Thomson v. Minister for Climate Change Issues

Sarah Thomson, a law student, sued the New Zealand government claiming its greenhouse gas reduction targets were not sufficient under New Zealand's Climate Change Response Act of 2002. Thomson was also challenging the government’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), the amount it commits to reducing emissions, for its failure to account for how dire climate change is.

Background
Thomson, after seeing what the New Zealand government would propose for its upcoming Paris climate meeting, believed it was grossly insufficient in reducing emissions. The Climate Action Tracker said New Zealand's 11 percent target was “inadequate” and far from its “fair share” on climate action. In 2015, Thomson filed a suit against the government, asking them to create more aggressive emissions reduction policies. Two decisions were in question:


 * 1) A 2050 target set under the Climate Change Response Act 2002: The Minister had declined to review the target after the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on climate change.
 * 2) A 2030 target pursuant to the Paris Agreement: The plaintiff alleged the decision to set the 2030 target was irrational and unreasonable because of lack of evidence to support and a scientific consensus against it.

The plaintiff requested the Court to order the Minister for Climate Change Issues to review the 2050 reduction target under the Climate Change Response Act, which mandates a review after the IPCC publishes a report. Additionally, Thomson wanted a declaration that the Minister's decision was unlawful because it did not consider the adverse impacts of climate change and it doesn't live up to the Paris Agreement. The last request was a finding that the decision would not strengthen the climate response and had no basis for believing so.

Relevant Law and Principles

 * Paris Agreement
 * New Zealand Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC)
 * New Zealand Climate Change Response Act 2002
 * Climate Change Response Amendment Act
 * United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Ruling
In 2017, the court ruled that the New Zealand government should have considered the new standards for greenhouse gas reductions under the IPCC 5th Assessment Report, but made no determination as to whether the emission reduction targets met this standard or not. This is largely because the case was rendered moot by an election that brought in a coalition with a promise to set much more ambitious targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions. Regarding the second decision, the Court found that despite the 2030 target being less ambitious, that does not mean it is inconsistent with the goal under the Paris Agreement. The government has discretion in its target and the newly elected administration may revise both targets.

Takeaways
In the decision, the judge wrote, "The Courts have recognised the significance of the issue for the planet and its inhabitants and that those in the Court’s jurisdiction are necessarily among all who are affected by inadequate efforts to respond to climate change". This was a groundbreaking statement since the New Zealand court has a history of letting the other branches deal with climate change and refusing to review decisions it feels are too political. Thomson wrote that this case paves the way for future litigation and widens the scope for climate change cases to be reviewed in New Zealand. This case is one of many Youth Lawsuits internationally.

Links

 * Judgement
 * Climate Action Tracker-NZ
 * Climate Change Amendment Act 2019 Update