{"id":434801,"date":"2026-05-19T09:47:12","date_gmt":"2026-05-19T09:47:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/434801\/"},"modified":"2026-05-19T09:47:12","modified_gmt":"2026-05-19T09:47:12","slug":"new-zealand-moves-to-ban-tort-liability-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-damage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/434801\/","title":{"rendered":"New Zealand Moves to Ban Tort Liability for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Damage"},"content":{"rendered":"

New Zealand\u2019s government has announced that it plans to amend the country\u2019s signature climate law to prohibit liability arising from climate change damages, a controversial move that critics say would shield polluters from climate lawsuits and undermine the rule of law. It comes amidst recent legislative action from Republican lawmakers in the U.S. to similarly restrict liability<\/a> for climate-related harms.\u00a0<\/p>\n

According to a May 12 announcement<\/a>, the New Zealand government intends to update the nation\u2019s Climate Change Response Act to preclude liability in climate tort claims for harms from flooding, wildfires, storm damage, drought and sea level rise caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The amendment would block both current and future lawsuits\u2014including a landmark climate case filed against a handful of major polluters that is slated to go to trial next year.\u00a0<\/p>\n

New Zealand Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith specifically referenced that case, called Smith v. Fonterra<\/a>, as grounds for the government taking action to restrict liability. He said the lawsuit was \u201ccreating uncertainty in business confidence and investment\u201d and that the legislative change is needed to protect businesses and deliver certainty around their legal obligations.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Government is acting now to provide legal clarity and certainty and to remove the possible development of a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted to respond to climate change,\u201d Goldsmith said in a statement<\/a>. \u201cOur government is committed to fixing the basics, and certainty of law is essential for businesses to operate, attracting overseas investment, and stimulating economic growth.\u201d<\/p>\n

Climate advocates sharply criticized the move.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is a shocking abuse of executive power,\u201d Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Gen Toop said<\/a>. \u201cThe courts exist to hold powerful interests to account and protect the public interest. Ministers should not be rewriting the law to shut down cases they don\u2019t like.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lawyers for Climate Action, a New Zealand-based organization that uses legal pathways to advance climate action, said the move<\/a> \u201craises fundamental issues for both the environment and the constitutional role of the courts, and puts the interests of big emitters over those of impacted communities.\u201d<\/p>\n

A liability shield had been proposed in a bill before Parliament over a year ago, according to the organization, but it did not go anywhere. The current proposal, by contrast, is expected to move quickly, though an actual bill has not yet been introduced. But once a bill is released, observers say, it is more likely than not to pass.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWe don\u2019t have certainty that it would pass, but it seems probable,\u201d Laura MacKay, acting executive director of Lawyers for Climate Action, told Inside Climate News. She said it was \u201cnot entirely clear what prompted it now, aside from the fact that there is an election upcoming.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"NewNew Zealand Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith speaks during a Parliament session on March 6, 2024, in Wellington. Credit: Hagen Hopkins\/Getty Images<\/p>\n

New Zealanders will go to the polls in November in an election that could result in the current coalition government, the country\u2019s most conservative in decades<\/a>, losing its majority.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Lawyers for Climate Action said the liability shield proposal is now being \u201crushed through as a government priority before the election,\u201d and that it is a direct response to the Smith v. Fonterra litigation.\u00a0<\/p>\n

That case\u2014a civil claim brought by climate campaigner and M\u0101ori leader Mike Smith against a handful of the country\u2019s largest agricultural and energy companies\u2014is moving forward following a 2024 ruling<\/a> from the New Zealand Supreme Court deciding that it could proceed to trial. The case aims to hold the companies accountable, under tort law claims, for the climate change consequences of their greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists have long concluded are the primary cause of global warming. The trial is scheduled to start in April 2027.\u00a0<\/p>\n

It would be blocked if the government\u2019s proposal is enacted.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Sam Bookman<\/a>, a climate law expert and lecturer at Melbourne Law School who is admitted to the bar in New Zealand, told Inside Climate News that Smith\u2019s case is the most procedurally advanced climate tort case of its kind in the world. \u201cNew Zealand\u2019s Supreme Court unanimously held that the plaintiff had a tenable case,\u201d he said, and following that ruling, \u201cthere was no judicial process left which could have derailed this case. So it\u2019s deeply cynical for the defendants to run to the legislature to interfere with a trial process that had already started.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bookman said that while the defendants in the case had not publicly said they were looking for a legislative avenue to evade a trial, \u201cclearly they were aggressively lobbying for this.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

A spokesperson for Genesis Energy, one of the defendants in the case, said that the company views New Zealand\u2019s Climate Change Response Act, not litigation, as the \u201cprimary mechanism for addressing climate change.\u201d The 2002 Act<\/a> provides a framework for the country to implement climate policies, including an emissions trading scheme, that allow for it to meet its international climate change obligations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cOur view is that it is the role of government, not the courts, to develop policy and legislation needed to transition Aotearoa New Zealand to a lower\u2011carbon economy,\u201d the spokesperson said. \u201cConsistency of direction is important to underpin the long-term investment decisions necessary to support a successful transition to net zero 2050.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

