NZ’s Climate Goals Off-Track – Expert Reaction

The latest emissions reduction monitoring report says
we’re running out of time to meet our
targets.

Farming, electricity, and transport are the
biggest risks to emissions budgets, the Climate Change
Commission’s report says.

It’s too late for
planting more trees to help with our current
budget, and Government decisions such as the new LNG
terminal likely outweigh policies to cut
emissions.

However, actions including adopting
low-emissions tech could get us back on track if we move
now, the report suggests.

The
Science Media Centre asked experts to
comment.

Dr Elizabeth Macpherson,
Professor of Law & Rutherford Discovery Fellow,
comments:

“This Monitoring Report confirms
that Aotearoa New Zealand is not doing enough to respond to
the growing environmental, social, and economic impacts of
climate change.

“Agricultural emissions are still
not captured, and existing budgets cannot be met through the
planting of trees. In December 2025 the Government amended
the Climate Change Response Act to reduce 2050 biogenic
methane reduction target, delay the setting of future
emissions budgets, and decouple ETS settings from
international targets. There have been some positive climate
policy signals, including around supporting the emissions
removal and reduction benefits of restoring
wetlands and blue carbon ecosystems. But this Report
leaves no doubt that the Government’s current climate
plans and policies are insufficient to meet its emissions
budgets and the 2050 net-zero target.

“Climate
change has a disproportionately negative impact on Māori
although iwi and hapū are leading many climate initiatives
which provide benefits to local communities and nationally.
However, this Report specifically notes that the Māori
Climate Platform and other avenues for supporting iwi-led
climate action are inadequately supported, and the
Government risks breaching its obligations to its Treaty
partner.

“The Government has made clear its
preference for the interests of large emitters across
multiple extractive industries (including agriculture,
mining, and petroleum) over environmental policy outcomes.
This is also apparent too in the disestablishment
of the Ministry for the Environment and resource
management reform. The Government has even proposed retrospective
legislation removing the right of New Zealanders to go
to court to hold it accountable in tort for lack of action
on climate change, with the Ombudsman
drawing attention to direct lobbying of the Prime
Minister’s office by large emitters.

“He Pou a
Rangi’s Report emphasises that a short-sighted focus on
economic outcomes ahead of timely climate action is only
going to add to the increasing costs of climate change for
businesses and households. Perhaps predictably, the
Government has also moved to curtail the role of the
Commission, which is no longer enabled to provide advice to
the Government on emissions reduction plans and has reduced
obligations to consult the public.”

Conflict of
interest statement: “Elizabeth is also a barrister and has
acted as lawyer and policy adviser for public and private
sector and Indigenous peoples on matters related to
environmental law and Indigenous rights and
interests.”

Paora/Paul Tapsell,
Professor & Director, Kāika Institute of Climate
Resilience, Lincoln University,
comments:

“This report again highlights our
Nation’s continuing failure to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Most alarming is how Māori communities are being
rendered invisible in doing their part to build climate
resilience while reducing emissions at the local catchment
level. In addition, the Crown’s recent cancellation of
Maori Climate Platform funding support for the many
kāinga/marae communities who remain on the front line of
climate change adds further worry.

“Combined with
the recently announced advanced planning legislation
(preventing local councils from activating iwi participation
agreements) it appears Māori are being delivered a triple
blow from participating in the development of our nation’s
climate resilience. Without the requisite resources and
support, kāinga efforts to responsibly implement climate
adaptation plans to beneficially protect all peoples living
in their region are compromised.

“Also in danger of
being shelved is the current and future joint development of
climate adaptation plans at local level. The goodwill and
trust built between kāinga and council leaders in recent
times is under threat. If local councils were required to
ignore or step away from local knowledge held by their
Māori communities, there is a very real future possibility
of ongoing loss of property and perhaps more lives, which
could be devastating.

“The recently piloted
Kāinga-led Climate Adaptation Plans (MBIE Endeavour-funded
Project Kainga) are being adopted/used in Bay of Plenty and
Northland, demonstrating what on-the-ground Crown
partnership could deliver nationwide. Local council leaders
and their local Kāinga/marae rangatira combined can begin
building region-wide resilience, tackle long-term emission
reduction goals and reset local housing, health, education
and employment.

“Mostly unrealised by wider New
Zealand, Māori are at the forefront of introducing
research-driven innovative step-change economic
opportunities that are emission reductive while also seeding
sustainable environmental outcomes. For our nation to
survive and flourish beyond the current political cycle, we
desperately need both central government and local councils
to accept that Māori (Iwi, hapū, and their 780
kāinga/marae communities) are more than capable partners.
Despite everything they have endured, they remain willing to
roll up their sleeves and stand shoulder to shoulder with
the Crown in tackling climate change, now that it is lapping
at our doorstep. Dare we not include
them?”

Conflict of interest statement: Professor
Tapsell is part of the Project
Kainga team.

