All issues
Climate, energy and environment / Climate commitments

What should New Zealand's climate commitments be?

New Zealand has a Paris pledge and 2050 targets in law. Parties differ on keeping them.Under the Paris Agreement, New Zealand has pledged to halve net emissions by 2030 and to cut them 51 to 55% below 2005 levels by 2035. The Zero Carbon Act sets a 2050 target of net zero for most gases, and a separate target for methane from farm animals and waste, lowered in 2025 to 14 to 24% below 2017 levels. The Climate Change Commission advises on these targets and checks progress; in July 2026 it said current plans were not enough to meet later budgets or the 2050 target. The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) puts a price on most emissions but not on farming. Treasury estimates meeting the 2030 pledge could mean buying about $4.4 to $5 billion of overseas credits. Parties propose leaving Paris, keeping current settings, or tightening targets and the ETS.

Uneven evidence. Some parties' plans have more published costings or analysis than others. Read what was found

As at 15 October 2026, Treasury's estimate of offshore mitigation costs is the only published costing that bears on these plans, and it applies to staying in Paris and meeting the 2030 pledge. No independent costing was found for leaving Paris, ACT's trade-weighted emissions cap and refund of ETS revenue, abolishing the Commission, Labour's ETS review, or the Green and Opportunity plans to price farm emissions. The Commission's 2026 report assesses current policy, not any party's plan. NZ First's figure of "up to $22 billion" going offshore could not be traced to a published source, and ACT gives no source for its household cost, Commission cost or 2.2% GDP figures. Te Pāti Māori's full climate policy, read on 17 October 2026, sets out no position on the questions compared here. Evidence sections reflect what has been published, not a judgement on the plans.

ViewDepth
Party order is random for each visitor. Tap a party's answer for its full breakdown and sources.Order

Bottom lines on this question

What a party has publicly said it must get, or won't accept, to form or support a government after the election. Only the party's own statements count, quoted with their source. Parties marked Bottom line below have one on that answer.

  • National

    New Zealand stays in the Paris Agreement.

    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says remaining in the Paris climate agreement is a bottom line in any coalition negotiations after the election.

  • Opportunity

    Recommit to the Paris Agreement and protect the Climate Change Commission's role.

    “recommit to our Paris Agreement obligations and protect the role of the Climate Change Commission”

  • No bottom line on this question found: ACT, Green, Labour, NZ First, Te Pāti Māori (checked 17 Oct 2026)

Every party's bottom lines, on all issues

This question is split into smaller ones. Under each, parties giving the same answer are grouped together.

Paris Agreement

6 of 7 parties give an answer

Leave or renegotiate the Paris Agreement2 parties

  • ACT

    Renegotiate New Zealand's Paris commitment, and be prepared to leave.ACT would seek "a fairer arrangement" under Paris and says New Zealand "should be prepared to leave" if one cannot be reached.

  • NZ First

    Withdraw New Zealand from the Paris Agreement.NZ First says New Zealand should "get out of the Paris Accord altogether" and spend the money at home instead.

Stay in the Paris Agreement4 parties

  • Green

    Meet the Paris pledges at home, and overseas if needed.The Greens would meet the pledges through "strong domestic action" and, if needed, overseas projects, and show the cost in the accounts.

  • Labour

    Stay in Paris; Labour says it would put New Zealand "on course" for its targets.Labour says it is fully committed to the Paris Agreement and would align the ETS with the Paris targets.

  • NationalBottom line

    Stay in Paris; Luxon says it is not "sending billions of dollars offshore" for credits.National would keep New Zealand in the Paris Agreement; Luxon has made this a coalition bottom line and says the government is not "sending billions of dollars offshore" for credits.

  • OpportunityBottom line

    Recommit to Paris; Opportunity says it would "restore the integrity" of the pledge.Recommitting to Paris is one of Opportunity's five coalition bottom lines.

  • No stated position found: Te Pāti Māori (checked 17 Oct 2026)

The 2050 targets in law

3 of 7 parties give an answer
Which way each party would move this from current law. It doesn't show how far, or which is better.

Repeal or loosen1 party

  • ACT

    Repeal the Zero Carbon Act; cap emissions to match major trading partners.The 2050 net zero target would go, and the emissions cap would be tied to a trade-weighted average of trading partners.

