sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Climate Change Commission says NZ’s rate of emissions reduction needs to more than double and government choices in next few years ‘will be critical to getting the country back on track’

Public Policy / news
Climate Change Commission says NZ’s rate of emissions reduction needs to more than double and government choices in next few years ‘will be critical to getting the country back on track’
[updated]
A composite image of a herd of cattle and a car in Whangārei Heads overlayed with dollar signs.
A composite image of a herd of cattle and a car in Whangārei Heads overlayed with dollar signs. Composite image source: Unsplash, 123rf.com and interest.co.nz

Climate disruption and economic impacts in New Zealand are growing, a report from the Climate Change Commission says, and greater and more durable emissions reductions are needed to manage these risks.

“Delaying action increases disruption and costs for households and the economy, and narrows the country’s options,” the commission said in its 2026 monitoring report looking at emissions reduction released on Wednesday. This report tracks how emissions reductions are going and the Government's progress towards meeting NZ's second and third emissions budgets, and the 2050 budget.

Emissions budgets are the total amount of emissions that's allowed to be released during the budget's period, according to the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT).

"Emissions budgets will act as stepping stones, or interim targets, to reaching our 2050 emissions reduction targets," MCERT said. The country's 2050 emissions reduction targets are net zero greenhouse gas emissions (except biogenic methane) and a 14% to 24% reduction in biogenic methane.

The report found that risks to the country’s climate goals for the next decade have increased, and the second and third emissions budgets are at high risk - with the 2030 biogenic methane target unlikely to be met. Alongside this, the report said the pace of emissions reductions needed to more than double over the next few years.

The report highlights current plans and policies are “insufficient to meet the third emissions budget (2031-2035) or the 2050 target, and the window for action is closing.”

“The gap in the emissions reduction plan for the third budget has not been significantly addressed since our last report and the risks to planned reductions have increased."

“If additional action does not occur in the next one to two years, it will no longer be feasible to meet the 2030 biogenic methane target or the third emissions budget.”

The report said policy actions that could reduce emissions included things like improved energy regulatory measures, extending the road user charges exemption for electric heavy vehicles, passing legislation to use time-of-use charging for transport systems and the Gas Transition Loan Guarantee Scheme (this was announced after the commission's assessment period).

The report also pointed out actions that could increase emissions. This included things like excluding agriculture from emissions pricing, increasing the mandatory climate reporting threshold, changes to the Clean Vehicle Standard, and committing to a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility.

The Climate Change Commission is an independent Crown entity that provides advice to the Government on mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change. It also monitors and reviews the Government's progress towards its emissions reduction and adaptation goals.

Climate Change Minister says NZ 'on track' to meet first two emissions budgets

But Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has a different perspective, saying the latest emissions projections suggested NZ was "on track" to meet its first two emissions budgets.

The projections Watts is referring to were published in October 2025 and updated in January 2026 to correct a data omission. The next update will be in late 2026.

The Government welcomed the report, Watts said, and would "carefully consider its findings ahead of the Government's formal response in October 2026."

Opposition parties were critical, with Labour climate change spokesperson Deborah Russell saying: "The Government has failed to take the serious action we need to reduce emissions, move the economy away from fossil fuels and ensure lower costs for households and businesses."

Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the Government had "shredded climate action."

‘Acting sooner will reduce costs overall’

Climate Change Commission chief executive Jo Hendy described the report as "a clear warning sign.”

“Emissions are gradually falling but progress stalled in 2024 and current policy settings are not delivering at the pace needed. Government choices in the next 12 to 24 months will be critical to getting the country back on track.”

New Zealanders are already experiencing the impacts of a changing climate, the commission said.

"Choices made now will affect how quickly the country cuts its own emissions, and how well households, businesses and communities are positioned to manage future shocks."

The report also pointed out that acting earlier to reduce emissions could strengthen NZ’s resilience, reduce exposure to shocks and lower costs for households, businesses and the country.

“Recent high oil prices forced many households to change their spending, including on necessities. Greater uptake of low-emissions technologies would reduce exposure to these shocks and help manage cost-of-living pressures.”

“Some actions will require upfront investment, but acting sooner will reduce costs overall and make the transition to a low-emissions economy smoother,” the commission said.

