Among several changes announced last night, the Government says the Climate Change Commission won’t be required to advise on emissions reduction plans.
The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will also be separated from our Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The SMC asked experts to comment. Previous expert reactions on NZ’s Emissions Trading Scheme are available here.
Professor James Renwick, Professor of Physical Geography, Victoria University – Te Herenga Waka, comments:
“This is worrying news, consistent with the recent announcements to lower methane emissions reduction targets. It sends a clear signal that this government is not serious about domestic emissions reductions.
“The most significant change is “The Climate Change Commission will no longer be required to provide advice to the Government on emissions reduction plans.” It does away with one of the fundamental reasons for having the Commission in the first place. That, combined with decoupling ETS settings from our NDCs, suggests the government is making it easier to weaken domestic action, perhaps implying increased reliance on purchasing offsets overseas.
“The Commission will hopefully still have a strong role in adaptation planning, and in monitoring government performance on climate action. It would be great if the Commission can continue to develop advice on emissions reductions, to help the public see what our ambition should be, compared to what the government achieves.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I served as a Climate Change Commissioner 2019-2024, and I receive research funding from MBIE for my climate change research.”
Distinguished Professor Robert McLachlan, College of Sciences, Massey University, comments:
“2019’s “Zero Carbon Act” created intense public interest. More than 90% of the 15,000 submitters wanted a target of net zero all gases by 2050, much stronger than what was eventually enacted. A critical question at the time was whether the system of checks and balances in the Act would be sufficient to allow steady delivery of climate action across multiple changes of government.
“Unfortunately, those checks and balances have not been sufficient – they are being tested to destruction. The Second Emissions Reduction Plan has been found by the Climate Change Commission to be wholly inadequate and is under legal challenge from the group Lawyers for Climate Action. Many actions from the First Plan were dropped without proper consultation; others were retained but ignored. The 2050 target is likely to be weakened.
“The proposed changes to the Act would further weaken New Zealand’s climate governance. The Commission provides critical independent information and advice both to the Government and to the public; it looks like its role in Emission Reduction Plans is to be removed because the Government doesn’t like that information and advice. Deleting the Paris Agreement as a factor in the setting of Plans, and deleting the requirement of ETS settings to accord with our Paris Agreement commitments, even though they have been mostly ignored in practice until now, are also significant weakenings. In addition, the requirement to make ‘detailed, sector-specific’ plans (e.g., for transport and energy) is to be dropped and the Plan itself can be amended or completely changed by the Minister without public consultation.
“Delaying the publication of the Plan to the very year before it comes into effect (to ‘smooth resourcing peaks’, apparently) is not best practice. In the UK, the emissions plan to 2037 was first published in 2021; after being twice rejected by the courts, a new plan has just been published, still leaving plenty of time before it takes effect.
“The bipartisan passage of the ‘Zero Carbon Act’ was a significant political effect that followed three decades of ineffective climate policy. Any changes should also reach cross-party support before proceeding.
Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts.
Dr Nathan John Cooper, Associate Professor of Law, University of Waikato, comments:
“In the run up to COP30, questions have already been asked about how serious the coalition government is on climate change. New Zealand’s latest Nationally Determined Contribution is woefully unambitious. At best, it no more than technically meets the country’s minimum obligations under the Paris Agreement. A series of recent domestic law and policy decisions have prioritised new fossil fuel exploration, while defunding climate-conscious initiatives. Meanwhile, emissions targets for agriculture have been weakened, contrary to advice from the Climate Change Commission to raise them.
“The latest announcement on changes to the Climate Change Response Act confirms how little enthusiasm this government has for prioritising effective climate action. Perhaps most concerning is removal of the need for government to receive advice from the Climate Change Commission on emissions reduction plans, or to consult the public.
“Despite other social and economic pressures, action on climate change remains a priority for New Zealanders and public consultation is a crucial way to signal that to governments of any colour.”
Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts.
Professor Barry Barton, School of Law, Politics and Philosophy, University of Waikato, comments:
“There is an excellent reason why there are detailed requirements in the Climate Change Response Act for targets, budgets, and plans, and for ETS settings, and that is that otherwise we have ministers announcing grand targets and then doing as little as possible to reach them. We went through a long period of that, and we don’t want to go back. We need ministers to take an open and systematic approach to climate change policy, and we want independent advice that we can compare with what ministers decide to do; and we want our domestic efforts to be clearly connected to the global effort. The Climate Change Response Act procedures make it harder to do policy badly, and easier to do it well. If ministers grumble about the procedures, then maybe they are working properly.
“The ETS should stay coupled to our Paris commitments including the NDC, so that auction settings are made in accordance with our emissions budgets and our NDC. We do not want a split between our national and international commitments and policy. In fact the current linkage is not at all rigid; the settings need not strictly accord, as long as the Minister is satisfied that the discrepancy is justified, after considering the other matters under this section, and that includes matters such as the impact of emissions prices on households and the economy; and any other matters that the minister considers relevant.
“The Climate Change Commission should stay as the key provider of advice about climate change and about the ETS in particular. (More than only on emissions budgets). It has an important independent (but not determinative) role in forming Climate Change policy. It provides transparency. It should not be confined to the role of a technical monitor.
“The government’s obligations to disclose its responses to Climate Change Commission reports should not be relaxed; the government should account transparently for its responses and actions.
“Especially in Emission Reduction Plans, the Climate Change Commission’s advice provides important transparency and reduces the perception that an ERP is a government plan rather than a nationally-agreed plan. The ERP should not be restricted in its breadth in addressing Climate Change; it needs to percolate into all aspects of society and the economy.
“The industrial allocation is deeply flawed and this change will only make it worse. We need to look at alternatives like a carbon border adjustment mechanism.
“It’s not surprising that these proposals have caused prices in the secondary ETS market to plunge from the mid $50s to the mid $40s in one morning; the market recognizes that they will weaken the ETS, our main policy instrument, and that means less progress in reducing our emissions.
“However, enabling more non-forestry removals is very positive.
“Similarly, simplification of ETS auction settings is positive; there are gains to be had without compromising progress.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I am a member of a team that has funding for research into non-forestry carbon removals.”