying that contrary to claims by the farming lobby, there was no new science on methane to justify a fresh review. Upton also said there was no particular reason why farmers should get to 'keep' today's levels of heating, particularly given farming's climate impact is larger than it was in 1990. A top Australian climate scientist told RNZ last year the government's goal was problematic. Professor Mark Howden, Australasia's top representative on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said taking a "sensible" mid-point from various IPCC pathways, methane would need to fall by roughly 60 per cent by 2050 to meet global climate goals, though not all of that reduction needed to come from agriculture.
Scoop
4 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Leading International Climate Scientists Rubbish Luxon's ‘Methane Review', Call On PM To Take Methane Seriously
According to the Financial Times report, leading climate scientists are accusing politicians in New Zealand and Ireland of using an 'accounting trick' that could undermine global efforts to fight climate change. Over 25 international climate change scientists have written an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, calling out the Government for 'ignoring scientific evidence' and urging it to 'deliver methane reductions that contribute to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees.' According to the Financial Times report, leading climate scientists are accusing politicians in New Zealand and Ireland of using an 'accounting trick' that could undermine global efforts to fight climate change. Specifically the use of 'no additional warming' as a way of setting methane targets would unjustly allow countries with large historic livestock emissions to keep polluting, while penalising poorer countries. Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Amanda Larsson says, 'This is yet more international criticism of the New Zealand government's anti-science approach to tackling climate change. 'The New Zealand dairy industry is the country's worst climate polluter. Yet rather than responding to the climate crisis with action, the New Zealand Government is looking to sweep the problem under the rug with creative accounting.' The concept of 'no additional warming' is highly controversial because it focuses on keeping emissions at current levels, rather than reducing them. Quoted in the Financial Times article is Oxford University Professor Paul Behrens, who said: 'It's like saying 'I'm pouring 100 barrels of pollution into this river, and it's killing life. If I then go and pour just 90 barrels, then I should get credited for that'.' 'No additional warming' has also been criticised by New Zealand experts, including the independent Climate Change Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The open letter urges Luxon to listen to the Climate Commission's advice and strengthen action on methane. The Climate Change Commission recommends methane cuts of 35-47%. However, under pressure from lobby groups like Federated Farmers – whose ex-President Andrew Hoggard is now an ACT Party MP – the Government established a separate panel to review the methane target in line with this controversial tool. That panel landed on a much weaker methane target. Documents released under the Official Information Act show that the methane panel was established because the Climate Commission's independence meant the Government could not direct it to use 'no additional warming'. Ministry for the Environment officials advised at the time that 'no additional warming' was not in fact a matter of science, but a political decision. Larsson says, 'The Luxon Government chose to sideline its independent, science-based climate advisory body by setting up a separate review panel with the very narrow task of giving it the answers it wanted. No wonder international climate scientists are raising the alarm.' Further OIA documents show that the Methane Review Panel only met with agribusiness stakeholders, including a Groundswell-linked lobby group. Greenpeace says this is just the tip of the iceberg. The organisation has unveiled documents showing the startling level of influence that groups like Federated Farmers, Dairy NZ and Beef+Lamb NZ have had over government policy. This includes writing draft policy and communications plans for Ministers. 'Most New Zealanders are deeply concerned about climate change and the risk to their kids and grandkids,' says Larsson. 'They expect the Government to be using the best evidence from its appointed experts, not fudging the numbers to let the country's worst polluters off the hook. This is what happens when you let polluters write the policy.' The Government has indicated that it will make a decision on the methane target this year, ahead of the UN climate summit in the Amazon this November.