The signals Government gives

Some people were missing out on savings and reducing their exposure to future energy risks because upfront costs and barriers were preventing households and businesses from switching away from fossil fuels, the report said.

“The Government has low-cost options to address these barriers. These include targeted funding and financing mechanisms, stable investment signals for markets and consumers, and better information to support household and business decisions.”

“Clear and stable policy settings help households, businesses and investors make decisions with confidence. The goal should be to avoid getting locked into expensive long-run options,” Hendy said.

“Infrastructure and other long-lived investments that support low-emissions choices are generally cheaper to get right early than to retrofit later.”

Hendy said while the Government had taken useful steps to reduce upfront cost barriers, “the question now is how to build on them quickly enough to support the scale of change needed”.

“It’s not just about what the Government spends money on, but also the signals it gives."

Government 'committed' to NZ's climate targets

Watts said: "Our Government is committed to New Zealand's climate targets, and adapting to the changing climate."

He said the report covered government policy and action in the year to April, which meant some of the impacts of policy changes and announcements since then were not included in the analysis of the report.

Examples of this, he said, were things like the AgriZeroNZ Early Adoption Accelerator and the Government’s Gas Transition Loan Guarantee Scheme.

"The impact of these policy changes will be picked up as part of 2026 projections and will help inform the Government’s response to the report, which is due by October 2026," Watts said.

"We’re currently focused on implementing the policies in our second emissions reduction plan, with almost all actions already underway. 

"The Government included an adaptative management approach in the second emissions reduction plan. This is an annual process so we can regularly assess progress and risks to ensure we stay on track to meet our second emissions budget."

'The Government has failed to take serious action'

But Labour's Deborah Russell said the National Government's actions "has undone work to reduce emissions in NZ and move to a decarbonised economy", pointing to the scrapping of the clean car discount, reversing the ban on new oil and gas exploration permits, and ending the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry (GIDI) Fund.

"Reducing emissions now will not only enable us to meet our 2050 net zero goal, it makes good economic sense."

"Shifting as many households as possible onto solar would help to move our electricity grid away from reliance on high priced fossil fuels to generate electricity.  Actions like this would reduce emissions now, and save people money," Russell said.

Green Party's Chlöe Swarbrick said: "This isn't about numbers on a page. This is about people's lives and livelihoods."

Swarbrick told reporters "with this report on the table today, the other parties that are not willing to take New Zealanders and our future seriously just need to get out of the Goddamn way".

Not a 'nice to have'

The Science Media Centre has collected a range of views on the report from academic experts.

Victoria University of Wellington Professor James Renwick said: "The current coalition government claims to be on target for our climate action, but their policy moves over the past two-three years have on balance gone in the wrong direction."

"The clear messages from the commission lay bare the gap between rhetoric and reality. Policy changes can still be made to improve the situation, but as the Commission says, time is running out," Renwick said.

"Acting on climate change through greenhouse gas emissions reductions is not a 'nice to have', it is fundamental to maintaining a liveable future for our children and grandchildren. Let’s see our government take it seriously."

AUT professor Sebastian Leuzinger said the report showed some encouraging details but also stressed the urgency to do more to achieve the targets.

Leuzinger said he believed it was possible to achieve the country's "ambitious" goals "through smart solutions, and hopefully not just a shrinking economy, which would not serve anyone in the end, including our climate goals".

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.

22 Comments

No prob. The coalition has everything running to plan. Import LNG, search for more oil and gas, expand coal extraction, mop up any renewable energy with data centres that could be used in transition and keep importing more humans to ensure increasing demand for NZ resources and waste sinks. Yep, I'm just grateful we have geniuses running the country. 

Up
7

You missed the bit where they also proclaim to understand climate change and are deeply committed to meeting their international obligations.

Up
4

It's an evolution climate denial is going through. They spent decades and huge resources disputing physics is real, now they just nod heads and keep burning. Set goals miss them deliberately, shug shoulders, then set a new goal they have no intention of achieving.

Up
3

What would have the opposition (Labour, Greens & TPM) coalition government done differently?

They would have killed our economy completely but at the same time reduced only a few tonnes of GHG emissions. 

The current government wouldn't have needed to look at LNG imports if Labour hadn't abandoned oil and gas exploration. We wouldn't be importing coal, bitumen, liquid CO2 or ammonia-urea either, as we do today. While I agree that data centres are of no benefit to anyone, our economy cannot run on electricity alone. Fossil fuels will be used globally for many manufacturing and products we use everyday, including the keyboard or phone you're typing on or the clothing you are wearing.

