Climate

The problem

Gross emissions fell about 2.3% a year from 2019 but almost stalled in 2024, when a dry year meant more coal-fired power. The Climate Change Commission’s 2026 report found the first budget (2022–2025) likely to be met with 7.7 million tonnes to spare, but 12.4 million tonnes of planned reductions in the second budget are at significant risk. The 2030 methane target of a 10% cut is projected to reach 7.9%. Forestry is expected to deliver almost half the reductions in the third budget. Experts told RNZ in December 2025 it would be impossible to meet the Paris target without buying offshore carbon credits.

What has been done

Agricultural emissions pricing was removed. The 2050 methane target was lowered to a 14–24% cut and rushed through Parliament under urgency (Newsroom, December 2025). The Government sought alternative advice to the Climate Change Commission’s (Newsroom, April 2024: “Govt sidelines Climate Commission in seeking do-over of advice”) and later rejected its target recommendations. As the Commission’s 2026 report was released, the Prime Minister said New Zealand was “on track for net zero” (RNZ, 23 July 2026); Newsroom’s headline the same day was “NZ increasingly off-track for climate targets”.

What we still don’t know

Who pays for the Paris shortfall, and how much. The Finance Minister said the Government would not be “sending billions overseas” (Stuff, 3 December 2025); Treasury changed its advice on offsets the next day. The Herald’s verdict in January 2026: “It doesn’t matter who wins the election, New Zealand won’t hit its first Paris target.” The size of that bill appeared in only a handful of headlines. Emissions coverage itself shrank, from 1.2% of political headlines in 2023 to 0.6% in 2026. Of 1,431 headlines on emissions and climate policy in our climate review, 442 named a politician or party and 29 reported a measured result.

Solutions, and how to tell if they work

On the table: rely on forestry and new farm technology (National); price agricultural emissions (Greens, Te Pāti Māori, with The Opportunity Party exploring a methane levy); or remove the targets altogether (ACT, NZ First). The test: gross emissions by sector each year against the budgets, the methane trajectory, and the size and cost of any Paris shortfall, reported together.

The problem

Falling gas supply and dry years push the electricity system back onto coal. BusinessDesk reported in June 2024 that the gas decline had increased coal-fired generation by 99%. The Commission now rates electricity at significant risk and warns imported LNG could raise emissions. In 2026 the Strait of Hormuz crisis sent fuel prices “almost vertical” (Newsroom, May 2026), showing how exposed the country remains to imported fossil fuels.

What has been done

The offshore oil and gas exploration ban was repealed. An LNG import plan was advanced. The Clean Car Discount was scrapped (NBR, December 2023), road user charges were applied to EVs, and new EV sales fell to a three-year low (Stuff, February 2024). The clean car standard was eased. At the same time, large solar farms were built and several wind and solar projects were placed on the fast-track list. Energy transition coverage grew from 0.9% of headlines in 2024 to 1.3% in 2026.

What we still don’t know

Whether imported gas is a bridge or a lock-in, and what it adds to emissions. Across 2,324 energy headlines, 32% mentioned price, cost or supply and 3% mentioned emissions or climate. Of 119 headlines on LNG, two mentioned emissions.

Solutions, and how to tell if they work

On the table: LNG imports and renewed exploration (National, NZ First); cancel LNG, reinstate the exploration ban and subsidise household solar (Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori); 30 gigawatts of renewable capacity by 2050 (The Opportunity Party). The test: renewable share of electricity in dry years, coal burned for power, and household power prices.

The problem

Cyclone Gabrielle, the Auckland, Wairoa, Dunedin and Nelson floods, and the Mt Maunganui landslide in January 2026 brought repeated losses of homes, land and infrastructure, and in Gabrielle and at Mt Maunganui, loss of life. Our Environment 2025 reports that extreme weather is becoming more frequent and severe. About 97% of government natural-hazard spending since 2010 has gone on response and recovery.

What has been done

Recovery packages, buyouts and inquiries after each event. Coverage followed the same rhythm. Over three years, climate headlines about damage and recovery outnumbered those about adaptation and resilience 460 to 124. In January 2026, the month of the Mt Maunganui slip, the ratio was 75 to 1. Extreme-weather headlines were more than twice as likely as the average political headline to use an alarm frame (14% against 6%).

