By Robert McLachlan

As 2025 winds to a close, I am writing from the Rodney district north of Auckland – Rodney being famous as the home of the Rodney & Otamatea Times which published this banger in 1912. (Andy Revkin of the New York Times brought it to wide attention in 2016.)

The 1912 article had been rediscovered a few years earlier thanks to “Papers Past”, a project of the National Library of New Zealand to scan old newspapers, that began in 2001 and continues to this day. As for the Rodney Times, founded in 1901, it ceased publication in July this year, along with many other New Zealand community newspapers.

The “coal consumption” story itself is a caption from an article by Frances Molina in the March 1912 issue of Popular Mechanics, a model popular science article of the day. It concludes with a reflective passage that could stand today:

This rapid publication of worldwide science news was possible because New Zealand had been connected to the rest of the world by undersea telegraph cable in 1876. Other science news on 14 August 1912: the world’s deepest bore dug in Silesia at 7348 ft; nickel kitchen implements; how camphor is made; a skipping machine which turns the rope and counts your skips (I can see that being a winner today); a Swiss proposal to build a tunnel linking the Black and Caspian Seas (an idea that reappeared in 2025); and (this one is real genius) a way of preventing buckets of water spilling on trains, namely a wooden lid.

I dabble a little in social media and, in my experience at least, what fires engagement is not outrage but good news, like New Zealand showing a possibly record-breaking run of days with zero coal- or gas-fired electricity:

Or this one, which also went off, showing super-exponential growth of solar power in New Zealand:

But posts showing bad news tend to do poorly:

However, that last graph is perhaps the most important, for today is the last day of the first emissions budget period, which ran from 2022 to 2025. The system of emissions budgets was set up by the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019, which unleashed a wave of low-carbon investment across the country. Even Fonterra, which only a couple of years earlier was still obscuring their role as the country’s largest coal burner, began to change. Officially, thanks to some dodgy accounting, we are on track to meet the first budget, although the final reckoning (including agriculture and forests) will not be in for another year.

We do, however, have nearly complete data for energy emissions. These show a dramatic change after the Zero Carbon Act changes had time to kick in:

2018-19	60.9 Mt CO2	2% below 2007 peak
2020-21	59.5 Mt CO2	–2%
2022-23	54.0 Mt CO2	–9% (!!!)
2024-25	53.9 Mt CO2	no change; progress halted

The progress in 2022-23, the first half the budget period, is impressive. (However, 1/3 of the reduction was due to the closure of the Marsden Point oil refinery, which shouldn’t count as the emissions were shifted offshore.) Progress appears to have halted in the second half, and although climate action hasn’t completely halted, the constant barrage of anti-climate action and rhetoric from the government is having an effect.

Which brings me to my point. Top-10 lists are a year-end classic. But in this case it seems more appropriate to nominate the…

Government’s bottom 10 climate actions of 2025

And how hard it is to choose. I’ll start by ruling out things that are merely said, like Shane Jones’s comment on anti-coal protesters that “The high tide mark of this unicorn kissing green drivel is over,” or two out of three Government coalition partners proposing to leave the Paris Agreement. It’s hard to draw the line, though, as words have an effect too – like the Climate Change Minister telling Federated Farmers that we have no legal obligation or liability to meet the Paris targets. I’m looking at real actions that will likely lead to the most actual damage, either direct (by increasing pollution) or indirect (by fostering division). (A few sins of omission will also crop up.)

10. ETS failure. The Government may say the ETS is its main tool to control emissions, but the market says otherwise – the price of carbon credits has dropped from a high of $87 in September 2022 to $37 now. Each Government announcement seems to result in a slump: doubling the free allocation to Reio Tinto, rejecting advice to review free allocations, uncoupling the ETS from the Paris target, cutting the number of companies that must report their emissions by 55%. Since 2012, none of the 12 ETS auctions have cleared completely; 2 have partially cleared.

9. No action on aviation emissions. The First Emissions Reduction Plan included an item to prepare a plan to decarbonise domestic aviation. (While other actions were repeated, this one was not.) There has been no work on this. Instead, the group Sustainable Action Aotearoa (set up by the ERP) has been sidelined and their work on updating our State Action Plan for the International Civil Aviation Organisation stopped.

8. The Carbon Neutral Public Sector got the chop. This one is a repeat, as National already chopped it once before, in 2009.

