The ACT Party is reigniting debate about the Paris Agreement and New Zealand's Emissions Reduction Plans, in its climate policy announcement at Fieldays in Hamilton on Wednesday.
As part of its 2026 election campaign, the ACT Party says it wants to revisit the country’s Emissions Reduction Plans.
"ACT will reset these around realistic targets," the party's agriculture spokesperson Andrew Hoggard, a former Federated Farmers President, said.
The party is also proposing a “split gas” emissions target and wants to make sure agriculture is kept out of the Emissions Trading Scheme.
“New Zealand's farmers are the most emissions-efficient in the world, yet they are treated like climate villains and punished by climate targets that ignore the difference between methane from livestock and carbon from fossil fuels," Hoggard said.
Under this current approach, he said prime farmland gets converted to pine trees and farmers face new costs for emissions they're already managing efficiently.
“And global emissions don't drop - because other countries with higher-footprint production simply fill the gap."
“That's not an environmental outcome. That's an economic and environmental own-goal," Hoggard said.
‘Paris needs to change, or New Zealand needs to leave’
ACT hasn’t shied away from being critical of New Zealand’s involvement in The Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty on climate change.
In September, ACT called for New Zealand to alter its emissions reduction goals in the Paris Agreement - or withdraw from the pact completely. At the time, ACT leader David Seymour said: “Paris needs to change, or New Zealand needs to leave.”
ACT shared its full position statement via a document called A Better Climate Deal, where it mentioned revisiting the country’s Emissions Reduction Plans and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) under the Paris Agreement.
Under the Paris Agreement, every country has set out its own NDC - this is to show the contributions countries will make towards delivering on the Paris Agreement goals. The obligations under the 2015 Paris Agreement is to limit global warming to “well below 2 °C” and attempt to keep it to 1.5 °C.
What ACT wants
On Wednesday, Hoggard said the Paris Agreement provided a pathway for New Zealand to issue its own NDC and ACT was campaigning to do that in the next term of Parliament.
The Party is proposing:
- Recognising a split gas approach that treats long-life gases like carbon dioxide and short-lived gases like methane differently
- Revisiting Emissions Reduction Plans
- Keeping agriculture out of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)
Hoggard said current climate targets treated methane from a cow the same as carbon from a coal burner, claiming this wasn’t scientific.
“The result is that New Zealand farmers are being told to cut production while other countries increase output. That's not reducing global emissions, it's sending our jobs, our land, and our food production offshore - to countries that produce it less efficiently and with a higher carbon cost. It's exporting jobs, investment, and food production overseas.”
ACT’s climate spokesperson Simon Court said: “ACT will submit a new Split-Gas emissions target that focuses on actual warming. Long-lived gases will continue on a path to lowering emissions, while biogenic methane will be managed under a No Additional Warming approach.”
When it came to removing agriculture from the ETS, Court said “taxing the world’s most emission-efficient farmers won’t change the climate.”
“It will just make food more expensive and push production into less efficient countries.”
“Last year, ACT made it clear that the Paris Agreement is broken and that New Zealand deserves a better climate deal. Today, we are putting forward exactly what that better deal looks like," said Court.
“New Zealand produces dairy with a carbon footprint 46% lower than the global average. We should be expanding our production, not retreating. ACT is the only party with the courage to stand up to the UN, rewrite the rules, and secure a future where farming grows.”
Climate currently
Following Seymour’s comments in September, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon made it clear that New Zealand would not be leaving the Paris Agreement, saying: “It would only damage, hurt, and punish our farmers. Our competitor countries would like nothing more than to see New Zealand products off their shelves.”
Luxon said the Government had already kept agriculture out of the Emissions Trading Scheme.
Alongside this, other changes have been made to the country’s climate policies such as restricting the Climate Change Commission to monitoring rather than advising on emissions reduction plans, removing the requirement for Emissions Trading Scheme settings to align with New Zealand’s Paris Agreement targets, and reducing the target for methane emissions.
The current government also reversed the offshore oil and gas exploration ban in 2024.
In December, Finance Minister Nicola Willis told the Finance and Expenditure Committee the Government was not prepared to send billions of dollars offshore to meet the Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement.
