NZ Litigants Inspired by International Climate Ruling
New Zealand’s Methane target Under Scrutiny Following Landmark International Court Ruling
Table of Contents
Wellington, NZ – The New Zealand government’s plans to considerably lower its methane reduction targets are facing intense scrutiny following a landmark advisory opinion from the International court of Justice (ICJ) that emphasizes states’ obligations to prevent climate harm.Environmental lawyers and iwi leaders argue that the proposed rollback on methane targets, alongside continued support for fossil fuel exploration, may be incompatible with international law.
Government’s Methane Target Revision Sparks Concern
The coalition government has been reportedly considering a reduction in the country’s methane reduction goal for 2050, possibly lowering it from a range of 24-47% to a more modest 14-24%. This move has drawn sharp criticism from environmental advocates who believe it contradicts the global imperative to limit warming to 1.5 degrees celsius, as highlighted by the ICJ’s recent opinion.
“The ICJ opinion has crystalised 1.5C as the target states have to work towards,” stated Amelia Palairet, a representative of Lawyers for Climate Action. “The government is considering reducing our methane target to 14 percent. The problem is that the government’s own independent expert advisory panel said that a 14 percent target was consistent with 2C, so I think there’s a real question if New Zealand reduces its methane target to 14 percent, whether that’s consistent with international law.”
Palairet further pointed to the government’s recent decisions regarding gas and oil exploration subsidies and the potential backtracking on the ban of new offshore exploration. She warned that these actions might also be in breach of international legal obligations, citing the ICJ’s strong statements on such subsidies and decisions.
“The ICJ had really strong statements on those kind of subsidies and decisions being in breach of international legal obligations,” Palairet explained. “It’s advisory only, it’s non-binding but it is really authoritative and it holds significant legal and moral authority and it’s very likely going to be used in court cases all around the world, including New Zealand court cases.”
this could potentially impact existing legal challenges, such as the judicial review brought by Lawyers for Climate Action against Climate Change Minister Simon Watts, which argues that the country’s emissions reduction plans contain significant deficiencies.
Minister responds to ICJ Opinion
In response to the ICJ’s ruling, Minister Watts issued a written statement acknowledging the advisory opinion. “Climate change is an important issue in our region,and we know our Pacific Island neighbours are following this development closely,” the statement read. “This is a long, complicated opinion, and New Zealand will study it carefully before commenting on the substance.”
The ICJ’s opinion rejected the argument that states’ obligations were limited solely to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement. The court asserted that a broader range of treaties, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, the Montreal Protocol, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, all apply. Crucially, the court also stated that states are obliged to cooperate in solving climate change.
‘A Ray of Sunshine’ for Climate Litigation
Iwi climate leader Mike Smith hailed the ICJ’s findings as a significant development, offering hope for climate action in New Zealand. Smith, who successfully secured the right to sue seven major companies for their role in causing climate change, believes the ruling strengthens his case and opens doors for further legal action against the government.
“In all of that darkness this is a ray of sunshine, this is a beacon, it gives us hope that we can leverage these decisions and effect change,” Smith commented. ”It strengthens [my case] in the sense that the decision confirmed that states are legally obligated to prevent climate harm and they must not support or subsidise emissions-intensive activities.”
Smith revealed that environmental lawyers are already exploring how to utilize the landmark ruling in New Zealand. “I’ve been talking to the lawyers from ELI,the Environmental Law initiative,and they are all putting their minds to what falls out the bottom of this opinion and what opportunities are there now to bring further proceedings against the government.”