The fight for a credible climate plan
ELI and Lawyers for Climate Action NZ v Minister of Climate Change
On 16-18 March we are taking the Minister of Climate Change to court over ‘glaring holes’ in the Government’s climate plan.
This is the first case to challenge a government’s reliance on tree planting to meet climate obligations instead of actually reducing emissions.
As a wealthy country with high emissions per capita, we must meet our climate targets with real action — as part of the global effort to limit warming to no more than 1.5C this century.
Under the Climate Change Response Act, the Government must put in place an emissions reduction plan for Aotearoa that will meet our climate targets. Each five-yearly plan is a stepping stone towards the achievement of net-zero emissions by 2050.
During its first year in office, the Government pressed ‘delete’ on dozens of climate policies and actions which were part of the first emissions reduction plan. The former plan was designed to enable a genuine and fair transition to net zero emissions. The new Minister of Climate Change, made changes to the plan without first consulting the public, as required by law.
The Minister then produced an unlawful second emissions reduction plan (ERP2) based on the assumption that emissions cuts were the same as offsets through forestry. We argue this is a false assumption, as the science is clear that tree planting is not a substitute for reducing emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
The Minister has made the pathway for achieving the third emissions budget incredibly difficult. Left unchallenged, it will be a huge burden for the future of Aotearoa New Zealand.
Why did we take this case?
Aotearoa New Zealand urgently needs a credible plan to reduce emissions, as part of the global effort to tackle climate change, and to protect our communities, te taiao, and the future our children will inherit.
In our view, the Government’s plan has such serious defects that the Minister has failed to meet the requirements in the Climate Change Response Act.
As it stands, the Government’s emissions reduction plan is dangerously inadequate. We are taking legal action to hold the Minister of Climate Change to account.
What the case challenges
The Court action challenges decisions made by Minister of Climate Change, Simon Watts, including (but not limited to):
The unlawful process followed by the Minister in amending the first Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP1). Dozens of policies were cancelled and discontinued. When the Government did eventually ‘consult’ on these changes, it was treated as a tick-box exercise. What resulted was an amended ERP1 that is incoherent and internally contradictory.
The level of confidence the Minister has that the plan will achieve New Zealand’s emissions reduction targets. We will present evidence that the chance of meeting the second emissions budget (covering 2026-2030) is not much better than a coin toss, and Aotearoa is off-track for the 2030 methane target. Given the importance of emissions reduction plans in the context of climate change and the stringency required by the Climate Change Response Act, we will argue that the plan is too high-risk and that the Minister needed a higher degree of confidence that it would work.
ERP2 relies heavily on absorbing carbon through pine plantations, rather than having credible policies to reduce emissions at source. We challenge this assumption that reducing emissions at source and increasing removals are equivalent, when, as a matter of physical science, they are not. Not only does heavy reliance on plantation forestry create risks that are not properly managed or mitigated in ERP2 itself, but this assumption is inconsistent with New Zealand’s obligations under the Paris Agreement.
The problem with pine
The case highlights that carbon dioxide removals via forestry are not a replacement for actual emissions reductions. This is because pine forests:
Are shortlived and must be replanted repeatedly for centuries to maintain stored carbon, leaving an immense burden for future generations.
Are prone to fire, pests, disease, and windthrow, carrying significant risks for communities and ecosystems.
Do not permanently remove carbon. The climate experiences only short, temporary pulses of sequestration and release, not enduring cooling.
In addition, the Minister is proposing pine plantations in areas with existing rare and precious ecosystems, many of which are not naturally forested.
The International Court of Justice advisory opinion
In July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion on international law obligations relating to climate change. ICJ unanimously held that developed countries like New Zealand have an obligation under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to:
“take the lead in combating climate change by limiting their greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing their greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs”.
This is in addition to the obligation on all State Parties to the Paris Agreement to:
“pursue measures which are capable of achieving the objectives set out in their successive nationally determined contributions”.
New Zealand’s domestic legislation, the Climate Change Response Act, aims to ensure successive governments are held to account for international obligations. We believe the Minister has breached the requirements under both domestic and international law and are putting this before the Courts.
Global Climate Litigation Context
The case builds on climate litigation internationally, including similar challenges in the UK and Ireland
The case comes as climate litigation continues to evolve internationally, including in the wake of last year’s ICJ advisory opinion, which clarified States’ climate obligations. Civil society groups in Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, South Korea, and the United Kingdom have secured major court victories in recent years, exposing failures in government climate policy and law and, in many instances, forcing governments to rewrite their climate policies.
In Ireland, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Government’s climate plan was unlawful because it was far too vague. The Court found that under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, the plan had to clearly explain how Ireland intended to meet its 2050 climate goals. Instead, the plan lacked the necessary detail, so an ordinary reader could not understand the policies or the pathway Ireland would use to reach net zero.
The Zero Carbon Amendments that created New Zealand’s net-zero target and emissions reduction framework is based on the UK law, creating a similar context for this challenge.
Case timeline
June 2025: Filed for judicial review
March 16 - 18, 2026: Case to be heard in the Wellington High Court
-
Under legislation, the government must set an emissions reduction plan every five years. These plans outline economy-wide policies and strategies for meeting corresponding emissions budgets - which are stepping stones towards achieving our 2050 net-zero target.
Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and ELI challenge decisions relating to both the first emissions reduction plan (2021-2025) and the second emissions reduction plan (2026-2030).