Keep the current targets and Commission1 party

  • National

    Keep net zero 2050 and the 14–24% methane target set in 2025.National would keep the 2025 targets. It has not said it would change the Commission, which the government said in 2025 would no longer have to evaluate emissions reduction plans.

Make stricter1 party

  • Green

    Budget process consistent with 1.5°C and gross emissions reduction targets.The Zero Carbon Act would require the government Budget process to be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, gross emissions reduction targets and international commitments.

  • Not part of its policy: Labour, NZ First, Opportunity
  • No stated position found: Te Pāti Māori (checked 17 Oct 2026)

Climate Change Commission

5 of 7 parties give an answer

Change the Climate Change Commission's role4 parties

  • ACT

    Close the Climate Change Commission; a ministry takes over monitoring.The Commission would cease to exist and its monitoring and reporting would move to the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport.

  • Green

    The Climate Change Commission would set how many ETS units exist.The Commission would set unit supply in line with emissions budgets, instead of ministers.

  • NZ First

    Review the Climate Change Commission.NZ First's David Wilson said the party would review the Commission; no detail has been published.

  • OpportunityBottom line

    Protect the Commission; reported to give it power over ETS price controls and budgets.Opportunity would follow the Commission's advice on the 2050 targets; news reports say it would also give it power over ETS settings.

Keep the current targets and Commission1 party

  • National

    Keep net zero 2050 and the 14–24% methane target set in 2025.National would keep the 2025 targets. It has not said it would change the Commission, which the government said in 2025 would no longer have to evaluate emissions reduction plans.

  • Not part of its policy: Labour
  • No stated position found: Te Pāti Māori (checked 17 Oct 2026)

Emissions Trading Scheme

4 of 7 parties give an answer

Change the Emissions Trading Scheme4 parties

  • ACT

    Remove the ETS auction price floor; refund all net auction revenue.The $71 minimum auction price would go, and auction money would go back to households. ACT has not said what carbon price it expects.

  • Green

    End free units and forestry offsets in the ETS.Free allocation would be phased out and forestry offsetting removed; the Greens say this would make the ETS a cap on gross emissions.

  • Labour

    Review the ETS, favour direct cuts over offsets, pause new forestry.A review of the ETS, with new forestry registrations paused and rules against whole-farm conversions.

  • Opportunity

    Change ETS pricing and forestry rules; reported to exclude new exotic forestry.Opportunity would change carbon pricing and forestry settings, which it says would drive down emissions and reward nature-based sinks.

  • Not part of its policy: National, NZ First
  • No stated position found: Te Pāti Māori (checked 17 Oct 2026)

Farm emissions

5 of 7 parties give an answer

Put a price on farm emissions2 parties

  • Green

    Price farm emissions to meet the methane targets, with support for farmers.A price on agricultural emissions, with money and advice to help farmers cut emissions.

  • Opportunity

    A cap-and-trade scheme for farm methane and nitrous oxide.A separate mechanism would cap farm emissions and let farmers trade within the cap.

Cut farm emissions without a price3 parties

  • ACT

    Oppose a tax on farm emissions.ACT opposes new climate taxes, including a tax on agricultural emissions.

  • Labour

    No farm emissions price by default; Hipkins says not ruled out for all time.Labour would not price farm emissions by default, and Hipkins says pricing is "not ruled out for all time"; it has not said what it would do instead.

  • National

    No farm emissions price; fund technology with industry instead.National says more than $400 million is being invested with industry in methane-cutting tools, with the first expected on farms in 2026.

  • Not part of its policy: NZ First
  • No stated position found: Te Pāti Māori (checked 17 Oct 2026)

Each party's whole answer, under the same headings for every party.

ACT

Repeal the net zero target, close the Climate Commission, and refund carbon auction money.ACT would repeal the Zero Carbon Act and its 2050 net zero target, and tie New Zealand's emissions cap to a trade-weighted average of its major trading partners. It would remove the minimum price at Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) auctions and refund all net auction revenue to households; ACT says the ETS costs an average household about $478 a year. It would close the Climate Change Commission, saving what ACT puts at $14 to 15 million a year, and move its monitoring to a ministry. It opposes new climate taxes, including a tax on agricultural emissions. It would renegotiate the Paris commitment and says New Zealand "should be prepared to leave" if that fails. The biggest tradeoff: no auction floor and auction revenue returned to households, but trade risk if New Zealand leaves Paris and, if the carbon price falls, less price pressure on emitters to cut emissions.