We are still many years away from the full electrification of trucking, shipping, earthworking and farming machinery. 

Up
1

Your 'economy' was doomed anyway..  Sorry about that, but it was based on the exponentially-increasing extraction of finite (or rate-restricted) resources from a finite planet. 

It was always going to reverse about now. Update to limits to growth

So what was it you were lamenting losing, again? 

Up
0

Clearly an existential nihilist...Why bother getting up in the morning?

Up
4

Bollocks.

I live a more interesting, varied life that you - guaranteed. 

What you did there, was an old trick - by putting down the messenger, you dissed the message (which says you haven't facts with which to do so). Don't worry, it's the most common one in the book.

The trick is to ask what you can do about it - and how you can set yourself and others, up for what is coming. Some of us are a long way down that track. 

But if you ask me how many humans will be on the planet when my grandchildren get to my age - or would have - I say south of 3 billion and probably one. We are an overshot species - it was a fun ride but...

Up
1

You think we are going to go from 8 billion to 1 billion people?  

Up
0

The Trumpian worldview ultimately ends at zero.

Up
1

Remember that people die anyway. I'm not advocating murdering 7 billion.

What we are seeing is the birthrate dropping rapidly, across pretty much all nations irrespective of income. It wasn't politically-driven... 

GDP doesn't capture the why of that - or of many things. But it is massive and relatively sudden. When you get to get it (:) you realise that the young can't obtain a nest (FHB's) so forget raising young. Equally we can argue that the rainbow irruption is because procreation is no longer the imperative. 

But nature bats last, we are in overshoot - and physics overrides all. 

 

Up
0

You said it, the planet is already depopulating thanks to declining birth rates.

So this should give you some hope since lower population will be less stress on the planet. 

Don't forget that technology is improving daily. We will reach a zero carbon future quite soon, so don't panic yet!

The greatest threats come from the Orange-man, Bibi and Pooty-poot.

These madmen have the nukes which can change the global climate much faster than GHG emissions.

 

 

Up
1

Entirely possible...indeed more possible than going from 8 to 16 billion

Up
3

We would have a lot more electric cars with the clean car discount. 

Up
1

The report yet again conflates the need to deal with the impact of "climate events" (ie weather) as a need to reduce emissions.

Reducing emissions will not have any impact in the slightest on our need to continue investing in infrastructure resilience  - except that it might take away resources and will be a distraction. 

And no its not possible to meet our ambitious targets, regardless of what we do - not to say that we shouldnt continue to drive for energy efficiency improvements, improvements to security of supply and a better mix of inputs but that should not be related to UN agreements but be because its in our best interests

Up
2

Your best interests, you being a farmer? 

Just translating. 

Upton Sinclair's famous quote comes to mind...

The problem is the Bowie one - you are advocating putting out the fire with gasoline, so presumably you can keep earning? How does one explaing that to a youngster? Sorry you have an unlivable planet and that there are no wild animals left and that the biosphere has collapsed - but for a while there I made a lot of dough... 

Up
1

the window for action is closing!

Scams often rely on urgency to pressure people into acting quickly before they have time to stop and think.

"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

 

Up
1

If you import and burn fossil carbon from below-ground, 

Then just admit that that is what you are doing. 

The spin is getting tiresome. 

Up
4

With amounts to 3/5 of FA once the anthropogenic sinks and natural sinks are taken in to the account, hence our net 38 million tonne per annum sink. Every plant and animal imports "fossil" carbon from "below-ground" without guilt and taxation. You should try it!

Up
0

Truth

Back at you. 

Up
0

Depressing set of comments here. The reductions are needed and yet also achievable if we just get on with it and forget about politicising or fake theories. The science is clear and the solutions are available.  The right consistent policy support for solar, batteries and EVs and simpler, faster approval of wind and geothermal projects does it.  Let’s go.

Up
1

Sounds like a cherry-orchard owner I've heard. 

Little problem of sustainability - I mean real sustainability. 

Putting a green coat on a pig doesn't stop it being a pig. 

Up
0

Nothing wrong with pork or bacon PDK, even in a green coat. Green eggs and ham is a real favorite.

Up
0