What we still don’t know

What the cumulative damage costs the economy, and whether each recovery restored the old risk or reduced it. Coverage rarely followed the event back to the decisions that created the exposure, or forward to what changed.

Solutions, and how to tell if they work

On the table: event-by-event recovery with a smaller Crown role (National); regional flood-protection funding (NZ First); nature-based flood buffers (Greens). The test: the share of hazard spending that goes on reducing risk rather than repairing damage, tracked each year from today’s 3%.

The problem

More than 10,000 properties could become uninsurable as climate risks grow (RNZ, November 2024), insurers are pricing risk in or pulling back, and councils hold the planning duty without a settled source of money. The Commission’s risk assessment names pressure on central and local government finances as one of the country’s most significant climate risks.

What has been done

New Zealand’s first national adaptation framework was released in October 2025, setting out roles but leaving “who pays” unanswered (Newsroom, October 2025). The Climate Change Minister said the “assumption of buyouts after disasters ends now” (Newsroom, October 2025). Councillors responded “No more buyouts”, telling the Government to sort out a flood insurance scheme (The Post, July 2026). The Insurance Council called for “urgency” on funding (RNZ, April 2026).

What we still don’t know

The funding formula. Journalists asked who pays in every year of the record; no answer arrived. Of 188 local-government climate headlines in our climate review, 137 placed responsibility on councils or ratepayers. Meanwhile a proposed rates cap “could put buses, trains and flood protection at risk” (The Post, August 2026), and the election is likely to delay the adaptation plan further (NBR, July 2026).

Solutions, and how to tell if they work

On the table: a market-led approach with fewer Crown buyouts (National); an Adaptation Act and a ban on building in the highest-risk places (Labour); stop building in harm’s way, managed retreat and insurance partnerships (The Opportunity Party); a dedicated climate fund (Greens); a Māori adaptation fund and Crown–iwi planning (Te Pāti Māori). The test: homes in high-risk zones, insurance availability by region, and a published cost-sharing rule agreed before the next disaster.

The problem

Most native species are in trouble: 94% of reptiles, 93% of frogs, 78% of land birds and 76% of freshwater fish are threatened or at risk (Our Environment 2025). Stuff reported in August 2026 that just 326 hoiho remain. Cameras on boats revealed the second-highest Hector’s dolphin bycatch in a decade (Newsroom, May 2026). H5N1 bird flu reached New Zealand in July 2026, and a DOC threat list warned it could wipe out more than a third of endangered native bird species (The Post, August 2026).

What has been done

Mixed. Significant natural area rules were suspended for three years (March 2024), and a sea lion death limit was scrapped despite a declining population (Newshub, April 2024). Then an emergency set-net ban for hoiho (September 2025) became permanent protection (The Post, July 2026). A new biodiversity strategy arrived in April 2026, and critically endangered birds were vaccinated against bird flu.

What we still don’t know

Whether any species’ trend is improving. Threatened species appeared in 165 headlines, about one in 535, and fewer than a dozen used the word extinction in its literal sense. Of 87 bird-flu headlines, more concerned poultry and eggs (24) than native wildlife (14). Only seven headlines in the whole record linked climate change to its effects on native species or ecosystems.

Solutions, and how to tell if they work

On the table: species-by-species intervention and private funding (National’s biodiversity strategy); a biodiversity credit scheme (Greens); stronger marine protection (Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori, The Opportunity Party). The test: changes in national threat status every assessment round, population counts for flagship species, and bycatch from camera footage made public.

The problem

Introduced predators remain the main killer of native birds. DOC warned that rat numbers could double by 2090 as it sought $150 million in extra revenue (RNZ, December 2025). Wilding pines reached a “tipping point” in Southland (RNZ, August 2025), and invasive gold clams exploded in the Waikato River (The Post, June 2026).

What has been done

A key part of Predator Free 2050 was culled (TVNZ, May 2025), and Predator Free Wellington faced a $1.75 million annual shortfall. The Prime Minister’s 2023 promise to add feral cats to the programme had not been kept by November 2025 (RNZ). Funding for wilding pine control was doubled in Budget 2026.

What we still don’t know

Whether Predator Free 2050 is still a real target. It appeared in eight headlines in more than three years.

