New Zealand government sued over ‘dangerously inadequate’ emissions reduction plan | New Zealand
Hundreds of senior environmental attorneys are being suted New Zealand The government about what they say is a “seriously insufficient” plan to reduce emissions to zero by 2050.
This is the first time that the country’s emissions plan has faced litigation, and lawyers believe that it is the first situation in the world to challenge the use of forests to compensate for emissions.
Lawyers of the NZ Climate Procedures and the Environmental Law initiative – two groups representing more than 300 lawyers – have raised judicial review procedures against the government in the Supreme Court in Lengton on Tuesday.
The trustee groups were provided first to the claim, which says that the government may abandon dozens of tools needed to process emissions, and have failed to consult the public adequately, and depends heavily on highly dangerous carbon capture strategies such as forests.
Jessica Palier, head of lawyers for climate work in the Guardian, said that the government’s plan was “mainly not” and “the dangerous decline” of the country.
“As is the case, the plan to reduce emissions for the government will carry severe consequences for our country. We do not take this step lightly, but the plan must be challenged.”
She said that the plan should be strong and transparent, in line with the country’s chief climate law – the law of amending the response of climate change (zero carbon).
In 2019, the action government approved this Climate Legislation Teacher The nation’s commitment to limiting its local emissions to the carbon to zero zero by 2050 and meeting its obligations under Climate Agreements Paris. Governments are legally required to develop a mining discount plan every five years separating how New Zealand meets the goals of greenhouse gases.
The government of the right -wing coalition has committed to Safi Safi Zero. The first emission reduction plan that was released in December – shows that New Zealand is going on the right path to reach the goals of emissions until 2030, but it will not meet the goals after five years. The government said it would address these goals in 2030.
The plan also says that the country is on the right way to achieve the long -term emissions, but climate experts warn that government methods may end up.
The legal claim includes two basic challenges. The first argues that the government threw dozens of reliable climate policies – including the deduction of a clean car and the gas transmission plan – and did not consult adequately from the audience on the changes.
Lawyers also claim that the government depends on “high -risk” methods such as cultivating hundreds of thousands of pine trees provided to compensate for emissions, and carbon capture underground, with few alternatives to decline if a mistake occurs.
some Experts warn It is impossible to maintain a net decrease in emissions primarily by planting trees in the long run, as forests can be destroyed despite fire or harsh weather and do not store carbon forever.
Dr. Christina Hood, head of the Climate Climate Consultant Energy, told the Guardian that the government emissions plan was “incredibly short -sighted.”
Hood said that there is a assumption that as long as New Zealand sow trees, it can be emitted as much as she loves, but she warned that a “mysterious” approach ignores the future.
“In our law … there is a responsibility to meet all goals, not just the current goal.”
While New Zealand’s total contribution to global emissions is small at 0.17 %, its overall emissions of the individual are high. The country was also among the worst performance in the world to increase emissions. Between 1990 and 2018, its emissions increased by 57 %-which is the second most increased in all industrialized countries.
Climate scientists and environmental groups are concerned that the broader environmental agenda of the government will hinder the country’s ability to reduce emissions and protect their unique types.
Since he took office, the government has promised to restart oil abroad and set a value of $ 200 million in its budget to invest in gas exploration. It plans to increase mineral exports to $ 3 billion by 2035, and at the same time it has Financing financing for conservation and climate initiatives. the A controversial speed law The main infrastructure projects, including mining, have been described as “Severe damage” The environment and risks have a path towards a more green future.
His office told the Guardian that the Minister of Climate Change, Simon Watts, will not comment on the judicial review, because the matter is now before the courts.
Its co -leader Chulu Suwarbrek told the Guardian that the Green Party supports this claim because the government’s plan “does not deserve the paper on which it was written.”
The climate suits as a form of activity that acquires momentum all over the world. In 2024, the Supreme Court found The climate action plan for the UK government was illegalDue to the lack of sufficient evidence of sufficient policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Balierite hopes that this issue forces the government to reach a new plan.
“The reason we take a case like this to the court is to check and wonder whether government data is commensurate with reality.”
