Why are climate activists protesting outside Wellington High Court?

Climate activists are protesting outside Wellington High Court to highlight what they say is the Government’s dismantling of dozens of climate and environmental policies, timed to coincide with a major legal challenge to the Government’s emissions reduction plan.

What is the High Court case against Simon Watts about?

The case challenges the legality of the Government’s emissions reduction plan, arguing that parts of New Zealand’s first Emissions Reduction Plan were unlawfully scrapped and replaced with a second plan that relies too heavily on forestry offsets instead of reducing emissions at source.

What is the controversy over forestry offsets in New Zealand’s climate policy?

Critics argue that relying on forestry offsets allows major emitters to avoid cutting pollution directly. They say planting trees cannot substitute for real emissions reductions, especially when forests can be harvested, damaged or destroyed.

Government’s dirty climate laundry aired outside High Court as emissions plan faces legal challenge

As the High Court begins hearing a major legal challenge to the Government’s emissions reduction plan, climate activists have staged a visual protest outside Wellington’s courthouse, accusing the Luxon Government of scrapping climate policy and replacing real emissions cuts with forestry offsets.

Why activists took their protest to the High Court

This morning, climate activists erected a washing line outside Wellington’s High Court, with laundry items representing the dozens of climate and environmental policies scrapped by Luxon government.

The visually striking protest coincided with the opening day of a major High Court case, where the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) and Lawyers for Climate Action (LCANZ) will challenge Climate Minister Simon Watts on the legality of the government’s emissions reduction plan.

– Advertisement –

“New Zealanders are facing floods, storms and rising costs driven by climate inaction. A transition away from fossil fuels would have shielded New Zealanders from this month’s war-driven oil spikes. This government is looking after their corporate mates, while our communities are paying the price,” says Rachael Andrews from Climate Liberation Aotearoa. “Instead of cutting pollution at the source, the government has scrapped over 30 climate policies and is now trying to prop up its climate plan with pine offsets.”

350 Aotearoa campaigner Adam Currie adds, “The Ministers’ lawyers have been given an impossible job defending an undefendable climate record. The Government’s climate strategy is about as credible as trying to hold up the sky with a broomstick. Pine trees get chopped, burnt, and toppled. You can’t cheat physics. It shouldn’t have to be said, but the only reliable way to lower emissions is to reduce high-emitting activities.”

The legal challenge to Simon Watts’ emissions reduction plan

Today, ELI and LCANZ will open the case by arguing that the government unlawfully dismantled parts of New Zealand’s first Emissions Reduction Plan, replacing them with a second plan that relies heavily on forestry offsets instead of cutting emissions at the source. A key issue in the case is the ERP’s ‘questionable’ claims of equivalence between carbon offsets and emissions reductions at source.

National’s offset hypocrisy comes back to haunt it

The activists argue the government’s climate position is a ‘u-turn’, referencing a 2019 quote from Minister Nicola Grigg: “The National Party position is that we are concerned about the level of planting required and what that will mean for dirty polluters to actually change their behaviour and not just continue to offset that with planting.”

“Frankly, it’s embarrassing for the Luxon government to be forced into court defending the very position the National Party campaigned against in opposition. How are New Zealanders supposed to figure out which National Party statements to ignore, and which we should believe?” said Currie.

What makes this case politically toxic for National is that it is being forced to defend in court the exact kind of offset-heavy climate logic it previously attacked in opposition. If the Government’s answer to rising emissions, rising insurance costs and rising fuel shocks is more pine planting and less structural change, then this court case is about far more than process — it is about whether New Zealand still has a credible climate policy at all.