7. No Energy Plan. In ERP1, we were promised a comprehensive Energy Plan by December 2024. There is no sign of it yet, only some brief, piecemeal documents and a series of anti-climate energy initiatives. (LNG terminal, anyone?)

6. Offshore oil & gas exploration to be restarted, with a $200 million public sweetener and going gentler on the industry’s clean-up requirements.

5. Overseas climate financing, largely to the Pacific, which was $450 million in 2024, was cut to $100 million.

4. An end to bipartisanship. In major changes announced for the formerly bipartisan Zero Carbon Act, the Climate Change Commission will no longer provide advice on Emissions Reduction Plans, and the Government will be able to amend Plans at any time without consultation. Between the loss of bipartisanship and the erosion of the system of checks, balances, and communication between the Commission, Government, and public, the Act is under threat.

3. Clean Vehicle Standard gutted. This one is close to my heart as I have been following this story at least since the incoming John Key government killed fuel economy standards for the first time, in 2009. We all know how the feebate was boosted into a fake culture war, and how the Standards themselves were then drastically weakened for future years. Now the penalties that car importers must pay for not meeting the standards have themselves been cut by 80% for 2026 & 2027 – the same method used by Donald Trump to get rid of US standards. The move was supported by patsy modelling from the Ministry, which claimed the move would have almost no effect on emissions. The industry had taken no action at all to try and meet the targets, instead seeing a way forward through lobbying. It appears that any pro-climate faction within the industry bodies has been defeated, and the hand of the industry to dictate its own regulations strengthened. The extra costs in fuel and climate damage run to many hundreds of millions of dollars. EV sales, which fell 70% in 2024, are stagnant, and road transport emissions (which fell after Covid, partly as a result of working from home) are tracking up again.

2. No action on CO2 target. The Climate Commission advised the Government to strengthen the 2050 CO2 target to net –20 MtCO2 per year, including international aviation and shipping. All advice was rejected.

And the very bottom Government climate action of 2025 is…

1. 2050 target weakened. The Zero Carbon Act was amended under urgency with no public input – even the public gallery was closed – to weaken the 2050 methane target under a spurious “no additional warming” excuse. As Christina Hood has written, this increases our total emissions by the equivalent of 500 years of operation of the Huntly power station and takes our 2050 target nearly back to 2011 levels of ambition.

Look at that, out of numbers already! I didn’t even have time to discuss the ongoing saga over the lip service paid to our 2030 Paris Agreement target, or over our new 2035 target which fails on multiple levels.

I may be writing from Rodney, but I live in Manawatū, where our property has just suffered its most catastrophic wind damage in at least three decades. Quoted in the Otago Daily Times about the catastrophic wind storm that swept Southland and South Otago on 23 October, Dr Nathan Melia said that weather and climate models struggle to predict such events, but that “studies of European wind storms indicate that climate change will increase the frequency of strong jets.”

I’m sorry I don’t have more good news for you to round out 2025. I will leave the last work to James Renwick, quoted in the above ODT article:

Asked if he can think of anything positive New Zealand is doing about climate change, anything to feel proud of, Victoria University of Wellington climate scientist Prof James Renwick looks bemused.

“As a former climate change commissioner, and an academic in the field, I can’t really.

“We were doing some great things a few years ago, but the current government has pulled back on the good things the previous government set up. And now they’re gradually undermining the commission and the Zero Carbon Act, and the agriculture sector is getting an absolute free ride. But they’re spending, what, $50 billion on new roads?”

Robert McLachlan, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

Following a brief dip during the COVID pandemic, aviation is back in a growth phase.

Globally, passenger traffic is projected to grow by 3.8% annually over the next 20 years. In New Zealand, this optimism is reflected in Jetstar’s expansion plans for its domestic and trans-Tasman services and Auckland Airport’s airfield extension.

The government has welcomed the trend and sees the aviation and tourism industries as key drivers of economic growth.

But climate impacts of flying are rarely mentioned, even though the government is currently considering whether or not to include emissions from international aviation and shipping in New Zealand’s net zero 2050 target, as recommended by the Climate Change Commission.

Emissions from New Zealand’s international aviation and shipping are equivalent to about 9% of the country’s net domestic emissions. Without action to reduce emissions from these sectors, they could grow to a third of domestic net emissions by 2050, according to the commission.

