Government's new climate target for 2035 'shockingly unambitious' - climate expert

The government's new climate target for 2035 has surprised even some of its strongest critics with how small the promised emissions reductions are.

All countries including New Zealand agreed to aim for the strongest possible ambition to avert worsening heat and increasingly severe weather disasters.

The government's new target requires emissions to fall just one percentage point between 2030 and 2035.

There is a possibility the government could increase that to five percentage points if methane-cutting technology takes off on farms.

The current target - set in 2021 - commits the country to making 50 percent reductions off 2005 climate pollution levels, by 2030. The new target promises 51-55 percent reductions by 2035.

Technically, taking the goal of minus 50 percent by 2030 and increasing it to minus 51-55 percent by 2035 meets the international requirement for each subsequent target to be bigger than the last one.

But whether it meets the promise of highest possible ambition was being debated on Friday.

The 2035 target is smaller than developing country Brazil's, and legal group Lawyers for Climate Action says it is questionable whether it meets the requirements of the international Paris Agreement.

Before it was revealed, experts on the international politics of climate change said aiming for 66 or 77 percent reductions might be enough for a credible contribution to fighting global heating.

The Climate Change Commission said the country could feasibly achieve 66 percent reductions without shrinking the economy, with cleaner farming, electricity and transport.

Greenpeace surprised by 'weak, unambitious target'

Some of the New Zealand government's staunchest critics were left reeling by the smallness of number.

It is far below the UK's 81 percent. Switzerland was criticized for announcing 65 percent. Japan's figure is 60 percent.

In a statement justifying its target, the government cited special circumstances including New Zealand's high proportion of methane from farming, heavy reliance on road transport and already-high share of renewable electricity, leaving it less room to move.

It made the case that its target was consistent with global efforts to keep heating inside 1.5C above pre-industrial times, because global cuts to methane were never intended to be as steep as cuts to carbon dioxide.

Amanda Larsson Photo: RNZ / Jonathan Mitchell

When methane and carbon dioxide were looked at separately, the government said New Zealand's target was consistent with global efforts to limit temperature increases to 1.5C.

But Greenpeace's Amanda Larsson said the government had deliberately chosen not to reduce the same major emissions sources it was citing as excuses.

She said the government could not keep "hiding behind" the country's high proportion of renewable electricity as a reason not to achieve more, when hydro dams were a legacy of long-ago governments and nothing to do with deliberate climate efforts.

"This idea of us being car dependent, that's a choice - you can invest in more public transport, more walking, more cycling and this government is actively choosing to invest in more motorways instead of alternatives and making us more car dependent."

Larsson said the low target surprised her.

"The prime minister and the climate minister have talked a lot about how committed they are to the Paris Agreement. What I was expecting was a target that looked reasonably ambitious but not backed by much of a plan to achieve it, when what they have delivered is a really weak, unambitious target."

'It's like we are paying the ante - the bare minimum' - Harrison

Energy and climate expert Christina Hood commented on LinkedIn that a 1 percent reduction compared to the current 2030 target was "shockingly unambitious and clearly not New Zealand's 'highest possible ambition' as required by the Paris Agreement... Given that New Zealand's independent Climate Change Commission recommended that targets of up to 66 percent reduction are feasible domestically."

Former Climate Change Ambassador Kay Harrison told RNZ she was pleased New Zealand had set a target, but "committing to only minus 51 percent when the global average we need is minus 60, means we're expecting other countries to take targets that make up for our shortfall. Theirs will need to be much higher than ours and many higher than minus 60."

"It's like we are paying the ante - the bare minimum - to stay in the most dangerous game of our lives. But we're not serious about winning," she said.

However Harrison said targets "could always go up" and setting one was a positive step.

The government said it could bump up efforts from 51 to 55 percent by 2035 if methane-cutting technologies took off on farms.

The first methane-burping treatment for New Zealand cows is expected to be available this year.

However a methane price which could have incentivised using it has been deferred from this year until as late as 2030.

Jessica Palarait of Lawyers for Climate Action said it was questionable whether the target - known as an NDC - meets the Paris Agreement requirements for maximum ambition.

"It's very difficult to see how this NDC could possibly comply with that. The Climate Change Commission's own advice to the government was that it's possible for New Zealand to do much more than this, and the government appears to blame our doggedly high methane emissions for why we can't do more than this, but we need to be clear, this is is a political choice," she said.

Palarait said government appeared to be doing the minimum it believed it could get away with.

Dave Frame Photo: RNZ / Chris Bramwell

Not everyone thought the target was too light.

Federated Farmers released a statement saying meeting the goal would mean planting more pine trees on productive farmland.

And Canterbury University Professor, climate scientist Dave Frame said that rather than setting a strict target based on staying inside 1.5C, New Zealand should link its climate efforts to progress by other nations. Frame said that would avoid sacrificing the economy for no reason. "A far better approach would be to create a clear and explicit link between what we will do and what others will do," he said.

Exporters will be watching what New Zealand's trading partners make of it, given that two Fair Trade deals (with the UK and EU) mention compliance with the Paris Agreement.

University of Waikato Associate Law Professor Nathan Cooper said the government was "not sending the right message to New Zealanders or to our trading partners."

"These challenges aren't just far off or far away. They are already being felt by New Zealanders in floods, storms and in questions of managed retreat," he said.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.