LCANZI v CCC judgment - member update

Kia ora koutou

The LCANZI v Climate Change Commission judicial review judgment has just been released.

The short points are that:

  • Justice Mallon accepted our key concern that “neither the NDC Advice nor the Budgets Advice put New Zealand on track to reduce domestic net emissions by 2030 as per the IPCC global pathways” [11].

  • She also found that in applying the IPCC percentage reductions to 2010 gross CO2, “the Commission’s Advice was potentially misleading (particularly lay readers or anyone without the time to read the Advice in its full detail) to the extent that it could be interpreted as advice that reductions of 36 per cent below 2005 gross levels would be compatible with the IPCC 1.5 ̊C global pathways and therefore the 1.5 ̊C global effort.” [119]

  • However, she went on find that “While it might have been more transparent to carry out a strictly mathematical comparison and to then adjust for value judgments, the Commission did not make a serious logical error that led to an irrational recommendation. The Commission knew what it was doing and had reasons for its approach. It meant that its NDC Advice on consistency with the 1.5 ̊C global effort was not based entirely on a truly mathematical comparison with the IPCC 1.5 ̊C global pathways.”

  • The Judge also found that our Emissions Budgets do not have to be consistent with IPCC 1.5 ̊C global pathways: “the words ‘contribute to’ … are more consistent with an aspiration rather than an obligation” [162].

  • The Judge disagreed with our submission that the Climate Change Response Act required the Commission to use UNFCCC inventory accounting (GHGI net).  However, she agreed that GHGI net shows that our our net emissions will be higher than in any of the three previous decades: “The choice of [modified activity-based accounting] rather than GHGI net alters whether our emissions will appear to have increased or decreased between 2021 and 2030 relative to the previous decade.”

While we are disappointed with the outcome, there are many helpful points in the judgment.  We will be carefully reviewing it and considering whether to appeal. 

As noted at [148], Minister Shaw commented in introducing the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill that “[a]s far as we’re aware, we are the first country in the world to locate that commitment to hold global warming to no more than 1.5 ̊C in primary legislation”.  The Court has found that the Act does not contain such a commitment. 

Quite simply, this result means that as a country, we are not working to keep to our 1.5 degree obligations. This means that we can expect to continue weathering tornadoes, flash floods, and fires tearing through native bush. 

Accordingly, we consider that the Government must look at amendments to the Act if it is serious about tackling climate change this decade. 

We came together more than three years ago because we knew Aotearoa could and should be doing more to mitigate climate change. We STILL need to see a stronger plan from the Government to mitigate climate change. 

We’re committed for the long haul, and we certainly aren’t done - there’s so much more to do if we want to actually combat climate change.

You can read the full judgment here. We will be putting out a more detailed summary of the judgment next week which we will share on our social media and send out in our December member newsletter.

We want to say a massive thank you to our amazing members, we couldn’t take on litigation like this without your ongoing support and we’re just getting started!

Ngā mihi maioha

LCANZI Committee

LCANZI