Greater Wellington

Manawatū-Whanganui

Auckland

Southland

Gisborne

Waikato

Nelson

Bay of Plenty

Tasman

Hawke's Bay

West Coast

Northland

Canterbury

Taranaki

Marlborough

Otago

Chatham Islands Territory

New Zealand

aiming to lower the average number of people affected, per 100,000 between 2020-2030 compared with 2005-2015.

aim to lower disaster mortality by average per 100,000 mortality between 2020-2030 compared with 2005-2015.

10% reduction of biogetnic methane by 2030, 24%-47% reduction by 2050

Net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 (except biogenic methane)

Emissions of biogenic methane in a calendar year—(i)are 10% less than 2017 emissions by the calendar year beginning on 1 January 2030; and(ii)are 24% to 47% less than 2017 emissions by the calendar year beginning on 1 January 2050 and for each subsequent calendar year.

Electric vehicles make up 2% of the vehicle fleet by the end of 2021.

Decrease in industrial emissions intensity of at least 1% per annum on average between 2017 and 2022.

In February 2025, the Coastal Ratepayers Union (CRU) filed for a judicial review at the Wellington High Court regarding the Kāpiti Coast District Council’s (KCDC) public-facing information on coastal properties. The CRU alleged that the KCDC’s information on coastal properties, specifically hazard maps and Land Information Memorandums (LIMS), exaggerates climate risks such as sea level rise, floods, and erosion. 

Subsequently, the CRU requested that the council incorporate information from a report it had commissioned independently by retired Waikato University lecturer Willem de Lange into its report.
The CRU contended that Lange’s report provided an alternative assessment of the risks of coastal hazards, which should also be made available to property owners. The KCDC has since agreed to include the CRU’s commissioned report, marking a shift in climate risk warning material.


On June 10, 2025, Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc. and the Environmental Law Initiative filed judicial review proceedings in the High Court of New Zealand against the Minister of Climate Change, challenging the lawfulness of New Zealand’s first and second emissions reduction plans (ERP1 and ERP2) under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (CCRA). The case marks the first legal challenge to emissions reduction plans under the CCRA and, according to the applicants, the first case globally to challenge a government’s heavy reliance on forestry offsets to meet national climate targets.

The applicants claim the Minister acted unlawfully both in failing to maintain the integrity of ERP1 and in adopting ERP2. With respect to ERP1 (2021–2025), they argue that after the 2023 change in government, key policies were cancelled or postponed without timely amendment of the plan or adequate consultation, violating the statutory requirement that the plan remain current and consistent. The applicants also argue that the December 2024 amendments to ERP1 were procedurally improper, lacking meaningful consultation and resulting in an incoherent plan split across multiple documents, contrary to the CCRA’s objectives of policy clarity and predictability.

The second limb of the challenge concerns ERP2, covering the 2026–2030 budget period and published in December 2024. The applicants contend that ERP2 fails to meet the legal requirements of section 5ZG of the CCRA because it does not set out a coherent and credible plan of policies and strategies likely to meet the emissions budget. They highlight that 95% of the projected emissions reductions are attributed not to ERP2-specific policies but to pre-existing trends assumed in baseline modelling. ERP2 also relies heavily on forestry offsets, based on the “offset equivalence assumption” that removals via exotic afforestation are fungible with reductions in gross emissions at source. The applicants argue this assumption constitutes a fundamental error of fact and is inconsistent with the best available climate science and New Zealand’s obligations under the Paris Agreement.

They further allege that ERP2’s reliance on an “adaptive management approach” is an inadequate risk management strategy, lacking specific measures to be implemented if the plan veers off track. The applicants cite advice from the Climate Change Commission and government officials warning that reliance on offsets and the ETS alone is insufficient and risky, particularly given the climate vulnerability of forests and the time lag associated with implementing new policies.

The claimants seek a series of declarations, including that ERP1 and ERP2 are unlawful, that the Minister failed to comply with legal consultation and procedural requirements, and that ERP2 should be quashed and remade in accordance with the Act. They also seek clarification from the Court on the proper interpretation of the Minister’s legal duties when developing and amending emissions reduction plans.

As of August 2025, the High Court has not yet set a hearing date.

On October 10, 2024, journalist and author Ian Wishart filed a complaint against Radio New Zealand (RNZ) before the New Zealand Media Council, a self-regulatory body funded by the media industry. Wishart alleged that five RNZ news items contained factual inaccuracies and therefore breached Principles (1) (accuracy, fairness, and balance) and (6) (headlines and captions) of the Council’s code. He also claimed that RNZ’s subsequent corrections were insufficient under Principle (12) (corrections).

The disputed stories related to the heavy rainfall and flooding in Dunedin in October 2024, which RNZ described as the city’s “wettest day in a century.” Wishart argued that this statement was inaccurate, as it did not take into account data from all weather stations across Dunedin. The articles linked the extreme weather to the broader context of climate change, emphasizing the increasing frequency and severity of such events in New Zealand. Wishart suggested that the inaccuracy could distort public understanding of climate trends and undermine the integrity of climate-related reporting.

In its ruling of February 7, 2025, the Media Council dismissed the complaint. It found that the error was minor, that the consequences were not significant, and that RNZ had sufficiently corrected its reporting. The Council noted that the inaccuracy occurred during a civil defence emergency when RNZ reasonably relied on information from an official agency. Importantly, it concluded that there was no evidence of systemic bias or deliberate distortion in RNZ’s climate-related coverage.

While the case raised questions about the standards of accuracy in media reporting on extreme weather events, the Council underscored the importance of contextual accuracy and responsible sourcing during emergencies. It implicitly recognized that climate-related reporting involves complex and evolving scientific data but reaffirmed that minor statistical discrepancies do not necessarily amount to breaches of journalistic principles.

Matt Greene filed a complaint to the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority against Television New Zealand (TVNZ) about a segment of 1News broadcast on July 9, 2024, on TVNZ 1. The report at issue reported on extreme weather events in the United States, including a "long-running heatwave" in many parts of the country, wildfires, storms, and floods. Greene alleged that TVNZ's failure to state the events as being directly caused by the climate crisis cannot be justified, because climate change is a pressing issue that necessitates “urgent and bold action” and “explicit links to all extreme weather events.” For this reason, Greeene alleged that TVNZ breached the accuracy standard under the 2022 Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand.

The Authority, led by Susie Staley, decided not to uphold the complaint on September 25, 2024. Under the codebook, the accuracy standard requires broadcasters to make reasonable efforts to ensure factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and does not materially mislead. On whether the content is misleading, the Authority held that "[i]t is possible for programmes to be misleading by omission." Explaining that "[t]he accuracy standard is . . . concerned only with material inaccuracies," the Authority found that "[n]ot mentioning climate change did not give a wrong idea or impression of the events depicted," considering the specific content of the report. The Authority also clarified that, based on the right to freedom of expression, they will only intervene and uphold a complaint when the broadcast has caused actual or potential harm. Finding that reporting on extreme weather events is of significant public interest regardless of whether the climate crisis is expressly cited, the Authority stated that it will not intervene "unless the broadcast created a risk of serious harm," which was not found in the current case.

Geography

New Zealand

Recent cases