Minister of Climate Change James Shaw says New Zealanders can have confidence in the Commission and of the Government’s plans to tackle climate change. Video / Mark Mitchell
Climate Change Minister James Shaw says he will review the Zero Carbon Act after a judge found it regarded meeting a global 1.5C temperature rise limit as an “aspiration rather than an obligation”.
Shaw, however, said ultimately it was a sigh of relief to see the High Court rule New Zealand’s climate change goals and plans to get there were legal.
The group Lawyers for Climate Action NZ went to the High Court challenging advice given to the Government by the Climate Change Commission on how to reach net zero emissions by 2050, as required by the Act.
The non-profit group said the current decade was crucial to the global effort to limit climate change to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, as set by international agreements.
It did not contest the Government’s target of reaching zero emissions by 2050 but said the commission’s recommendations for getting there did not do enough in the shorter term.
The lawyers said net emissions in 2030 had to be half what they were in 2010, but that the commission’s recommendations would see New Zealand emissions continue to increase in the current decade to 2030.
Climate Change Minister James Shaw during his stand-up after the High Court decision was published. Photo / Mark Mitchell
They wanted the Government to move faster toward the 2050 zero emissions target over the next eight years and sought a judicial review of the commission’s advice in the High Court.
The group said the budgets and advice given to the commission “lack ambition”.
The commission told the court deeper cuts to emissions in the shorter term would have “potentially catastrophic”, and unnecessary impacts on communities – particularly rural and Māori communities – and on the economy.
In her decision, Justice Jill Mallon said LCANZ was correct that the commission’s advice did not put New Zealand on track to meeting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) pathways.
But, she said, the Act did not require this in order to contribute to the global 1.5C effort.
Shaw said he was “pleased” with the decision, including its comments about the relationship between setting domestic targets and the global 1.5C target. He also welcomed the case, saying it was good to “test” the system.
“I think it is good to know that the institutions that we have built, are working as they are intended.
“At the same time, where the judge seemed to indicate that she felt that there was some weakness, where I have suspected that there is some weakness for some time.”
One of those was that contributing to the global effort of keeping warming under 1.5C was more in line with “an aspiration than an obligation”.
“That suggests some of the kind of confusion because when we set the law back in 2019, we said that the 1.5C threshold is sacrosanct.
“So the suggestion that that may not be translating directly into the targets is something that we might need to take a look at.”
Shaw had previously said awaiting the decision prevented him from requesting the Government commit to a larger commitment to take to the recent COP27 climate summit.
Shaw said amending the international commitment - Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) - could also be looked at.
“I’m open to the idea that we might review the NDC, or we might review the law.
“I want to study the judgment in depth and I would like advice from our officials before I make a commitment like that.”
Shaw said as with developing the Zero Carbon Act if there were any changes he would be seeking cross-party consensus.
Shaw also said in light of comments from the judge some of the commission’s advice around targets was “potentially misleading”, it would be “helpful” to clarify, particularly for the public.
“We should always be looking for ways of making this more transparent and easier for people to understand.”
President of Lawyers for Climate Action Jenny Cooper KC said while the court found against them, it had accepted their evidence that the Climate Change Commission’s advice to the Government isn’t aligned with what is needed to stop global temperatures rising above 1.5C.
“It’s also very worrying that it was found that the Act doesn’t actually require New Zealand to cut emissions in line with reaching the global 1.5C goal.
“This means that we need to look at whether the Act itself is fit for purpose.
“It’s clear that the Act doesn’t require what the Climate Change Minister thought it did. In its current form, it doesn’t require the Government to do what is necessary to protect future generations from the worst effects of climate change.”
Cooper said they were “frustrated” the decision did not go their way but were glad to have brought the case.
“2050 is too late. The next 10 years are absolutely critical. We need to be following the science, and starting to implement real change right now so that we have a liveable planet for years to come.”