Paris Agreement
Leave or renegotiate the Paris Agreement. Renegotiate New Zealand's Paris commitment, and be prepared to leave.ACT would seek "a fairer arrangement" under Paris and says New Zealand "should be prepared to leave" if one cannot be reached.
The 2050 targets in law
Repeal or loosen. Repeal the Zero Carbon Act; cap emissions to match major trading partners.The 2050 net zero target would go, and the emissions cap would be tied to a trade-weighted average of trading partners.
Climate Change Commission
Change the Climate Change Commission's role. Close the Climate Change Commission; a ministry takes over monitoring.The Commission would cease to exist and its monitoring and reporting would move to the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport.
Emissions Trading Scheme
Change the Emissions Trading Scheme. Remove the ETS auction price floor; refund all net auction revenue.The $71 minimum auction price would go, and auction money would go back to households. ACT has not said what carbon price it expects.
Farm emissions
Cut farm emissions without a price. Oppose a tax on farm emissions.ACT opposes new climate taxes, including a tax on agricultural emissions.

Green

A Budget tied to 1.5°C and gross targets, a farm emissions price, a tighter ETS.The Greens would strengthen the Zero Carbon Act so the government Budget process must be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, gross emissions reduction targets (before forests are counted) and international commitments. The Climate Change Commission would set the number of units in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Free units for industry would be phased out and forestry offsets removed, with ETS money going to a fund to cut industrial emissions. Farm emissions would be priced to meet the methane targets, with support for farmers. The Greens would meet the Paris pledges at home and, if needed, through projects overseas, and show the pledge's cost in the government's accounts. No costs or start dates are given. The biggest tradeoff: a cap on gross emissions with farming priced, but new costs for farmers and for industries that lose free units.

Paris Agreement
Stay in the Paris Agreement. Meet the Paris pledges at home, and overseas if needed.The Greens would meet the pledges through "strong domestic action" and, if needed, overseas projects, and show the cost in the accounts.
The 2050 targets in law
Make stricter. Budget process consistent with 1.5°C and gross emissions reduction targets.The Zero Carbon Act would require the government Budget process to be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, gross emissions reduction targets and international commitments.
Climate Change Commission
Change the Climate Change Commission's role. The Climate Change Commission would set how many ETS units exist.The Commission would set unit supply in line with emissions budgets, instead of ministers.
Emissions Trading Scheme
Change the Emissions Trading Scheme. End free units and forestry offsets in the ETS.Free allocation would be phased out and forestry offsetting removed; the Greens say this would make the ETS a cap on gross emissions.
Farm emissions
Put a price on farm emissions. Price farm emissions to meet the methane targets, with support for farmers.A price on agricultural emissions, with money and advice to help farmers cut emissions.

Labour

Stay in Paris, review the ETS, and no farm emissions price by default.Labour says it is "fully committed" to the Paris Agreement and would put New Zealand "on course" to meet its targets. It says it would "urgently review" the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which it says is "broken" because the carbon price is too low. Labour says the review would favour "genuine emissions reductions" over offsets, reconsider forestry's place in the scheme, write rules to stop whole farms being converted to forestry, and make sure the ETS supports the Paris targets. New forestry registrations would be paused during the review. Labour would not price farm emissions by default; Chris Hipkins has said pricing is "not ruled out for all time". No cost or timetable is given. The biggest tradeoff: an ETS geared to direct cuts with no default farm price, but the effect on household and business costs depends on a carbon price Labour has not set.

Paris Agreement
Stay in the Paris Agreement. Stay in Paris; Labour says it would put New Zealand "on course" for its targets.Labour says it is fully committed to the Paris Agreement and would align the ETS with the Paris targets.
The 2050 targets in law
Not part of its policy
Climate Change Commission
Not part of its policy
Emissions Trading Scheme
Change the Emissions Trading Scheme. Review the ETS, favour direct cuts over offsets, pause new forestry.A review of the ETS, with new forestry registrations paused and rules against whole-farm conversions.
Farm emissions
Cut farm emissions without a price. No farm emissions price by default; Hipkins says not ruled out for all time.Labour would not price farm emissions by default, and Hipkins says pricing is "not ruled out for all time"; it has not said what it would do instead.