Scoop
4 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Leading International Climate Scientists Rubbish Luxon's ‘Methane Review', Call On PM To Take Methane Seriously
Over 25 international climate change scientists have written an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, calling out the Government for "ignoring scientific evidence" and urging it to "deliver methane reductions that contribute to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees." According to the Financial Times report, leading climate scientists are accusing politicians in New Zealand and Ireland of using an "accounting trick" that could undermine global efforts to fight climate change. Specifically the use of "no additional warming" as a way of setting methane targets would unjustly allow countries with large historic livestock emissions to keep polluting, while penalising poorer countries. Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Amanda Larsson says, "This is yet more international criticism of the New Zealand government's anti-science approach to tackling climate change. "The New Zealand dairy industry is the country's worst climate polluter. Yet rather than responding to the climate crisis with action, the New Zealand Government is looking to sweep the problem under the rug with creative accounting." The concept of "no additional warming" is highly controversial because it focuses on keeping emissions at current levels, rather than reducing them. Quoted in the Financial Times article is Oxford University Professor Paul Behrens, who said: "It's like saying 'I'm pouring 100 barrels of pollution into this river, and it's killing life. If I then go and pour just 90 barrels, then I should get credited for that'." "No additional warming" has also been criticised by New Zealand experts, including the independent Climate Change Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The open letter urges Luxon to listen to the Climate Commission's advice and strengthen action on methane. The Climate Change Commission recommends methane cuts of 35-47%. However, under pressure from lobby groups like Federated Farmers - whose ex-President Andrew Hoggard is now an ACT Party MP - the Government established a separate panel to review the methane target in line with this controversial tool. That panel landed on a much weaker methane target. Documents released under the Official Information Act show that the methane panel was established because the Climate Commission's independence meant the Government could not direct it to use "no additional warming". Ministry for the Environment officials advised at the time that "no additional warming" was not in fact a matter of science, but a political decision. Larsson says, "The Luxon Government chose to sideline its independent, science-based climate advisory body by setting up a separate review panel with the very narrow task of giving it the answers it wanted. No wonder international climate scientists are raising the alarm." Further OIA documents show that the Methane Review Panel only met with agribusiness stakeholders, including a Groundswell-linked lobby group. Greenpeace says this is just the tip of the iceberg. The organisation has unveiled documents showing the startling level of influence that groups like Federated Farmers, Dairy NZ and Beef+Lamb NZ have had over government policy. This includes writing draft policy and communications plans for Ministers. "Most New Zealanders are deeply concerned about climate change and the risk to their kids and grandkids," says Larsson. "They expect the Government to be using the best evidence from its appointed experts, not fudging the numbers to let the country's worst polluters off the hook. This is what happens when you let polluters write the policy." The Government has indicated that it will make a decision on the methane target this year, ahead of the UN climate summit in the Amazon this November.
Scoop
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Lawyers For Climate Action Files Case Challenging NZ's Climate Ambition In The Supreme Court
Press Release – Lawyers for Climate Action Our targets arent ambitious enough. Supported by seven independent experts, were arguing that the targets are not aligned with whats required to limit warming to 1.5C, and the Commission didnt carry out its analysis in the way the law … Lawyers for Climate Action NZ has today filed an application with the Supreme Court for leave to bring an appeal on the level of ambition of New Zealand's climate targets. The application follows the Court of Appeal's decision earlier this year dismissing the group's case against the Climate Change Commission and the Minister of Climate Change. 'We are generally very supportive of the Climate Change Commission's advice, and they play a critically important role in New Zealand's climate response', says Jessica Palairet, Executive Director of Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc. 'However, we believe the Climate Change Commission made errors in its early advice to the Minister of Climate Change when setting Aotearoa New Zealand's domestic emissions budgets and revised 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement.' 'Our targets aren't ambitious enough. Supported by seven independent experts, we're arguing that the targets are not aligned with what's required to limit warming to 1.5°C, and the Commission didn't carry out its analysis in the way the law requires.' 'The Climate Change Response Act requires our emissions budgets to be ' set with a view to contributing to the global effort under the Paris Agreement to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels '. However, despite the science telling us that the world needs to halve emissions by 2030 to reduce warming to 1.5°C, our emissions budgets allow net emissions in 2030 to be higher than they were in 2010'. 'We do not believe that allowing our net carbon dioxide emissions to increase can be consistent with the IPCC's analysis or the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C degrees', says Palairet. 'We first filed this case in 2021, and the Court of Appeal released its judgment on 28 March 2025. The Court of Appeal found that although the Commission's advice could be judicially reviewed, the Commission's approach was not unlawful. We respectfully disagree. Because it is such an important issue, we are asking the Supreme Court to consider it. If leave is granted, it will be the first time a case about the Climate Change Response Act 2002 reaches our top court.' 'Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. The research has been clear for years that the world needs to cut its emissions in half by 2030 to protect the planet and take advantage of the opportunities that climate action creates. However, despite this urgency, successive governments have failed to make the decisions necessary to secure a safe future.' 'If our targets aren't ambitious enough, this affects our entire climate policy response. It means that our climate policies aren't geared towards achieving the objectives our Government set in the Climate Change Response Act and the Paris Agreement: limiting warming to 1.5°C.' 'We have filed an application to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court will decide whether to grant leave over the next couple of months, after which, if leave is granted, it will set down a hearing date.' Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc is an incorporated society of lawyers committed to using the law to drive action on climate change. It is bringing this case in the public interest, to clarify the law and ensure better decision-making into the future. Our legal team is working for free, and has done so since we first filed proceedings in 2021.