Arguments relating the first emissions reduction plan:After they were elected, the Government discontinued 35 ‘actions and projects’ in ERP1, including discontinuing the Clean Car Discount and cancelling the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry fund. See the full list of project and actions cancelled by the Government here.
The applicants will argue that the Climate Change Response Act imposes guardrails on government’s ability to change and cancel climate policies on the fly. This serves the purpose of the Act, which includes providing a framework for New Zealand to “develop and implement clear and stable climate change policies” that stretch across political cycles and provide predictability (s 3). The Minister failed to ensure the plan had the required degree of currency, coherence, and also failed to properly consult on the changes.
In particular, on consultation, the applicants will argue the Act required the Minister to meaningfully consult with the public on any changes that were more than “minor or technical”, following the same process used for preparing the Plan (s 5ZI). By the time the Government got around to consulting on the changes, consultation was treated as an ex post facto tick-box exercise, and did not contain sufficient information for the public to understand the changes and provide informed responses.
In seeking declarations only, Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and ELI are focused on creating a precedent that clarifies how governments can change climate policies and strategies during emission budget periods.
Arguments relating to the second emissions reduction plan:
The Minister of Climate Change is under a legal duty to ensure that emissions budgets are met (s 5X). To support this, the Minister is required to prepare and publish emissions reductions plans “setting out the policies and strategies for meeting the relevant emissions budget” (s 5ZG).
The second emissions reduction plan purports to set out a plan for meeting the next budget, but on its own terms it has a wide uncertainty margin (+/- 16 million tonnes of CO2-e). It also projects that New Zealand won’t achieve our 2035 target. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and ELI will argue that:
the plan doesn’t have a sufficient buffer for ensuring that the budget is met;
it’s unlawful for the plan to not set a credible path for meeting future budgets;
the Minister didn’t consider the quantified impacts of a range of different risks, such as the potential for higher coal use in electricity generation and industry due to the impact of gas shortages on gas price and availability on users other than Methanex - which is not included in the modelling;
the plan takes an unrealistic and inadequate approach to risk management, relying on a “wait and see” approach it calls “Adaptive Management”.
The second emissions reduction plan also takes an offsetting-led approach to our climate response, with government projections anticipating that 700,000 hectares of land will be converted into forestry by 2050 for NZ to meet its targets. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and ELI will argue that the plan proceeds on a fundamental error of fact - that forestry offsets and reductions are fungible, when that’s not the case. They will also argue that the Government didn’t consider whether such an offsetting-heavy approach was consistent with our obligations under the Paris Agreement.
This will be one of the first legal cases in the world challenging a government’s pursuit of a climate strategy that relies so heavily on offsetting rather than emissions reductions at source.
In addition, around 95 per cent of the emissions reductions relied on by the Government are the result of a model which the Government calls the “emissions baseline” - a complex model not clearly linked to actual policies or strategies. Only around 5% of the projected emissions reductions come from policies actually included in the second emissions reduction plan. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and ELI will argue that this created two issues for the Government:
First, it meant that the Government’s consultation for the second emissions reduction plan was unlawful as the consultation materials didn’t contain enough detail about the assumptions and policies included in the baseline. This meant the public weren’t able to provide informed responses and understand the government’s emissions reduction strategy.
Second, the projected reductions in the emissions baseline are the result of modelling assumptions, and not “policies and strategies” for meeting Emissions Budget 2 as required by s 5ZG(1).
Relief
In terms of relief, Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and ELI are seeking:
For the First Emissions Reduction Plan (2021-2025), declarations that the Minister erred in law by:
failing to maintain a current plan;
failing to consult with the public as required;
ending up with an unlawful plan that lacks coherence and internal consistency.
For the Second Emissions Reduction Plan (2026-2030), declarations that:
the plan itself is unlawful;
the process followed when consulting on the plan was unlawful;
that the plan’s reliance on offsetting, which treats forestry offsets as equivalent to actual emissions reductions at source, is based on a fundamental error of fact, and the Minister failed to have regard to the potential for that assumption to result in an emissions reduction plan that is inconsistent with New Zealand’s obligations under international law
the Minister’s decision was not based on a fair, accurate, or adequate report from officials.
-
-
The Weekender July 25 2025 | NZ Geographic — July 2025
A ray of sunshine': NZ litigants spurred on by international climate ruling | RNZ News — July 2025
NZ govt’s fossil fuel plans could break international law | Carbon News — July 2025
New Zealand Government Faces Legal Challenge Over Emissions Plan | Bloomberg — June 2025
Thomas Coughlan: Why are legal experts taking the Government's climate policies to court? | Newstalk ZB — June 2025
Expert reveals whether legal team can sue the Government over emissions plan | Newstalk NB — June 2025
Live: Lawyers sue National-led Government over emissions plan | Stuff — June 2025
New Climate Case Challenges New Zealand’s Emissions Reduction Plan, Reliance On Forestry Offsets | Climate in the Courts Blog — June 2025
Lawyers sue govt over emissions reduction plan | RNZ — June 2025
New Zealand government sued over ‘inadequate’ plan to reduce emissions | CNN — June 2025
Lawyers sue government over emissions, claiming plan misses the mark | RNZ — June 2025
NZ’s carbon forestry offsets on trial in High Court Case | Newsroom — June 2025
Related cases
Partners:
