New Zealand is not on track to adapt to growing climate risks, nor is it cutting emissions quickly enough, according to the latest reports issued by the Climate Change Commission.
Authors
- Cathrine Dyer
Lecturer in Climate Change, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington
- Robert McLachlan
Professor in Applied Mathematics, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University
Last week, the commission published an evaluation of progress on New Zealand's adaptation plans , arguing that communities are exposed to greater risk of damage and costs while the government continues to delay decisions about who should pay.
Earlier this year, the commission pointed out that 97% of the government's spend on natural hazards since 2010 has been on responding to and recovering from disasters, with only 3% going towards reducing future risk. Its latest report warns that the present course risks making things worse.
Here are two examples of the challenges councils and home owners are already facing.
In South Dunedin, about 6,000 houses are at risk of flooding and sea-level rise this century. Following lengthy community engagement, seven possible responses have been developed, ranging from pumping water to large-scale retreat. They cost between NZ$2 billion and $10 billion and would save varying numbers of homes.
The council has now asked for another more engineering-based response (pumps and seawalls) to be added. But the commission warns such responses may constitute "maladaptation" and calls for clearer direction and support from the government.
Another example is insurance. Premiums have risen sharply since January 2023, when Auckland experienced one of New Zealand's worst floods. In flood zones, some people (perhaps 4%, the commission estimates) cannot get insurance at all.
But " insurance retreat " - when people cannot afford to fully insure their home - is potentially worse. The extent of retreat is not known, because data are not collected.
Politicians have an incentive to avoid blame
Adaptation decisions are complex, expensive and come with a high risk of policy failure.
Researchers have developed a blame avoidance framework to explain how politicians weigh up visibility (how much attention an issue attracts) against avoidability (who will be blamed for failure) before deciding on a course of action.
This can lead to inaction, which in turn risks derailment when impacts from physical climate events begin to overwhelm efforts to transition to a more stable and resilient world.
Minister for Climate Change Simon Watts recently proposed a law change that would require councils to make adaptation plans for communities at high risk from climate change hazards.
But he has not indicated where funding would come from, instead insisting cost-sharing would be determined in the next term of government. This sets up a future scenario in which central government avoids blame while councils are instead blamed for failing to implement their own plans.
Decarbonisation efforts slow down
If New Zealand is not adapting at the pace and scale climate risks demand, the commission's earlier report on efforts to curb emissions paints a similarly bleak picture.
The report shows 82% of the reductions needed to meet the carbon budget for 2026-2030 are now at risk, as are 99% of cuts required for 2031-2035.
Three main sectors - electricity, agriculture and transport - are now at significant risk of not delivering their share of emissions reductions.
For electricity, this is because of slow progress towards solutions for dry years (when renewable generation from hydro power is reduced) and periods of peak demand during winter.
Meanwhile, the government continues to pursue a proposed import terminal for liquefied natural gas, which could delay the phase-out of gas in industry and unsettle investment decisions in renewable energy.
The agriculture sector is now forecast to miss its 2030 target because the government cancelled pricing agricultural emissions, instead relying on technologies such as methane inhibitors and vaccines, which have not yet arrived.
Transport is responsible for 55% of New Zealand's carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion. But the government has weakened clean vehicle standards .
Had New Zealand stuck with the original standards introduced in 2021, carbon dioxide emissions would be 500,000 tonnes lower each year and $650 million in annual fuel costs would have been avoided. Instead, 203,000 fossil-fueled light vehicles were imported in 2025 . They will be on the road for decades to come.
Reliance on emissions trading
The commission's report shows the rate of emissions cuts has halved since 2023.
But some of the cuts after 2023 were due to deindustrialisation and a weak economic recovery, which tended to suppress emissions. Neither are preferred pathways.
The government continues to rely on the Emissions Trading Scheme ( ETS ) as its main policy instrument, but the Climate Change Commission warns it is unlikely to effectively drive emissions cuts by the early 2030s because it does not provide a strong decarbonisation signal for either fossil fuels or forestry.
Agriculture is not in the ETS, and some industries receive free credits ; overall, the ETS captures only 36% of New Zealand's gross emissions .
Research shows that relying on a single instrument like the ETS will not lead to the rapid emissions cuts and transformation of the energy system needed to meet upcoming targets.
Internationally, the gap between the emissions cuts required to stay below 2°C of warming and the reductions promised by countries under the Paris Agreement is widening .
A recent study of 21 countries and the EU found the risk of missing targets is linked to lacking political will - for example, by weakening targets or not monitoring policy effectiveness. This in turn is associated with weakened civil societies and entrenched fossil fuel interests. In this respect, New Zealand is not alone.
Cathrine Dyer is affiliated with the Reality of Everything project, which aims to promote conversations about the polycrisis.
Robert McLachlan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