Countries can transfer carbon credits earned from reducing greenhouse gas emissions to help other countries meet their climate targets.
At the time, Willis said she did not believe it was in the best interests of New Zealanders to send billions of dollars offshore.
It remained a priority for the Government to meet its Nationally Determined Contributions, Willis said.
"We are working hard to ensure that our priority of domestic climate action is met."
Experts told RNZ it would not be possible for the country to meet its climate change commitments by only focusing on domestic emissions reductions.
9 Comments
Not I
said the large yellow hen.
Moral fortitude?
Nil.
Experts told RNZ it would not be possible for the country to meet its climate change commitments by only focusing on domestic emissions reductions.
Is it appropriate to interpret this paragraph as NZ not only has to reduce it's domestic emissions but also has to partly offset the emissions of other countries?
Mandy, Paris emissions targets are not legally binding. If you miss your made up target no one cares apart from the climate industry gravy train.
"A major change in the way that China measures its core climate goal has effectively halved the growth in the country’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions over the past five years.
The revised measure of “carbon intensity”, the amount of CO2 per unit of economic output, implies that China’s emissions have only gone up by 7% from 2020-2025.
On paper, the revision creates a gap of 700m tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) per year, equivalent to the total emissions of Germany or South Korea."
I suggest that Hoggard wears his shoes back to front to help prevent him kicking own goals.
Is that really necessary? Certainly not respectful.
TBF the guy is always walking backwards, as are all Fed Farmers.
Politicians and Federated Farmers promoters of environmental destruction are not worthy of respect, as they are an existential threat to my children and grandchildren, not to mention the rest of humanity and other living species. Face up to it without rationalizations, denials and verbal trickery- dairying is dirty dairying.
Roll on milk produced by methods not involving cows I will buy it.
Gemini a.i states-
New Zealand's freshwater environment is facing a severe crisis due to intensive dairying, while political debate intensifies over the "split-gas" approach to agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.
The Ministry for the Environment's latest reporting highlights that intensive land use continues to drive high nitrate and E. coli
levels in waterways. Simultaneously, the agricultural sector—which contributes roughly 50% of the country's gross greenhouse gas emissions—is at the center of a policy shift. The current coalition government is aggressively pursuing a split-gas target to regulate short-lived gases like biogenic methane differently than long-lived gases like carbon dioxide. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Water Pollution Trajectory and the Impact of Dairying [1]
Despite decades of regulatory attempts, New Zealand’s recent environmental reporting paints a bleak picture of its freshwater health: [1, 2, 3, 4]
- Groundwater & Nitrate Emergency:
The Ministry for the Environment and StatsNZ’s Our Freshwater 2026
report
revealed that 45% of groundwater monitoring sites
tested between 2019 and 2024 breached the legal limits for E. coli
on at least one occasion. Intensive dairy regions like Canterbury have faced acute nitrate crises, leading local authorities to issue "Do Not Drink" notices for domestic water supplies.
- Unswimmable Rivers:
Computer modeling indicates that 44% of New Zealand's entire river length is currently unsuitable for recreational activities like swimming due to faecal contamination.[1]
- The Dairy Driver:
Over the last 30 years, the national dairy herd has nearly doubled. This expansion, paired with a massive surge in synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use to boost pasture growth, has heavily overloaded catchments with excess nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment.[1]
- Regulatory Rollbacks:
Environmental groups, including Greenpeace Aotearoa, have voiced severe alarm. They note that while phosphorus runoff has shown some localized improvements, nitrate and ecological indicators are worsening as political changes slow or rewrite stricter freshwater rules to reduce compliance burdens on the dairy sector.
The Split-Emissions Concept and Its Viability
The "split-gas" approach separates short-lived climate pollutants—specifically biogenic methane (CH₄)
from livestock—from long-lived gases like carbon dioxide (CO₂)
and nitrous oxide (N₂O)
The Policy Current
New Zealand has already legally embedded a split-gas framework within its domestic legislation via the Climate Change Response Act. The current framework mandates: [1, 2]
- Net Zero by 2050 for all long-lived gases (CO₂ and N₂O).
