High Court Justice Jillian Mallon dismissed the judicial review of the Government's climate policies by the activist group Lawyers for Climate Action.

The lawyers had argued the advice given to Shaw by the Climate Change Commission and his subsequent setting of emissions budgets were flawed for a number of reasons.

One of the key points made by the lawyers was the emissions budgets are not aligned to the emissions pathways the world's top climate experts say will limit global warming to 1.5C.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said global carbon dioxide emissions must fall between 40 and 55 percent by 2030 from 2010 levels to have even a two-thirds chance of capping warming at 1.5C. By comparison, the commission's pathway sees New Zealand's net CO2 pollution fall just 30 percent over the same period, as Newsroom reported last year.

Lawyers for the commission pushed back in court, arguing the IPCC pathways are not the only determinant of what's consistent with 1.5C, and the unique circumstances of each country allow for unique pathways.

Shaw's lawyers went even further, telling the judge the Zero Carbon Act actually doesn't impose a specific duty on the Government to act in line with 1.5C.

They said references to contributing to the global 1.5C effort in the "Purpose" section of the legislation were merely "aspirational".

This conflicted with the statements of various Government MPs when the act passed, who all said it placed a legal obligation on the Government.

"Today we create a legal obligation to reduce our climate emissions in this country to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius," Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick said at the time.

Even the Prime Minister said in Parliament the Government had "committed ourselves to a 1.5 degrees Celsius target that we are embedding in legislation".

In a range of public statements, as well as comments to Newsroom as recently as last year, Shaw too said the act bound the Government to act in line with 1.5C.

"The Government and the Commission are both required by the law to act in a way that's consistent with a 1.5-degree temperature threshold pathway," he said when asked whether the proposed emissions budgets might be changed.

"If we wanted to come up with a different emissions budget than the one that they're recommending, the Government would still be required to act within a 1.5-degree pathway.

So that suggests that any alternative that we come up with would have to be stronger than what the Commission are proposing because anything weaker almost certainly would not be consistent with a 1.5-degree pathway, so then we'd be breaking the law."

Jenny Cooper KC, the president of Lawyers for Climate Action, told Newsroom Shaw was trying to "have his cake and eat it too". Continue reading

This week, public submissions close on New Zealand's first emissions reduction plan which proposes policies for staying within the emissions budget for 2022-25 and keeping on track for future budgets.

New Zealand also pledged to cut emissions by half by 2030 when it announced its upgraded nationally determined contribution (NDC) during the recent COP26 climate summit. This is part of the global effort, under the Paris Agreement, to limit warming to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels.

The co-existence of international commitments, domestic laws and carbon budgets shows how complex climate change regulation is. This complexity can be confusing. It highlights the "messiness" of New Zealand's current regulatory regime and the need for a legislative "tidy-up".

Under domestic legislation, the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (CCRA) requires the government to set emissions budgets for five-year periods up to 2050 and to publish an emissions reduction plan for each period. Following the current consultation period, the government will release its first emissions reduction plan in May.

New Zealand's new international pledge has a timeline to 2030 and equates to an emissions budget of 571 Megatons of CO₂-equivalent (MtCO₂e) to "spend" between now and then. Under the domestic climate change law, the proposed combined budgets for 2022-30 add up to 28MtCO₂e more than this (599MtCO₂e).

It's not yet clear whether the budgets in the law will be revised down in light of the new NDC, or whether the gap will be filled by financing emissions reductions overseas.

Different timelines add to the confusion. Our international commitment works towards 2030, while domestically, provisional budgets are already available until 2035. And the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019 requires that greenhouse gas emissions (other than biogenic methane) reach net zero by 2050.

Better alignment, clearer message

Once released, the consequences of the emissions reduction plan will be wide ranging. Stakeholders in all sectors will look to incorporate its emissions reduction policies.

Unless everyone clearly understands its goals and purpose, the plan risks an unnecessarily negative reception. There is widespread public support for more action on climate change mitigation in New Zealand. But the roles everyone can play must be made clear.

The emissions reduction plan provides an opportunity to rethink how the law could better align national and international targets, timelines and milestones to improve the clarity of messaging on what must be achieved, when and by who.

Aotearoa's emissions reduction plan must be clear, innovative and inclusive, directing public concern for the "climate emergency" and showing us where real change is possible.

Clear, innovative and inclusive

There's no need for fresh legislation if the emissions reduction plan begins with a vision statement, weaving together all relevant obligations, to create a clear and measurable set of goals. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals provide a good example of how complex goals can be articulated simply, and how targets and indicators can be used to add detail and help track progress.

