The fight for a credible climate plan

climateClimate Change Response Act
Written By Aaron Packard

ELI and Lawyers for Climate Action NZ v Minister of Climate Change

pine forest on fire

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

 
 
 
 
 

Related cases

Featured
The fight for a credible climate plan
The fight for a credible climate plan

With our friends, Lawyers for Climate Action NZ, we are taking legal action against the Minister of Climate Change over ‘glaring holes’ in the Government’s climate plan.

Read more →
Holding Z Energy accountable for its climate change claims
Holding Z Energy accountable for its climate change claims

As a result of our joint case against Z Energy, the fossil fuel company has apologised to the public for any confusion caused by aspects of its advertising campaign, which claimed it was in the business of getting out of the petrol business.

Read more →
 

Partners:

Aaron Packard
Next

Holding Z Energy accountable for its climate change claims