Photo Source: Markus Winkler
New Zealand’s methane reduction strategy is under fire, as an independent review of the “no added warming” principle sparks intense debate. Critics claim the government’s stance could be driven more by political expediency than scientific understanding, raising questions about the future of climate policy.
A Divided Front on Methane Reduction
Methane, responsible for 48% of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions and two-thirds of its warming impact, is under intense scrutiny as the country debates its approach to long-term reduction goals. The independent science panel’s report, due last week, has not yet been made public, while the Climate Change Commission’s review of all targets is expected in the coming days.
Lawyers for Climate Action Executive Director Jessica Palairet expressed concerns that the government may bypass the commission’s role, undermining a key part of the Climate Change Response Act.
“Our concern is that the government looks like it might bypass the Climate Change Commission’s 2050 target review,” Palairet said, adding that this could lead to politically motivated changes under the guise of scientific validity.
Methane is responsible for almost half of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions and a large proportion of its warming, but the release of the independent science panel’s report remains delayed. The Climate Change Commission’s review of targets is expected soon, and Jessica Palairet, Executive Director of Lawyers for Climate Action, stated,
“Our concern is that the government looks like it might bypass the Climate Change Commission’s 2050 target review,” Palairet said.
Farming Interests vs. Climate Advocates
The principle of “no added warming” appeals to many farming groups, who see it as a fair approach. They argue that because methane’s atmospheric lifespan is short, reductions in methane emissions have a quicker impact on warming than reductions in carbon dioxide. Farming advocates point out that achieving “no added warming” is equivalent to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere—a requirement that other emitters are not held to.
Conversely, climate advocates, including researchers such as Kristen Green of Kāpiti Climate Insights, warn that such an approach could harm New Zealand’s international reputation and trade relations. In a report for Lawyers for Climate Action, Green criticised the “no added warming” principle as self-serving and warned it could shift the burden of reductions to other nations.
“Switching to a target of ‘no added warming’ would effectively allow New Zealand to maintain its current share of warming from methane into the future,” Green said, arguing that it falls short of the significant reductions needed to align with international goals set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
A Risk to New Zealand’s Global Standing
Green expressed concern that New Zealand’s agricultural export brand could suffer as global corporations like Mars and Danone tighten their climate demands. She warned that reducing methane reduction targets could disrupt important trade deals, including the NZ/EU Free Trade Agreement.
The move to adopt a “no added warming” principle for methane, Green noted, could backfire by damaging the country’s global image and disadvantaging exporters competing in markets with growing environmental standards.
New Zealand would be the first country to adopt a “no added warming” principle for methane, a move Green described as potentially backfiring. “It will harm New Zealand’s brand and disadvantage exporters competing for contracts where climate requirements are part of terms of supply,” she said.
Science or Politics?
The independent science panel’s review, which is limited to assessing the scientific alignment of the “no added warming” principle, has drawn criticism for its narrow focus. Critics argue that the government is bypassing a full examination of whether the target is fair or suitable for New Zealand, raising concerns that political agendas are taking precedence over scientific evidence.
Palairet warned that such an approach could marginalise the Climate Change Commission, which has a legal mandate to propose target adjustments. Early signals from the commission indicate that it is unlikely to support reducing methane targets, with its preliminary document stating that there is “no justification” for such a move.