Climate Change Minister Simon Watts is expected to announce a decision next month.

New Zealand’s action plan for aviation

In September, the newly established Interim Aviation Council released an aviation action plan. It covers regulation, innovation, economic growth and emissions.

The plan’s ambition is that New Zealand will be:

reducing the use of fossil fuels and transitioning to clean energy, in line with New Zealand’s target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

In a new report, we have analysed the plan in the context of New Zealand’s international commitments.

First, let’s backtrack to 2021 and New Zealand’s first emissions reduction plan. That also included work to decarbonise aviation by setting specific targets, implementing a sustainable aviation fuel mandate and establishing a public-private leadership body.

That body, Sustainable Aviation Aotearoa (SAA), was set up in 2022. But there is no word yet on the targets or mandate. The SAA has never published any minutes, work plans, calls for evidence or advice.

Its initial balance of public and private membership became skewed in favour of industry, with more airlines and oil companies (Airbus, Boeing, Exxon Mobil, British Petroleum, Z Energy, and Channel Infrastructure) joining the group than organisations representing the environment.

Of 49 members, only three (one from the Climate Change Commission and two from the Ministry for the Environment) have an environmental focus.

New Zealand’s second emissions reduction plan, published last year, mentions aviation emissions only briefly, commenting that:

the government’s role is to facilitate industry discussions through existing forums, consider regulatory barriers and ensure New Zealand’s interests are represented on the international stage.

That statement is incorrect. The government’s role, as specified in the Climate Change Response Act, is to prepare sector-specific policies to reduce emissions. But the Climate Change Commission has reviewed these policies and found them to be inadequate – it found virtually all policy-driven goals to cut emissions were at risk of not being achieved.

Global goal for net-zero flying

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has a goal of net-zero international aviation emissions by 2050. A key task for New Zealand, one of 193 member nations, is to determine how we should implement this.

International aviation is currently a large, unregulated source of emissions. In 2024, just the first outgoing legs of flights from New Zealand emitted 3.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, equivalent to 12% of all domestic emissions from fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) combined.

States have committed to mapping out plans to cut aviation emissions and submit them to ICAO. New Zealand’s plan was already overdue in 2022. Although it appears the SAA has done some work on this, no plan has been submitted yet.

Plans from other countries, including the United Kingdom, give some idea of the challenge. They describe a mixture of low-carbon fuels, efficiency gains and offsetting – but add these won’t get us all the way.

Additional measures such as carbon removal and demand management will be required. The UK’s sustainable aviation fuel mandate began this year and will strengthen every year, with airlines facing penalties of about NZ$11 per litre for missing targets.

As the UK’s action plan notes:

Most options for aviation decarbonisation rely on new technology, the development and uptake of which is extremely uncertain, owing to the uncertain nature of technology readiness and cost of technology over time.

This is not the government’s task alone

Aviation is part of a wider system. Passengers, tourism operators, airports, airlines, fuel companies and the government all share responsibility for the sector’s requirement to cut emissions.

Failure to deliver can lead to a loss of trust and impede progress. The tourism industry is crucial for New Zealand, and it is notable that the Tourism Industry Association supports the entry of international aviation into emission targets.

It appears Sustainable Aviation Aotearoa has not achieved its core purpose to “provide advice and coordination to accelerate the decarbonisation” of New Zealand’s aviation sector.

The Interim Aviation Council may be heading the same way. It has no environmental representation and assigns no actions to the Ministry for the Environment. Nor does it mention the regulation of emissions, which is the only way to simultaneously achieve environmental goals and lower uncertainty for investors.

As the permanent council is formed, it should operate openly and balance state, industry and public interests.

---

The author acknowledges the contribution by Paul Callister.

---

Robert McLachlan, Professor in Applied Mathematics, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

By Robert McLachlan

It’s now official. Last year was the warmest year on record globally and the first to exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This doesn’t mean it’s too late to rein in further warming, but the ambition required rises with each delay in action.

New Zealand is no exception. Current climate policies are no longer a sufficient contribution to the global effort to keep warming at 1.5°C, according to the Climate Change Commission’s first review of the country’s 2050 climate target.

