Dr Christina Hood: climate consultant explains why legal experts are looking to sue the Government over emissions reduction plan

A group of lawyers are suing the Climate Minister - suggesting the Government's emissions reduction plan doesn't go far enough.

They want a judicial review over the coalition's cancelling of policies from the plan set in place by the previous Government. 

Climate consultant Dr Christina Hood says if the group is successful, the court can order the Government to rethink the current scheme.

"There was a judicial review about the emissions trading scheme a couple of years ago - the High Court, in that case told the Government to go back and have another think and the Government did that."

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now a group of lawyers is taking the government to
court over the emission's reduction plan. The lawyers say that
the plan is dangerously inadequate and challenges the use of
forestry to offset emissions. Doctor Christina Hood is a climate consultant. Hey, Christina,
Hi Thereheather, good to be here. Thank you very much
for your time. Now, let's say that they prove their case.
Can they actually force the government to do something like

(00:21):
change the plan?

Speaker 2 (00:23):
Well, that's actually what they're asking for. They're asking for
the court to say that the plan is inadequate according
to what's required under New Zealand law, and then the
government would have to go back and have a rethink.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
Would the government have to.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
Yeah, the court can order them to go back and
do a new plan. There was a judicial review about
the missions training scheme a couple of years ago and
the High Court in that case told the government to
go back and have another thing. Can the government did that.

Speaker 1 (00:54):
And can the government tell Can the court tell the
government what it wants changed, what it wants to see,
and be quite prescriptive about it.

Speaker 2 (01:02):
That's a little less likely. What's more likely to happen
is that if the lawyers established that the government hasn't
taken into account all of the relevant factors when it
was making the plan. The court could say, when you
go and have another think, you must consider these aspects
and properly take them into account. Now, what's more about

(01:23):
how they do it than what the end outcome is.

Speaker 1 (01:26):
One of the things that the lawyers have a problem
with is the use of forestry and that bang on
about that, aren't they because that is actually good. That
is the weakest part of this plan, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (01:36):
Yeah, it's been a big part of New Zealand's climate
approach for a long time and it's past it's use
by date. To be honest, we've been using tree planting
as a substitute for getting on with decarbonizing our economy.
And you can't do that forever. You can't just keep
planting trees. We are going to have to move at
some point.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
But Christina, we get the bigger problem that we're not
actually going to even end up planting enough trees, like
it's going to get to twenty thirty and we're going
to be so far short on what we're supposed to
do that we're supposed to send twenty eight billion dollars
or whatever off shorter plant trees and we're just not
going to do it.

Speaker 2 (02:11):
Well, that's a separate that's a separat share that's not
even covered by this challenge. This one is about our
domestic pathway. Our target, unto the Paris Agreement, is a
whole other kettle of fish that the government's not dealing with.

Speaker 1 (02:24):
Okay, So what's the problem as far as you see
it with planting the trees.

Speaker 2 (02:29):
It's what there's a couple of things. One is just
it's a it's a strategy that is that it just
only works in the short term. It's like papering over
the cracks. You know. We can use it to keep
emitting and just try and plant enough trees to compensate,
but we run out of the ability to do that.

(02:49):
You can't do it at global level. There's not enough
land to plant enough trees on to cover all the
fossil fuel use. And at a global level, we need
to cut fossil fuel emissions by about ninety percent and
then it might be that nature restoration can kind of
cover the rest of the gap. Christine, we can't do nothing.

Speaker 1 (03:07):
What is motivating these lawyers is someone paying them are
they just doing this out of the goodness of their
own hearts?

Speaker 2 (03:13):
It's pro bono. It's just a group of lawyers who
are concerned about, you know, a Liverpool future for us
and for our kids and wanting to use their skills
in law to try and do something about it.

Speaker 1 (03:27):
And if this was if this proves to be successful,
do you think there will be copycat suits around the world.

Speaker 2 (03:33):
Well, there's already you know, been lawsuits like this and
lots of places around the world. In the UK, our
legislation in New Zealand is modeled on what they have
in the UK, and the UK government's climate plan has
been thrown out twice actually by the courts for being inadequate,
so it's almost like we are copying them rather than

(03:54):
the other way around.

Speaker 1 (03:55):
All right, Christina, thanks very much. I really appreciate your time.
Christina Hood, Climate Consultant.

Speaker 2 (04:00):
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
News Talk Set B from four p m weekdays, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.