Dr Basil Sharp,
Emeritus Professor of Economics and former Director of the
Energy Centre, University of Auckland,
comments:

“New Zealand’s emission trading
scheme was set up to create the incentives necessary to meet
our emission targets. It is market based. Initially, the
idea was to include all sectors and all gases. However,
today about 50% of greenhouse gas emissions come from
agriculture which remains outside the scheme. Not all gases
are the same. Methane in particular has a shorter life than
carbon dioxide. So far, science has been unable to assist
with reducing biogenic methane and the only option is to
reduce livestock numbers. It looks as though we will not
meet the biogenic methane target.

“Carbon
sequestration by forestry has made a major contribution to
reducing gross emissions. Forestry is also a major source of
NZ Units on the market. Government policy is now directed at
limiting the conversion of land into forestry. It would seem
that additional forestry sequestration is limited, at least
in the short run.

“On the demand side, government
policies over recent years have granted direct relief to
major emitters and subsidised decarbonisation. Complementary
policies – such as adjusting the government take on low
emission vehicles – have had a limited shelf life. Flip
flop government policy creates uncertainty, dampening the
effectiveness of the ETS.

“The NZ ETS is the
creation of parliament and remains open to government
intervention. If market price is to remain a key incentive
to decarbonise then greater attention should be given to the
demand for NZ Units. Higher NZU prices will encourage
transitioning to low carbon alternatives. This will not
occur overnight. Higher energy costs will also contribute.
But government subsidies and policy uncertainty both work to
increase the risk of not meeting our
targets.”

Conflict of interest statement: “No
conflicts of interest.”

James Renwick,
Professor of Climate Science & Physical Geography,
Victoria University of Wellington,
comments:

“This is a damning report from
the Climate Change Commission. Emissions were reducing
through 2023, then there was an election. Since 2024,
emissions reductions have been weak at best. The current
coalition government claims to be on target for our climate
action, but their policy moves over the past two-three years
have on balance gone in the wrong direction.

“The
clear messages from the Commission lay bare the gap between
rhetoric and reality. Policy changes can still be made to
improve the situation, but as the Commission says, time is
running out. As the toll of extreme events worsens here and
internationally, time is of the essence everywhere. Acting
on climate change through greenhouse gas emissions
reductions is not a “nice to have”, it is fundamental to
maintaining a liveable future for our children and
grandchildren. Let’s see our government take it
seriously.”

Conflict of interest statement: “No
conflicts of interest to declare, but note I receive climate
research funding from the government and was a Climate
Change Commissioner 2019-2024.”

Dr
Nathanael Melia, Founding Director of the independent
research organisation Climate Prescience Limited and Adjunct
Senior Research Fellow at Victoria University of Wellington,
comments:

“Internationally, this report
puts New Zealand in an uncomfortable middle: not uniquely
failing, but behind the strongest performers.

“The
UK and EU have cut emissions much further since 1990.
Starting position matters. The UK’s power system was
heavily coal-based, so closing coal plants and adding
renewables delivered large early reductions. New Zealand’s
electricity was already mostly renewable, while agriculture
produces more than half our gross emissions. We therefore
began with more hard-to-cut methane, transport and
industrial heat.

“Ireland is a useful comparator. It
now faces similar agriculture and transport problems, but
started with dirtier electricity and has a demanding target:
51% below 2018 by 2030. It is also badly off
track.

“Australia still has substantial
coal-to-renewables gains available, and land-use change
accounts for a significant share of its historical headline
progress. Its post-2030 pathway is also
insecure.

“This context makes New Zealand’s slow
progress more understandable, but not acceptable. Clean
power should help us electrify vehicles and industrial heat.
Our targets also rely heavily on forestry and give biogenic
methane a separate reduction pathway, so the difficult
emissions mix is not a complete excuse.

“The fair
conclusion is that many countries are struggling as they
move beyond electricity into transport, buildings, industry
and agriculture. But New Zealand is underperforming relative
to its advantages. The next 12–24 months are critical for
turning renewable electricity, efficiency and agricultural
innovation into durable cuts, rather than depending mainly
on forests or reduced economic output.”

Conflict
of interest statement:
“None.”

Professor Sebastian Leuzinger,
plant ecologist, AUT, comments:

“The
just-released 2026 Emissions Monitoring Report shows some
encouraging details, but also stresses the urgency to do
more to achieve the targets. ‘Doing more’ can mean
reducing emissions OR increasing carbon sinks, and we have
to keep in mind that this is not only about carbon, but also
methane.

“In the short term, the latter is more
harmful for the climate, and, in the New Zealand context,
harder to tackle even if best farming practices are applied.
This is firstly because farming, and in particular
dairy/beef farming, inevitably releases considerable amounts
of methane, accounting for half of our greenhouse gas
emissions. Secondly, because the dairy/meat industry is a
fundamental pillar of the New Zealand (export) economy that
we very much rely on, particularly in the current difficult
economic situation.