Solutions, and how to tell if they work

On the table: continue Predator Free 2050 and coordinated wilding and browser control (Labour); hand game animals on conservation land to hunters (ACT). The test: hectares under sustained predator control, pest density in monitored forests, and the area of wilding spread contained each year.

The problem

DOC’s workforce is shrinking. It proposed 130 job cuts in April 2024 and 84 more in May 2025, and faced a 30% funding shortfall for huts and tracks (RNZ, February 2025).

What has been done

The Conservation Amendment Bill proposed easier sale and exchange of conservation land. After maps showed where land could be sold and a poll found two-thirds of voters opposed (RNZ, June 2026), the Conservation Minister dropped those clauses: “That’s on me” (Newsroom, June 2026). The bill still requires DOC to enable economic opportunities on conservation land, and Ngāi Tahu is suing over the reforms. Of the international visitor levy increase, the Government kept the bigger share for itself (Herald, June 2025).

What we still don’t know

What the economic purpose will mean in practice for mining, concessions and stewardship land, and whether money raised from conservation land goes back into conservation. NZ First is campaigning to open conservation land to economic development, including mining outside national parks.

Solutions, and how to tell if they work

On the table: keep the economic purpose (National, NZ First, ACT); remove it and ban new mines on conservation land (Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori). The test: DOC funding per hectare, the area of land whose protection changes, and the share of concession and levy revenue reinvested in conservation.

The problem

Our Environment 2025 found almost half of lakes in poor health, about 45% of river length modelled as unsafe for swimming, and 12% of groundwater monitoring sites failing the nitrate standard at least once. Environment Canterbury declared a “nitrate emergency” over drinking water (September 2025).

What has been done

Freshwater rules were rewritten and Te Mana o te Wai, the principle that water’s health comes first, is being replaced. Critics called the changes “written with, and for polluters” (The Post, June 2025). The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment found “no coherent strategy behind freshwater tinkering” (July 2025).

What we still don’t know

What standard rivers and drinking water will be held to under the new planning laws, and who pays for treatment when nitrate levels rise. Freshwater headlines were among the most negative in the nature record (35% negative against 21% for all headlines).

Solutions, and how to tell if they work

On the table: replace Te Mana o te Wai (National, ACT, NZ First); reinstate it (Greens, Te Pāti Māori, The Opportunity Party); improve water quality and respond to the nitrates review (Labour); phase out synthetic nitrogen fertiliser (Greens). The test: nitrate trends at monitored sites, swimmable river length, and drinking-water compliance in rural supplies.

The problem

Marine heatwaves are becoming more frequent, more marine mammal species are declining than increasing, and 82 of 90 native seabird species are threatened or at risk (Our Environment 2025). Shellfish harvesting bans in parts of the Hauraki Gulf were extended to 2028.

What has been done

Hauraki Gulf protection passed with commercial fishing allowed in some protected zones, although the Conservation Minister had been advised against it (Herald, November 2024). The rollout of cameras on fishing boats was reviewed, then resumed “with a catch” (Newsroom, September 2024). The Fisheries Amendment Bill would restrict public access to camera footage. Plans to confine bottom trawling in the Gulf were scrapped, and seabed mining off Taranaki entered the fast-track process. In the campaign, National proposed new marine reserves and a ban on commercial fishing in the Gulf’s protected areas.

What we still don’t know

The condition of fish stocks and seafloor habitat, and what camera footage shows across the fleet. Ocean coverage was the most political in the nature record: 29% of headlines named a politician or party.

Solutions, and how to tell if they work

On the table: review Gulf trawling rules and add reserves (National); a Gulf fisheries management area (ACT); ban Gulf bottom trawling and move toward 30% protection (Labour, Greens); phase out bottom trawling to a timetable (The Opportunity Party, which made it a bottom line); ban seabed mining (Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori, The Opportunity Party). The test: the share of ocean protected, bycatch reported from cameras, and independent stock assessments.

The problem

New Zealand needs new roads, homes, power lines and renewable energy, and consenting was slow and costly. The question is what is traded away to speed it up, and who decides.

What has been done

The Fast-track Approvals Act listed 149 projects, including gold and coal mines and seabed mining. The Auditor-General investigated ministers’ conflicts of interest (The Post, November 2024). The Resource Management Act is being replaced by two new laws, and a minerals strategy aims to grow exports, including coal and gold. Mining, fast-track and planning law became the largest single nature story, rising from 0.4% of all headlines in 2023 to about 2% from 2024.

