New Zealand’s government plans to amend its climate law to prevent liability from climate change damages, a move that critics argue would protect polluters and undermine the rule of law. This follows similar legislation in the U.S. by Republican lawmakers.
A government announcement on May 12 detailed plans to update New Zealand’s Climate Change Response Act to block liability claims related to flooding, wildfires, storms, drought, and sea level rise caused by emissions. This amendment would halt both current and future lawsuits, including a significant case against major polluters set for trial next year.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith cited the case Smith v. Fonterra as a reason for the legislative change, stating it is creating business uncertainty. He emphasized the need for legal certainty to protect businesses and boost economic growth.
Climate advocates criticized the move. Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Gen Toop called it a “shocking abuse of executive power.” Lawyers for Climate Action stated it prioritizes major emitters over affected communities.
The liability shield was previously proposed but stalled in Parliament. The current proposal, however, is expected to progress quickly, though no bill has been introduced yet. Laura MacKay of Lawyers for Climate Action indicated the proposal is likely to pass.
New Zealand’s upcoming November election could impact the current government, the most conservative in decades. Critics claim the liability shield is being expedited before the election, specifically in response to the Smith v. Fonterra case.
Smith is pursuing a lawsuit against major agricultural and energy firms for emissions-related climate damage. The trial is scheduled for April 2027 but would be blocked if the proposal is enacted. Legal expert Sam Bookman remarked on the unprecedented procedural progress of this case.
Some companies, like Genesis Energy, assert that New Zealand’s Climate Change Response Act should be the primary mechanism for addressing climate change, not litigation. Other defendants have not publicly addressed lobbying efforts related to the legislation.
Legal experts Bjørn-Oliver Magsig and Graeme Austin argue courts are crucial in tackling complex issues like climate change, as they operate independently and assess conduct against legal standards. They suggest the liability shield is part of a broader rollback of climate policies by the current government.
More than 100 academics and civil society leaders, including Magsig and Austin, signed an open letter urging reconsideration of the decision, asserting its contradiction to New Zealand’s climate goals.
The government’s position appears at odds with the International Court of Justice’s opinion on countries’ obligations to curb emissions. Similar legislative efforts are underway in the U.S., with states like Utah and lawmakers proposing federal bills to shield industries from climate liability.
The American Petroleum Institute has lobbied against liability for the oil and gas industry. Iyla Shornstein from the Center for Climate Integrity noted the urgency for the fossil fuel industry amid ongoing climate lawsuits.
Original Story at insideclimatenews.org