Patsy Reddy succeeding Rod Carr as Climate Change Commission Chair

Public Policy / news

Former Governor-General Patsy Reddy appointed to chair Climate Change Commission from February 2025

9th Dec 24, 11:49am by Ella Somers

Dame Patsy Reddy and Climate Change Minister Simon Watts

Former Governor-General Patsy Reddy will be the new Chair of the Climate Change Commission.

Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the appointment on Monday saying Reddy will bring an “extensive and distinguished career in law and governance” to the climate-focussed role.

Reddy was the 21st Governor-General of New Zealand between 2016 and 2021, and has chaired New Zealand Rugby since December 2022.

She became a Dame Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to the arts and business in 2014, and was made a Dame Grand Companion of the Order for services to the state in 2016.

It was confirmed in October that Reddy wouldn’t be standing for reappointment as NZR Chair after her term finishes in late December.

Reddy will start as Climate Commission Chair in February 2025 and Commissioner, with Deputy Chair Lisa Tumahai will be acting chair until then.

Reddy’s appointment follows the conclusion of Rod Carr’s time as Chair. Carr spent five years in the role, having been appointed by then Climate Change Minister James Shaw during the Labour-Greens-NZ First coalition Government.

During his last week as Chair, Carr warned the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) would fail without “radical reform” and accused promoters of fossil fuel of committing a “crime against humanity”.

'Realistic and affordable'

Last week the Commission released its first review of New Zealand’s 2050 emissions target. The review found, among other things, that climate change is contributing to more frequent and severe weather events, sea level rise and ocean acidification than was expected when the 2050 target was set in 2019.

But the Commission still thinks NZ’s 2050 target of net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions other than biogenic methane by 2050 can be met, and in fact emissions can even fall beyond net zero.

The Commission now wants NZ’s 2050 target to require that accounting emissions of greenhouse gases other than biogenic methane, but including international shipping and aviation emissions (which are currently excluded from the target), are “at least” negative 20 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) by January 2050.

This effectively means the Commission wants NZ to go beyond ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050 and for emissions to fall into negative territory.

The Commission also wants gross emissions of biogenic methane in a calendar year to be at least 10% less than 2017 emissions by January 2030, and at least 35% to 47% less than 2017 emissions by January 2050.

Carr said last week the Commission’s review had shown NZ has options available to get on track to the current 2050 target and also increase the country’s contribution to global efforts to limit average warming to 1.5°C.

“Our advice shows the recommended 2050 target is both realistic and affordable,” Carr said.

The Commission warned in August that if NZ doesn’t meet the climate commitments the country signed up to under the Paris Agreement, the country could face “greater scrutiny” from its trading partners.

In mid-July, the Ministry for Environment (MfE) released documents on its second emissions reduction plan which revealed NZ is set to narrowly meet its first and second emissions budgets for 2022-25 and 2026-30.

However, the MfE’s report said NZ is set to go over the 2031-35 budget by 17 million tonnes of carbon emissions.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

10 Comments

by Chris-M | 9th Dec 24, 4:19pm 1733714396

What training and background does she have in matters relating to the environment and energy?

But then the last fellow had a PHd in engineering but seemed totally emasculated by the politics of the situation. Perhaps she was chosen because she can more easily fit in with the political script. So why are we even bothering? It seems to me that the forces that really have sway in this world are hell bent on doing nothing. I guess we are all going to get slowly cooked to death and or our civilization and economy destroyed.

When you think about it the earth's climate system is huge and must have enormous inertia. How much of the changes that we are seeing now are really attributable to things that occurred decades ago? If we stopped all emissions now, how much longer would the world continue to heat up?

It is possibly too late for the earth. Once upon a time there was no oxygen in our atmosphere, We are very lucky that the cyano bacteria created our present atmosphere. This could just as easily be reversed catastrophically. Once upon a time scientist believed that Venus had a habitable atmosphere.

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/nasa-climate-modeling-sug…

Oh dear. Shit happens

by kir10 | 9th Dec 24, 4:24pm 1733714662

Never too late for the earth, it will be fine. What's in trouble is liberal democracy. I can only imagine what's in store for us when the autocrats take over on a overcrowded, hot planet. We have seen this before. My guess is many will die.

by pacifica | 10th Dec 24, 7:24pm 1733811847

Carr could not do basic sums and relied on ignorance and bias in most surveys and then repeated wild conjectures with no historic data, ignorant of basic mathematics or and no scientific backing as if they were "evidence". Frankly if she can hold and use a calculator she is already more experienced then Carr.

Protip the earth will be fine no matter what happens up until the eventual decay of the sun. If you struggle with that fact then please show yourself out drama queen and take a chill pill.