The emissions reduction plan should be launched as a "living document" which not only sets out a plan of action but also acts as a place to track progress, and to get involved. It should make full use of interactive tools and apps so it becomes something people can easily navigate and interact with.

For example, in the transport sector, one of the draft targets is to reduce vehicle kilometres travelled by cars and light vehicles by 20% by 2035 through providing better travel options. Such a target could link directly to individually tailored options for car sharing and public transport timetables and could include opportunities for users to set their own goals and challenges, too.

Reducing emissions significantly, and transitioning towards a net-zero carbon economy, offers a host of opportunities. But the scale of change required also carries risk. Consultation begins next year on a national adaptation plan, with the goal of limiting the risks to people.

The government has already committed to delivering a "fair, equitable and inclusive transition". For this to happen, all sectors must be involved and it will require a mix of emissions pricing, well-targeted regulation, tailored sectoral policies, direct investment and incentives for businesses.

Lessons from other examples

Getting the balance right, in particular between incentives and regulation, will be crucial. Private sector leadership should be encouraged and supported so that low-emissions business models become normalised. But we'll also need regulation to prohibit certain behaviour.

The recently announced ban on most single-use plastics, including plastic bags and straws, is a good example of regulatory intervention to change harmful consumer behaviour. The emissions reduction plan should not shy away from similar policies to address the ecologically destructive behaviour of industry and consumers.

• Nathan Cooper Associate Professor of Law, University of Waikato

Commenting on advice he received, Shaw says the current target is too weak to match the Government's commitment to helping save the world and keep the world's heating within 1.5 degrees celsius.

Shaw says conclusive advice from the independent Climate Change Commission will not hit his desk until February, however he is expecting to be told we need to do better.

Shaw says the independent Commission's advice is not binding on the Government but that he is "absolutely committed" to following their advice.

"If there's anything Covid taught us, it's to follow the advice of the scientists. That's why we pay them in the first place."

Shaw said that with the election of Joe Biden, China, the EU and now the USA would soon have net zero emissions targets for greenhouse gases and their net-zero goals for all gasses are more ambitious than New Zealand's' 2050 target which allows emission of methane primarily from agricultural emissions.

Shaw described Chinese President Xi Jinping's commitment to getting China's carbon dioxide emission to net-zero by 2060 as "massive".

As part of New Zealand doing better Shaw says the independent Climate Change Commission will suggest a firmer 2050 target for methane.

The Zero Carbon Act allows for a wide range of methane cuts by 2050 - anywhere between 24 and 47 percent.

New Zealand makes three major greenhouse gases: methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide.

The Government's Paris pledge bundles them as a single target, however, the independent Commission may also recommend unbundling methane from other gasses.

Unbundling the gasses could take the pressure of methane emissions, placing more New Zealand emphasis carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide; however, Stuff reports the split target might be a tough sell to our international trading partners who have all-gas targets.

Greenpeace's Russell Norman remains critical of New Zealand's efforts.

Norman says New Zealand was on trance to cut gross emissions by just 7% by 2030, which is much less than required to keep the world inside its safety zone.

He is calling on the Government to give the independent Climate Change Commission Reserve Bank-like powers to set binding carbon budgets similar to the power has over the official cash rate.

"Surely climate change is at least as important as inflation," said Norman.

Source

• Stuff

En route to United Nations COP-23 Climate Change Conference in Bonn, they took part in a Pacific Island Leaders Forum discussion with the Holy Father.

The Pope received in audience the leaders of the "Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat" from the eleven island states.

Shaw said delegates from Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia read statements at the Vatican meeting on different facets of the climate challenge.

Pope Francis responded drawing on his encyclical of 2015, in which he described climate change as a global problem with grave implications.

"He is extremely concerned about the territorial threat from rising sea levels and about the state of the oceans," Shaw said.

He is continuing to use the weight of his office and his influence to draw attention to the environment in general, but climate change specifically.

"The reason it's such a big deal for the Pacific Islands is that he's now drawing attention specifically to the immediate threat that the islands are facing."

Before he left for the meeting Shaw said, "We want to really show that we stand with our Pacific Island neighbours," Shaw said.

"It is an important meeting... The status of it will mean a lot to them and I think it's really important we stand alongside them."

And if you're wondering what one wears when they have an audience with the Pope, Shaw said he would probably wear a suit.

Read the Pope's statement

Source

• Stuff
• Vatican Radio
• RNZ
• Zenit
• L'Osservatore Romano
• Image: L'Osservatore Romano