The company did not respond to the question of whether it or related trade associations have lobbied the government to intervene in the ongoing court case. Inside Climate News raised the same question about lobbying to several other defendants, including Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, and did not receive a response. A spokesperson for Z Energy said that the company \u201cwelcomes the government\u2019s decision to progress legislation reinforcing the Climate Change Response Act as the primary mechanism for addressing climate change.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

In a new article published in The Conversation<\/a>, legal experts Bj\u00f8rn-Oliver Magsig and Graeme Austin, both with Victoria University of Wellington, argue that courts play an important role in democratic societies grappling with complex challenges, including climate change. \u201cCourts do things governments cannot,\u201d they write. \u201cThey cannot be lobbied. They decide on evidence and law. They name specific actors and test their conduct against legal standards.\u201d<\/p>\n

Magsig and Austin note that the liability shield proposal follows other climate-action rollbacks that the current right-wing government has made, such as reversing a ban on offshore oil exploration and weakening a methane reduction target. \u201cAgainst that backdrop, preventing climate-focused tort claims is not an outlier. We argue it is the next layer of a deliberate dismantling of a system of climate accountability,\u201d they wrote.<\/p>\n

This story is funded by readers like you.<\/p>\n

Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.<\/p>\n

Donate Now<\/a> <\/p>\n

Magsig and Austin were among more than 100 academic and civil society leaders from New Zealand and around the world who signed onto a new open letter<\/a> addressed to Goldsmith and several other high-ranking government officials, including Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, urging them to reconsider their decision to restrict liability for climate damage. The letter, spearheaded by Lawyers for Climate Action<\/a>, argues that the decision is \u201ccontrary to New Zealand\u2019s climate objectives, blocks the development of the common law in New Zealand, and risks undermining the rule of law and the separation of powers.\u201d<\/p>\n

MacKay said the government\u2019s move is also contrary to the International Court of Justice\u2019s climate change advisory opinion, which clarified that countries have a legal duty to mitigate climate damage including by reining in polluting industries.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Right-wing governments in both New Zealand and the United States, however, are instead rolling back climate regulations and moving to shield polluters from accountability for climate harms.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is a serious question to be asked around why governments are feeling obliged to protect these companies,\u201d MacKay said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In the U.S., some states have already enacted legislation that bars liability for climate change impacts and greenhouse gas emissions. Utah was the first state to pass a liability shield bill<\/a> into law in March, and since then Tennessee, Oklahoma and Iowa have followed suit.\u00a0<\/p>\n

At the federal level, Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas,\u00a0 introduced a bill<\/a> in April called the \u201cStop Climate Shakedowns Act\u201d that would grant sweeping legal immunity to the fossil fuel industry and block climate lawsuits and related polluter pays legislation.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is a serious question to be asked around why governments are feeling obliged to protect these companies.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2014 Laura MacKay, Lawyers for Climate Action<\/p>\n

It is unclear if the federal immunity bill will gain traction. Some Democrats in Congress are starting to speak in opposition<\/a> to it, and Republicans likely have only a narrow window left to act on any of their legislative priorities before the midterm elections in November.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The American Petroleum Institute, which has actively lobbied Congress<\/a> on \u201cdraft legislation related to state efforts to impose liability on the oil and gas industry,\u201d has stated publicly that stopping \u201cextreme climate liability policy\u201d is among its top priorities this year<\/a>. The Big Oil lobby and some of its members are named defendants in multiple climate accountability lawsuits that are winding their way through the courts, including several that are inching toward trial.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cBig Oil knows that time is running out before these cases go to trial and their preferred politicians are potentially no longer in power,\u201d Iyla Shornstein, political director at the Center for Climate Integrity, told Inside Climate News. \u201cThat\u2019s why the fossil fuel industry is pushing so hard on every front right now to shield themselves from accountability.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\tAbout This Story<\/p>\n

Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That\u2019s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can\u2019t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We\u2019ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.<\/p>\n

Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.<\/p>\n

Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don\u2019t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places? <\/p>\n

Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.<\/p>\n

Thank you,<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tDana Drugmand\t\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\tContributor<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"New Zealand\u2019s government has announced that it plans to amend the country\u2019s signature climate law to prohibit liability…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":434802,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[84167,222545,178766,111,43,139,69,178767],"class_list":["post-434801","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-new-zealand","tag-climate-law","tag-climate-legislation","tag-fossil-fuel-industry","tag-new-zealand","tag-news","tag-newzealand","tag-nz","tag-oil-and-gas-industry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/434801","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=434801"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/434801\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/434802"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=434801"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=434801"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=434801"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}