Protip for flesh to actually cook you need a temp unreachable in the next 100 thousand years. But then perhaps you could Sous Vide in the central desert over the next 200 years instead of roast or fry temps.

I get it you are building on drama and statements that are not backed as a way to scare people but sadly the people you are causing the most harm to with your statements are youth the most (with our MH surveys & research showing high levels of anxiety and depression over the climate marketing bylines being used) and they frankly already have the weak mental health resilience of tissue paper (with the youth 19 & intersectional surveys showing increased trends in unmet MH needs with more in crisis levels) and the nihilism that results does not care for any social constructs or responsibility to others or the environment (with our increases in youth crime, waste & antisocial behaviour at young ages).

You want to promote change then here is an idea promote real liveable solutions that do not require the disabled 25% of the population to lose medical, housing, employment & community access. To sacrifice their lives and that of their families (greater then 25%) so ablebodied elitists can have self brags about how much better then everyone else they must be. To enable societal connections rather then divisions.

by LapisLazuli5297 | 9th Dec 24, 4:38pm 1733715496

I see that the "end is nigh, we will all pay for our (carbon) sins" crowd is in.

by kir10 | 9th Dec 24, 4:54pm 1733716495

Glad you called it a crowd and not a cult given the numbers flocking to our point of view. I'd wager a bet that things continue much along the road that the pessimistic voices outline and not yours. Assuming yours is the mainstream unending progression of modernity, economic growth and a techno future in our grasp if only we do x,y,z. Im not religious, so I don't get the whole sinning, fall from grace thing. In contrast, you might find your ideology is the one of religious manifest destiny.

by LapisLazuli5297 | 9th Dec 24, 5:05pm 1733717105

You say you're not religious yet your outlook tightly follows the archetypes of Judeo-Christianity. Repent your carbon sins, follow our true words, or face the wrath of floods and fires upon all that you care about.

given the numbers flocking to our point of view

Yeah I saw the Green vote last couple of elections. Which direction is that going again?

by kir10 | 9th Dec 24, 5:15pm 1733717749

They are archetypes. You are the one applying the 'repent for your sins' or 'follow our words' 'wrath' and ascribing meaning to which there is none. I have never voted green. Wait, its hard to answer your question "Which direction is that going again?" If you are talking about the need to do something about transiting our economy which has broad agreement from all NZ political parties. Feel free to share your views.

by LapisLazuli5297 | 9th Dec 24, 7:49pm 1733726990

At least you acknowledge that you are following the traditional archetypes and narratives used in the Bible about needing to Save all of us. My comment on floods and fires bringing about the end of humanity if we do not urgently repent our (carbon burning) ways is used by climate changers all the time.

by kir10 | 9th Dec 24, 9:07pm 1733731623

I have very rarely heard people say the end of humanity. Firstly im not sure what that even means. Second, if it mean human extinction then it's pretty difficult to get rid of us barring nuclear war or an asteroid impact. Plenty of societies/civilisations have collapsed and you're right I assume some invoked biblical notions to address their societal ills. But to use repent as you do seems rather strong. I mean look at modern medicine. All are enabled through carbon burning. You won't find many against that type of progress.

I think you missed one important point. What was the ideology behind those archetypes? Correlation does not entail causation.

by pacifica | 10th Dec 24, 7:41pm 1733812914

Given the structure of most high control group cults the only thing missing from any group is a leader to unify behind and glorify. Not far off but most the leaders now in the green sector have been shown to be highly corrupt, genocidal, unethical, racist, ableist and bigoted in very public ways. It is hard to glorify someone who is the antithesis of good in anything. Even Shaw publicly stated and advertised he wanted the disabled population removed from society and did not care for them (if you had been following him & his statements as avidly as I have it was a sad shock to hear and I felt most betrayed by them). If anything at best sticking with no leader may actually mean more bipartisanship, more solutions that benefit most, better use of funds to reduce opportunity cost and less cult behaviour.

The waste in the forestry funding, subsidies for wealthy e-cars and private solar panel sector meant we had massive river and stream destruction during floods, huge fines on disabled people cutting their access to medical services & work, massive loss in health service access while wealthiest got more money they did not need to prop up private non productive businesses, stretched our power network with substantially higher prices for families and causing massive manufacturing closures with hundreds of jobs lost and national resilience permanently damaged and help fund an international private investment firm known for massive employee abuse and corrupt behaviour to the tune of hundreds of millions. All things that had massive net negatives on NZ communities and we lost billions in opportunities that could have made real beneficial differences in the lives of the many. All because of the push of bad ideas that were so ill thought out anyone with a clue and basic math would have seen coming a mile off. Carr should face punishment and a kick out the door. Good riddance.