- A separate reduction target
for biogenic methane (aiming for a 10% reduction by 2030 and a revised 24% to 47% reduction by 2050 relative to 2017 levels).[1]
Arguments for Viability (The Farming and Government Perspective)
Industry bodies like Federated Farmers
and coalition political parties (such as ACT) argue that the split-gas approach is the only scientifically valid method for an agrarian economy: [1, 2]
- Warming vs. Accumulation: Methane breaks down in the atmosphere in about a decade, whereas CO₂ accumulates for centuries. Advocates argue that stable livestock herds do not add additional warming to the planet; they merely maintain a baseline temperature.
- Economic Protection:
Forcing farmers into the standard New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS) using traditional metrics like GWP100 would result in heavy financial penalties. Proponents claim this would trigger a massive conversion of productive pasture into pine forestry, driving up food costs and shifting dairy production to less carbon-efficient countries overseas.
Arguments Against Viability (The Scientific and Environmental Perspective)
Climate scientists and environmental advocates argue that weakening methane targets under a split-gas banner presents profound structural risks: [1, 2]
- The "Emergency Handbrake" Risk:
Methane has a global warming potential roughly 80 times stronger than CO₂ over a 20-year period. The United Nations treats rapid methane reduction as a critical short-term handbrake to prevent immediate global temperature overshoot while long-term CO₂ solutions are found.
[1]
- International Backlash:
Major international buyers are demanding strict supply-chain accountability. For example, multinational food giant Nestlé has warned New Zealand suppliers to aggressively lower on-farm footprints. Over-weakening methane goals risks alienating premium export markets.[1]
- The ETS Disconnect:
The Independent Climate Change Commission has pointed out that the NZ ETS creates equal pricing incentives for all gases. Completely insulating agriculture from this system leaves a massive policy gap, requiring the rest of the New Zealand economy to absorb heavier, more expensive cuts to meet Paris Agreement targets.
- Examine how New Zealand's split-gas targets compare to international climate agreements
New Zealand’s split-gas framework creates a unique structural disconnect when compared to international climate agreements. [1]
Domestically, New Zealand separates short-lived biogenic methane from long-lived carbon dioxide, applying entirely different rules to each. Internationally, major treaties like the Paris Agreement pool all gases together into a single "all-gases" metric. [1, 2]
The friction between domestic targets and global frameworks comes down to structural, accounting, and political differences.
1. Structural Comparison: Separation vs. Aggregation
Feature [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]New Zealand Domestic Targets (Zero Carbon Act)International Agreements (Paris Agreement / NDCs)
Gas TreatmentSplit Gas: Methane is isolated from CO₂ and nitrous oxide.All-Gases: All emissions are pooled together into a single target.
Methane Target14% to 24% reduction by 2050 (lowered from 24–47% in late 2025).Implicitly grouped into steep global reduction paths required for 1.5°C.
CO₂ / N₂O TargetNet-Zero by 2050.Net-Zero globally by mid-century.
Metric UsedRaw gas volume (tonnes of CH₄).GWP₁₀₀ (Global Warming Potential over 100 years).
2. The Accounting Disconnect (GWP₁₀₀)
International agreements measure progress using GWP₁₀₀, a metric that converts the climate impact of all gases into "Carbon Dioxide Equivalents" (CO₂-e). [4, 7]
- The Global Standard: Under GWP₁₀₀, methane is treated as roughly 28 to 30 times more potent than CO₂ over a century. This structure demands rapid, deep reductions in all gases to meet single net-headline targets. [2, 4]
- The NZ Variance: New Zealand's domestic policy argues that GWP₁₀₀ overstates the long-term impact of methane. Because methane breaks down in 10–12 years, it does not accumulate like CO₂. NZ law aims for methane to reach a stable state that causes "no additional warming" rather than forcing it to net-zero. [1, 4, 8, 9, 10]
3. The Financial and Political Strain
Because New Zealand’s international pledge (its Nationally Determined Contribution / NDC) is an all-gases target, the domestic split-gas lenient treatment of methane creates a multi-billion dollar problem. [1, 2, 11, 12, 13]
- The Headline Target: Under its first NDC (2021–2030), New Zealand has committed to reducing total net emissions by 50% below gross 2005 levels. Its second NDC (announced in 2025) aims for a 51% to 55% reduction by 2035. [2, 14]
- The "Shortfall" Liability: Because agriculture accounts for half of NZ's emissions and is legally shielded from the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) under split-gas laws, domestic reductions will not hit the international target. [9, 12]
- Offshore Offsets: To bridge this gap and remain compliant with the Paris Agreement, the New Zealand government will be forced to buy millions of tonnes of international carbon offsets using taxpayer funds. [2, 12, 15, 16, 17]
4. Recent Escalations (2026) [18]
The tension has recently reached a political boiling point. Some political factions, such as the ACT Party, have formally proposed rewriting New Zealand’s international NDC to match the domestic split-gas architecture. They have gone as far as suggesting that if the UN does not accept a weakened, split-gas international target for agricultural nations, New Zealand should consider withdrawing from the Paris Agreement entirely. [8, 9, 12, 19]
Conversely, independent advisers like the Climate Change Commission and mainstream climate scientists warn that weakening methane targets damages New Zealand's international trading reputation, moving it out of alignment with the 1.5°C global goal. [2, 5]
If you want to explore further, let me know if you would like to look at:
- The specific financial cost projections for NZ buying offshore carbon credits.
