Summarised by Centrist
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says remaining in the Paris climate agreement will be non-negotiable in post-election coalition talks.
This puts him directly at odds with ACT and New Zealand First.
At the same time, Luxon says his government will not send billions of dollars offshore to meet New Zealand's 2030 target. “I'm going to do everything we can to try and hit that target,” he said.
Treasury analysis puts the possible fiscal cost of buying offshore mitigation for that target at $4.4 billion to $5 billion.
Luxon said that staying in the agreement was in New Zealand's interests and that leaving would put the country in “bad company”. He argued withdrawal could damage trade and see New Zealand products removed from overseas shelves.
He also acknowledged that New Zealand's 2030 commitment is difficult and said roughly three-quarters of countries are not on track to meet their targets. He expects an international “reckoning” over what happens next.
ACT says New Zealand should pursue emissions targets that reflect the different warming effects of long-lived gases and agricultural methane, and should leave Paris if that approach cannot be accommodated. New Zealand First is campaigning to withdraw, arguing that the agreement constrains the economy.
Winston Peters has since attacked Luxon’s position. He said the position demonstrated that “experience does matter in politics” and expressed astonishment that coalition bottom lines were being laid out in advance under MMP.
Peters also questioned whether the agreement could be honoured meaningfully while China, Russia, the United States and India remained responsible for most global emissions. He said New Zealand had originally secured its position on the understanding that food production would be exempt.
Ministry for the Environment projections have put New Zealand's shortfall against its first nationally determined contribution at about 84 million tonnes. Treasury says its cost scenarios illustrate a fiscal risk rather than a Government decision or intention, but the risk does not disappear because the government dislikes the available options.
Editor’s note: New Zealand is not legally compelled to send billions of dollars offshore if it misses its 2030 target. The Paris Agreement requires countries to maintain climate targets and pursue measures aimed at achieving them, but its compliance system is explicitly non-punitive. It cannot fine New Zealand or force the government to buy offshore credits. Any such purchase would be a political decision funded under New Zealand law, not a debt automatically collected by an international body.
Parliament remains sovereign over domestic law and public spending. The government may decide that the diplomatic or trade consequences of missing the target justify the cost, but it should say so plainly.
When much larger emitters such as China, Russia, the United States and India face the same non-punitive system, New Zealand voters are entitled to ask why their country should spend billions overseas rather than invest that money at home, reconsider its commitment or simply report that the target was missed without purchasing offshore credits.
Read more at RNZ, the Treasury, ACT and New Zealand First
Re-published from the Centrist with permission