New Zealand’s current 2050 target has two components. Methane emissions from livestock must be cut by 24% to 47% below 2017 levels and emissions of all other greenhouse gases must reach net zero. But the commission has made three main recommendations to raise ambition:

• a net negative target for emissions of long-lived gases (carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) by removing 20 million tonnes more from the atmosphere than is released each year
• a higher target range for biogenic methane emissions to reach at least 35% to 47% below 2017 levels
• and the inclusion of emissions from international shipping and aviation.

The commission says these changes would bring New Zealand closer to “net zero for all gases”, in line with what is needed to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.

The 2050 target review was the last effort for the commission’s outgoing founding chair, Rod Carr, who has become a significant voice for climate action. In his closing words to parliament, he said:

Those who continue to promote the combustion of fossil fuels in the open air without permanent carbon capture and storage are, in my view, committing a crime against humanity.

New Zealand lags behind other countries

The 2050 target is a critical component of New Zealand’s climate response. Under the 2019 Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act, the commission is charged with reviewing the 2050 target every five years.

The threshold for recommending a change is high. The commission must consider nine key areas and find “significant” developments that justify recommending a different target.

It found three significant changes occurred since the current target was set in 2019.

1. Global action is ahead of New Zealand

While other countries’ current policies, pledges or targets are not sufficient to keep temperature rise at 1.5°C, many countries now have more ambitious targets than New Zealand.

Australia, Japan, US, Canada, EU and Ireland all adopted full net-zero targets in 2021. Finland and Germany have or are considering net negative targets. Among countries with high biogenic methane emissions, several now have full net-zero targets.

2. Scientific understanding of climate change has changed

Climate impacts are appearing sooner and with more severity than the scientific community understood when the target was set in 2019.

3. The burden shifts to future generations

The increased risks and impacts of climate change have implications for inter-generational equity. Delaying action shifts costs and risks to future generations.

The commission’s report also explores New Zealand’s reliance on large-scale commercial exotic afforestation to meet its climate targets. This is one reason why Climate Action Tracker rates New Zealand’s response as highly insufficient and commensurate with a 4°C world.

Carbon in trees is part of the biosphere and will never be stored as permanently as fossil carbon. To take a case in point, Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023 (made worse by climate change) damaged forests, farms and infrastructure, and removed the social licence for forestry in the region.

How the recommended target was set

The commission’s work is tightly prescribed by law. It looked at four possible ways of sharing the global 1.5°C task: equal per capita emissions, national capacity, responsibility for historic warming and the right of all peoples to sustainable development.

New Zealand’s current target does not meet any of these standards, but the commission says the new target would at least meet the “national capacity” criterion and would be feasible and acceptable. However, it would still see New Zealand contributing two to three times its share of global warming this century.

The commission’s assessment is independent of any global warming metrics such as GWP100 (currently the UN standard). Instead, the commission computed New Zealand’s historical and future contribution to temperature rise directly. Both commonly used historical baselines, 1850 and 1990, yield similar results.

New Zealand’s government is currently particularly at odds with the commission’s recommendation on biogenic methane. It appointed a separate advisory panel last year which put forward a target consistent with causing “no additional warming” to the planet from agricultural methane emissions.

---

---

But the commission rejects this idea, finding that unless the rest of New Zealand’s target were to be strengthened significantly, this would not be consistent with the Paris Agreement or the country’s own climate law.

International aviation and shipping emissions

In a quirk of climate diplomacy, international aviation and shipping emissions were excluded from the original 2050 target. But as the commission points out, they most definitely contribute to global warming and are covered by the temperature target of the Paris Agreement.

Other countries are moving in these areas and the International Civil Aviation and maritime organisations have net zero 2050 goals in place. Air New Zealand and the global shipping giant Maersk both support including these emissions in the 2050 target, which the commission finds to be achievable under multiple different pathways.

New Zealand’s dependence on shipping and air transport is a challenge. The commission puts the combined emissions from these sectors at 6.7 megatonnes – 20% of total CO₂ emissions and close to all industrial or all passenger car emissions. The aviation industry in particular is planning for growth, which, unless addressed, will blow the 1.5°C carbon budget both for New Zealand and globally.

Drawing on “net zero pathways” prepared by the international aviation and shipping industries, the commission finds that including these sources in New Zealand’s revised 2050 target would be achievable. The sectors would not necessarily have to enter the Emissions Trading Scheme, but the status quo (under which these sectors do not attract GST, fuel tax or a carbon charge) is inequitable with other sources of economic activity.

---

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The author acknowledges the assistance and contribution of Paul Callister.