- How alternative climate metrics like $GWP^*$ differ from GWP₁₀₀ for methane accounting.
- How other agricultural nations (like Ireland or the Netherlands) handle methane targets. [20, 21, 22]
[1] https://www.climatecommission.govt.nz
[2] https://www.climatecommission.govt.nz
[3] https://environment.govt.nz
[7] https://environment.govt.nz
[11] https://environment.govt.nz
[14] https://www.beehive.govt.nz
[19] https://www.interest.co.nz
All animals consume oxygen and carbon and breathe out carbon dioxide. Yet these CO2 emissions don't count in the various climate treaties because they are considered biogenic? Does the definition of biogenic mean being part of a balanced natural carbon cycle? If that is the case why is biogenic methane been treated differently in the climate treaties to biogenic carbon dioxide? They are both normal biological processes that predate the climate change problem - which is primarily the.movement of enourmois amounts of carbon locked away underground in fossil fuel deposits out into the atmosphere when combusted for energy. The resulting increase in carbon dioxide in.the.atmosphere has global warming implications. Can a scientist explain the rationale for why biogenic methane is treated differently to biogenic carbon dioxide?
"...Academics can quibble (it’s what we do best) about the exact factors, but the fact that this formula is vastly more accurate than the traditional accounting rule is indisputable. ...Even more strikingly, if an individual herd’s methane emissions are falling by one third of one percent per year (that’s 7/2100, so the two terms cancel out) – which the farmers I met seemed confident could be achieved with a combination of good husbandry, feed additives and perhaps vaccines in the longer term – then that herd is no longer adding to global warming."
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/a-climate-neutral-nz-yes-its-possi…
"...Fossil methane impacts the climate differently than biogenic methane. Fossil methane,
such as natural gas, is carbon that has been locked up in the ground for millions of years
and is extracted and combusted in homes and businesses. The burning of fossil methane
directly transfers carbon that was stored in the ground (geologic carbon) into the
atmosphere as CO2. That carbon continues to accumulate and persist in the environment,
contributing to climate change for hundreds of years. Bottom line: Fossil methane
increases the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, which drives warming.
Biogenic methane from cows is part of a natural carbon cycle, where after about 12 years
it is removed from the atmosphere. As part of photosynthesis, plants capture CO2 from
the atmosphere, absorbing the carbon and releasing oxygen. That carbon is converted
into carbohydrates in the plant, which are then consumed by the cows, digested, and
released from the cows as methane (CH4). After about 12 years in the atmosphere, that
methane is oxidized and converted into CO2. These carbon molecules are the same
molecules that were consumed by cows in the form of plants. As part of the biogenic
carbon cycle, the carbon originally utilized by the plant is returned to the atmosphere,
contributing no net gain of CO2."
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7876/files/inline-files/C…
Besides the fact NZ is a massive carbon sink.
"...New Zealand was a net CO2 sink of −38.6 ± 13.4 million tonne C yr−1."
A Comprehensive Assessment of Anthropogenic and Natural Sources and Sinks of Australasia's Carbon Budget
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GB007845
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.