“With little wiggle room in the
space of methane, we have to look to reduce carbon emissions
and increase carbon sinks, and both are indeed much easier
to achieve, and capable of securing our goals, as the report
nicely shows: for example, decentralising energy for the
private sector using solar and heat pumps has been the
cheaper option for some time, and comes with the additional
advantage of energy sovereignty and reducing the grid load.
Similarly, it is shown nicely that EVs are now considerably
cheaper to run than petrol cars, even without government
incentives.

“Lastly, and we are tracking well on
this, afforestation plays a big role, and there is still
potential, particularly if we move away from a narrow
dichotomous view of native vs. exotic forests, but move
towards solutions on a case by case basis. This should
include fast growing exotic nurse crops and mixed
forests.

“Taken together, I believe it is possible
to achieve our ambitious goals through smart solutions, and
hopefully not just a shrinking economy, which would not
serve anyone in the end, including our climate
goals.”

Conflict of interest statement: “No
COI.”

Distinguished Professor Robert
McLachlan, School of Mathematical and Computational
Sciences, Massey University,
comments:

“This is a devastatingly
hard-hitting report from the Climate Change Commission
documenting failures and shortcomings in almost all areas of
our climate change response. The situation has deteriorated
considerably in the last year with 82% of needed reductions
for 2026-2030 now at risk, and 99% for 2031-2035. A long
list of anti-climate actions, policies, and signals from the
Government are detailed and analysed. Three huge sectors,
electricity, agriculture, and transport, are all now at
significant risk.

“The report describes how the rate
of emissions reduction has halved since 2023. This even
understates the severity of the problem, for some of the
reductions were due to deindustrialisation, while the
recession and weak recovery have tended to suppress
emissions – neither of which are either are preferred
pathways.

“Oil use for transport has now been rising
for five years in a row, an understandable response to the
almost complete removal of climate/transport policies, with
further weakening signalled for the future. The current war
and oil crisis highlights our vulnerability in this area.
Instead, the Government is relying on the ETS as its main
policy instrument, which the CCC say is “unlikely to
effectively drive emissions reductions”.

“The
whole situation is a scandal and yet the report will be
little consolation to those affected by the recent string of
climate-change-fuelled disasters, or to those who can no
longer afford house insurance.”

Conflict of
interest statement: “No conflict of
interest.”

Professor of Political
Science Bronwyn Hayward, University of Canterbury,
comments:

“The Climate Commission’s
determination that New Zealand needs to double our action in
the near future or miss our climate targets sounds daunting,
but surprisingly might not be quite as difficult as it
sounds.

“New Zealand has two big areas of climate
emissions it needs to face up to: transport and
agriculture.

“But there are three new twists that
make it easier for political parties to take action on these
areas if they could just “get over themselves” and do
it.

“First, when we look at transport, as a result
of the fuel and cost of living crisis many political parties
are now closer together on some key elements of transport;
both the National and Labour Party, the Greens and Te Party
Maori and The Opportunity Party all now agree on some basic
practical actions to encourage faster take up of electric
vehicles, public transport and active transport (walking and
cycling) – these are policies that have been ready for
some time and could be started again immediately, and would
ease financial pressure on New Zealanders

“Second,
internationally agriculture has been a strong lobby often
resistant to imposing more serious reductions in methane.
However, in France, new emissions targets from livestock are
notably now set at 26% lower by 2030 and 53% lower by 2050
than 1990 levels – and while methane is difficult to cut
for farmers, France is also signalling is that it is willing
to support farmers to transition away from methane
production and this is a policy approach New Zealand could
seriously consider.

“Third, bringing some controls
on lobbying is long overdue in New Zealand but now would
also help the two major parties in particular to regain
voter trust while also bringing some balance to the climate
debate.

“The current National party clearly fears a
significant loss of rural voters to New Zealand First and
Act – however, by appearing to significantly favour the
agricultural lobby groups in decisions like blocking legal
action against large emitters and sudden changes (after
select committee hearings) to environmental legislation, the
National Party now risks losing fair minded voters in both
rural and urban communities alike.

“Finally the
rural and urban divide over climate policy is overstated. In
reality, cities are the sites of up to 72% of emissions
globally, and encouraging rather than preventing cities from
measuring their emissions and taking action could create new
employment and warmer homes, while also cutting costs and
helping rural and urban communities feel we are all in this
together, taking action.

“While there is some
discussion in New Zealand that we’d be better focusing on
just adaptation not mitigation, worldwide governments are
generally shifting towards integrating these actions through
“climate resilient development” which reduces reliance
on fossil fuels, by cutting emissions while also taking
action to also protect people, homes, agriculture and
environment – we can do this too, we won’t achieve
miracles, but we will make a big difference right now and
reduce costs and risks for Kiwis, we just have to
start.”

Conflict of interest statement: “No
conflicts. I am review editor for the IPCC Cities Special
report.”

© Scoop Media