The Government's second Emissions Reduction Plan - ERP2 - will be the focal point for a trial being held at Wellington High Court. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Two environmental groups are taking the government to court over the country's second Emissions Reduction Plan and its 'risky' reliance on trees. The verdict will not just interpret the law but will test the country's climate ambition.
Climate policy is being increasingly dragged into courtrooms around the world.
That's exactly where the fight over the NZ government's emissions blueprint is headed - and the stakes could not be higher for the country's climate future.
At the centre of the landmark legal clash, set to play out in the Wellington High Court in less than a fortnight, is the country's second Emissions Reduction Plan - ERP2 - a document meant to map how we cut pollution and hit net-zero targets.
It was unveiled by Climate Change Minister Simon Watts just over a year ago, with him stating at the time that "our plan shows that we can meet climate targets while still supporting a thriving economy".
On paper, the plan is the rulebook for a cleaner future. In court, it is set to be called something else entirely: risky.
Newsroom political journalist Marc Daalder will cover the three-day hearing, where lawyers for Climate Action NZ and the Environmental Law Initiative will take on the minister.
"The climate doesn't normally get lawyers, but this month it's going to have its day in court as the government's climate plans are challenged by environmental groups who say they don't go far enough," Daadler tells The Detail.
"It's potentially a landmark case in climate litigation because it challenges the government's actions in so many different areas, particularly around their reliance on trees to offset emissions instead of actually reducing emissions."
He says the litigants will argue that the plan leans too heavily on forestry removals - planting pine trees to absorb carbon - instead of tackling emissions at their source.
The translation is simple - the country is relying on nature to mop up pollution rather than stopping the pollution in the first place.
"John Key said we should be a fast follower, not a leader on climate. It doesn't seem like we are a follower at all if our goal is how many trees can we plant," says Daalder, who says the government hasn't commented on the case due to it being before the courts.
Supporters of forestry offsets will argue that trees are a legitimate tool to fight climate change - fast-growing plantations can absorb vast amounts of carbon.
But opponents, Daalder says, will claim that forests can burn, be cut or knocked down, or be planted for production.
He believes the case will attract an international audience.
"I think people will be watching it. It is always difficult to tell where a judge might land, and also how long these things can take to play out ... but people will be watching it. It can definitely have an impact.
"I wouldn't say this will be the one thing that will change everything, but it's one other tool in the arsenal of people who are concerned about climate and want to see more action."
If the court finds the plan doesn't meet legal requirements, it could potentially force ministers to rewrite policy, or recalculate targets, or perhaps cut emissions across different sectors.
Daalder says climate cases are becoming more common worldwide, with lawyers, scientists, and advocacy groups turning to courts to hold governments accountable for climate promises.
Last July, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its groundbreaking Advisory Opinion, in which it, for the first time, it specified the obligations of states under international law in respect of climate change.
"We are seeing a little bit more of this action in New Zealand. Litigation is a tool for advancing climate outcomes, and environmental outcomes are growing overseas.
"You will hear about cases in the United States, in the Netherlands, where, for example, the Shell oil company has been found in court to have insufficient plans to reduce its own emissions. And various governments are being sued around the world, as well."
Lawyers involved in the New Zealand case told The Detail it is "the first case internationally to challenge a government for relying on tree planting to meet climate obligations at the expense of actual emissions reductions".
They will have their day in court from March 16th, and then a judge will decide whether our country's climate balance is real - or simply looks good on paper.
Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
