Today, March 16, a judicial review hearing in the Wellington high court will consider whether New Zealand\u2019s current climate policies are adequate. What argument are the lawyers making, and how will the Crown respond?\u00a0<\/p>\n
OK \u2013 what\u2019s this hearing, and who\u2019s involved?\u00a0<\/p>\n
Non-profit groups Lawyers for Climate Action and the Environmental Law Initiative are challenging the Crown, specifically Simon Watts, the minister of climate change, on how the government sets targets for reducing emissions, and what legal protections emissions-reducing policies have. Given that New Zealand has domestic and international targets for reducing emissions, what process should a government have to follow if it is removing policies that would help meet those targets?\u00a0<\/p>\n
What argument are the lawyers making?\u00a0<\/p>\n
There are two aspects to the argument, says Jessica Palairet, the executive director of Lawyers for Climate Action. The first is about policies that were included in the first emissions reduction plan in 2022, like electric vehicle subsidies, which were discontinued by the current government \u2013 by their count, they number 35. \u201cThe way they scrapped those policies was unlawful,\u201d Palairet says, adding that the process was \u201cincoherent and internally contradictory\u201d.<\/p>\n
The second part of the argument is about the second emissions reduction plan, which was released in 2024. Because emissions-reduction policies had been removed, the plan relies on carbon offsetting through planting trees to make up for New Zealand\u2019s ongoing reliance on fossil fuels. The two groups of lawyers are saying that New Zealand may not reach its 2030 climate targets, especially the methane target, and there isn\u2019t enough proof that the policies will work. They say that climate policies need to have more confidence, not be a \u201ccoin toss\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Essentially, it\u2019s about whether governments can \u201cflip flop\u201d over climate goals in the future, Palairet says. \u201cWe are seeking declarations to clarify the law to never end up in this position again.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
A climate policy that was removed is the 2030 deadline for including farms in the Emissions Trading Scheme (Photo: Getty Images)<\/p>\n
What is an emissions reduction plan?\u00a0<\/p>\n
New Zealand has a variety of different climate goals it\u2019s signed up to. There are international climate goals, like the Paris Agreement \u2013 a pledge to keep global warming under two degrees Celsius and as close to 1.5 degrees as possible. We also have domestic climate goals, like the Zero Carbon Act, which promises that New Zealand will have net zero climate emissions by 2050.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Emissions reduction plans<\/a> are a map for how New Zealand now will get to net zero. Each plan covers five years, and contains specific projections about how much emissions New Zealand will produce.\u00a0<\/p>\n The current ERP is for the period from 2026\u00a0 to 2030, but also contains projections into the future. It has received criticism because while it meets emission targets until 2030, the policies in it do not meet the targets for 2035<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n What will the Crown say?\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe Crown will say \u2018we\u2019re on track, we\u2019re fine, we will meet those targets,\u2019\u201d Palairet says. That\u2019s why focusing on the means \u2013 tree planting \u2013 is important too. Lawyers for Climate Action and ELI will draw on scientific evidence showing that planting trees to absorb carbon is not as robust a climate policy as reducing emissions, and has reviewed hundreds of documents about how the policy decisions were made. The Crown will also call on expert evidence to argue its perspective that it did follow the law in making climate policy.\u00a0<\/p>\n The lawyers believe this is the first time that using trees to offset emissions has been legally tested in this way. \u201cReductions and removals aren\u2019t fungible \u2013 forestry has obvious risks,\u201d Palairet says. Trees can be damaged in extreme weather or by forest fires. \u201c[This ERP] locks us in a tree-planting frenzy for decades to avoid reducing emissions at source.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n How does this fit into international law?\u00a0<\/p>\n The International Court of Justice ruled last year<\/a> that states have obligations to reduce emissions at source. Specifically, developed countries should \u201ctake the lead in combating climate change by limiting their greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing their greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs\u201d. This ruling is contributing to the legal argument that Palairet and her team are making.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cNew Zealand has to use all available means to rapidly and urgently reduce emissions at source,\u201d Palairet says. \u201cPlanting pine trees doesn\u2019t line up with the best available science.\u201d<\/p>\n When will the judge deliver the ruling?\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ll have three days running through the evidence, then the judge will defer the judgment and deliver it later this year\u201d Palairet says. \u201cIt can be a slow process.\u201d A judgment would likely be followed by an appeal and further court appearances. But a legal judgment would have a permanent impact, she says. \u201cIt will set a precedent for what should happen if a new government gets elected and wants to change climate policy.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Climate law is a new area \u2013 although Palairet says it\u2019s increasingly well-established \u2013 and no results are guaranteed. In 2022, for example, Lawyers for Climate Action\u2019s case against the Climate Change Commission, asking for a review of how New Zealand set its contributions under the Paris Agreement, was dismissed<\/a>. But a case against Z Energy<\/a> (also in association with the Environmental Law Initiative), saying the petrol company had engaged in greenwashing, was settled out of court, ending with an apology from Z in 2025.<\/p>\n How is the legal system part of climate action?\u00a0<\/p>\n Palairet says that while legal cases have to nail down specific, defined terms, focusing on the ERP could lead to broad change, even if a potential judgment is a few months away. \u201cEmissions reduction plans touch every sector of economy and society, from agriculture to transport to steel and industry and manufacturing \u2013 this is an important process to scrutinise the guardrails.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Climate advocacy groups 350 Aotearoa and Climate Liberation Aotearoa are encouraging people to attend the hearing. They are hosting a protest themed around \u201cairing the government\u2019s dirty laundry\u201d, where laundry items painted with the climate policies the government has cut are hung outside the high court during the hearing.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a moment to show just how bad the government\u2019s approach to climate change is, the fact that New Zealand made a promise to an emission plan that won\u2019t be kept,\u201d says 350 spokesperson Adam Currie. \u201cEven if you don\u2019t care about climate change [this case] shows the government is not trustworthy.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n While litigation is just one way to take climate action, Palairet says it\u2019s an essential one. \u201cThe law used well is one of the most powerful tools we have to respond to the climate crisis.\u201d<\/p>\n Simon Watts did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Today, March 16, a judicial review hearing in the Wellington high court will consider whether New Zealand\u2019s current…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":332390,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[51804,390,492,178428,178429,111,43,139,69,135,178430],"class_list":["post-332389","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-new-zealand","tag-climate-action","tag-climate-change","tag-comments-enabled","tag-emissions-budget","tag-emissions-reduction-plan","tag-new-zealand","tag-news","tag-newzealand","tag-nz","tag-politics","tag-wellington-high-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/332389","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=332389"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/332389\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/332390"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=332389"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=332389"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=332389"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}A sign promoting the action planned for outside the high court hearing (Image: Shanti Mathias)<\/p>\n