What we still don’t know

What the environment gets in return. Coverage argued about process: lists, conflicts, consents and court challenges. Only 7% of these headlines mentioned jobs or economic return, and 10% mentioned environmental harm or protest. The effects of approved projects on rivers, wetlands and species were rarely reported.

Solutions, and how to tell if they work

On the table: keep fast-track and expand mining (National, ACT, NZ First); fix fast-track so environmental protection and public participation are central (Labour); repeal it and revoke mining consents (Greens, Te Pāti Māori). The test: approvals granted and declined, the conditions attached, and independent monitoring of environmental effects after consent.

Pros

The first emissions budget is likely to be met. It has stayed in the Paris Agreement, and the Prime Minister has made the economic case for remaining. The adaptation framework begins to settle roles. It listened on conservation land sales, and has promised to reverse its own carve-out for commercial fishing in the Gulf’s protected areas. Wilding pine funding was doubled, and its fast-track list includes renewable energy projects.

Cons

The Climate Change Commission found the second budget at significant risk, the methane target likely to be missed, and current plans insufficient for 2050; it judged that LNG imports, removing farm pricing and weakening the clean vehicle standard outweigh recent measures. The Paris shortfall has no stated plan or price. The adaptation framework left the funding question open while 97% of hazard spending still goes on clean-up. Fast-track, the significant natural area pause and the economic clause in conservation law trade protection for development, which test 5 asks parties to avoid.

Pros

It speaks directly to the gaps in adaptation (tests 1 and 3): an Adaptation Act and a rule against building in harm’s way address the “who pays” question at the planning stage. Its ocean and conservation commitments are specific. The solar policy is costed at the household level.

Cons

It has stepped away from pricing agricultural emissions, the largest source of the methane gap, and the ETS “review” has no stated design. Most environmental commitments are uncosted. It voted against a 2023 bill to ban seabed mining and now supports a ban. In government it promised no new mines on conservation land and did not deliver (“A lost legacy: How Labour failed to kill mining on conservation land”, The Post, May 2024).

Pros

It is explicit about who pays now (test 3): returning carbon revenue protects household budgets, and its concern about carbon leakage, where closures move production offshore without cutting global emissions, is a real risk. Its fisheries plan contains specific, measurable measures.

Cons

Removing the target and the Climate Change Commission removes the independent check that test 6 asks for. No cost of inaction is set out (test 4), and adaptation is not addressed. Its leader has said some conservation land “should probably be available for someone else to buy and use”.

Pros

It treats flood protection as infrastructure with a funding source. Returning royalties to regions answers who benefits. The hoiho protections, which The Post’s editorial called “the right call”, show it will act on clear evidence of harm.

Cons

Leaving Paris and restarting fossil fuel exploration leaves no emissions pathway (test 2). Opening conservation land to mining is the clearest trade of nature for development on offer (test 5). Restricting public access to boat camera footage weakens accountability (test 6). As a governing party, it shares responsibility for the gaps the Commission identified.

Pros

Rated the most comprehensive in the Public Health Communication Centre’s comparison of energy and climate policies. It links climate and nature most explicitly, through nature-based flood protection and biodiversity credits. It addresses the methane gap directly (test 2).

Cons

We found no published estimate of the cost to farm incomes and rural communities of pricing agriculture and reducing the herd (test 3). Its claim to cut emissions five-fold “and improve the economy” (RNZ, December 2024) was not independently tested in the coverage. Revoking consents already granted raises legal and compensation questions; Labour declined to back the pledge.

Pros

Consistent across climate and nature (tests 2 and 5). It addresses who carries the risk for Māori land and communities (test 1), and puts Treaty partnership at the centre of decisions about land, water and sea.

Cons

Little published detail on timelines or costs. It was barely visible in climate and nature coverage (11 headlines), so voters saw little of its programme.

Pros

The clearest adaptation design of any party (test 1): stop adding to exposure before deciding who pays for it. Its trawling policy has timelines that can be checked (test 6). It frames the environment in economic terms, which goes some way toward comparing the cost of acting with the cost of not acting (test 4).

Cons

Its methane approach is still to be decided. It called reinstating the offshore exploration ban “probably unnecessary”. We found no costings. It was barely visible in climate and nature coverage (fewer than ten headlines).