Climate Justice Taranaki Inc v Taranaki Regional Council

In this case, the Environment Court considered a preliminary question about the relevance of climate change to the assessment of the proposed rules and proposed coastal plan for the Taranaki Region. The relevant proposed rules, Rules 26 to 30, sought to regulate the effects of oil exploration and drilling activities (Proposed Rules). The Court held that s 70A of the RMA prevents the Court from considering (a) the effects of discharges into air of greenhouse gases on climate change (which in the context of the appeal, included the proposed rules); and (b) the effects of any activities incidental to those listed in Rules 26 to 30, insofar as they may have effects on climate change ([37]). Climate Justice Taranaki (CJT) argued that the Taranaki Regional Council (Council) had a responsibility to anticipate the effects of climate change and prepare a resilient plan for the Region. CJT was concerned about the costs of sunset industry and increasing liabilities ([39]). The Environment Court noted Council’s argument that the effects CJT seeks to address are not the effects of climate change, but effects that may result from regulatory responses to climate change which are too remote to be regulated. A further preliminary consideration was to what extent, if any, ocean acidification could be considered, with CJT arguing it is not excluded from consideration by s 70A. However, the Council argued that ocean acidification and climate change are so linked that to seek to reduce ocean acidification by making a rule to reduce CO2 emissions is, in essence, requesting consideration of the effects on climate change ([36]). The Court found that it could not determine as a preliminary matter whether ocean acidification fell within the definition of climate change in the RMA - however it did note that “insofar as ocean acidification is entwined with climate change, it is unhelpful to rely on it as a means of seeking to amend the [Proposed Rules] to address the effects of those activities on climate change. Parliament’s policy is clear. It is for Parliament to regulate the effects of activities on climate change, not this Court” ([43]).