NationalBottom line

Stay in Paris, keep net zero 2050 and the lower methane target, no farm price.National would keep New Zealand in the Paris Agreement, which Christopher Luxon has made a bottom line in coalition talks. It would keep the 2050 net zero target and the methane target it set in 2025 (a 14 to 24% cut below 2017 levels by 2050, reviewed in 2040). Farm emissions would not be priced; National relies on technology and says over $400 million is being invested with industry. Luxon says the government will "do everything we can" on the 2030 pledge but is not "sending billions of dollars offshore" for credits. National has not said it would change the Climate Change Commission; in 2025 the government said the Commission would no longer have to evaluate emissions reduction plans. The biggest tradeoff: no new cost on farmers and no stated plan to buy overseas credits, but government estimates put the 2030 methane cut at 7.9%, short of the 10% target.

Paris Agreement
Stay in the Paris Agreement. Stay in Paris; Luxon says it is not "sending billions of dollars offshore" for credits.National would keep New Zealand in the Paris Agreement; Luxon has made this a coalition bottom line and says the government is not "sending billions of dollars offshore" for credits.
The 2050 targets in law
Keep the current targets and Commission. Keep net zero 2050 and the 14–24% methane target set in 2025.National would keep the 2025 targets. It has not said it would change the Commission, which the government said in 2025 would no longer have to evaluate emissions reduction plans.
Climate Change Commission
Keep the current targets and Commission. Keep net zero 2050 and the 14–24% methane target set in 2025.National would keep the 2025 targets. It has not said it would change the Commission, which the government said in 2025 would no longer have to evaluate emissions reduction plans.
Emissions Trading Scheme
Not part of its policy
Farm emissions
Cut farm emissions without a price. No farm emissions price; fund technology with industry instead.National says more than $400 million is being invested with industry in methane-cutting tools, with the first expected on farms in 2026.

NZ First

Withdraw New Zealand from the Paris Agreement and review the Climate Change Commission.NZ First would take New Zealand out of the Paris Agreement "altogether". It argues that New Zealand produces about 0.17% of global emissions, that four countries produce about 60% of the world's carbon dioxide, and that money spent meeting Paris pledges would be better spent on the environment at home. It says that if New Zealand honours its Paris obligations, "up to $22 billion" of taxpayers' money could go offshore. NZ First has also said it would review the Climate Change Commission. Its policy does not say what would happen to the Zero Carbon Act targets, the Emissions Trading Scheme or farm emissions, and gives no start date. The biggest tradeoff: no overseas credit costs or Paris obligations, but trade risk under the EU agreement's Paris clause.

Paris Agreement
Leave or renegotiate the Paris Agreement. Withdraw New Zealand from the Paris Agreement.NZ First says New Zealand should "get out of the Paris Accord altogether" and spend the money at home instead.
The 2050 targets in law
Not part of its policy
Climate Change Commission
Change the Climate Change Commission's role. Review the Climate Change Commission.NZ First's David Wilson said the party would review the Commission; no detail has been published.
Emissions Trading Scheme
Not part of its policy
Farm emissions
Not part of its policy

OpportunityBottom line

Recommit to Paris, follow Climate Commission advice, and cap-and-trade for farm methane.Opportunity makes recommitting to the Paris Agreement and protecting the Climate Change Commission's role one of its five bottom lines for any coalition. It would "restore the integrity" of the Paris pledge and follow the Commission's advice on meeting the 2050 targets. It proposes a cap-and-trade scheme for farm methane and nitrous oxide, and changes to Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) pricing and forestry rules; news reports say it would also give the Commission power over ETS price controls and budgets. It would set up a $5 billion Climate Resilience Fund and a $1 billion fund, backed by ETS revenue, to move industry off coal and gas. No start dates are given. The biggest tradeoff: a cap on farm methane and nitrous oxide and new climate funds, but new costs for farmers and emitters.

Paris Agreement
Stay in the Paris Agreement. Recommit to Paris; Opportunity says it would "restore the integrity" of the pledge.Recommitting to Paris is one of Opportunity's five coalition bottom lines.
The 2050 targets in law
Not part of its policy
Climate Change Commission
Change the Climate Change Commission's role. Protect the Commission; reported to give it power over ETS price controls and budgets.Opportunity would follow the Commission's advice on the 2050 targets; news reports say it would also give it power over ETS settings.
Emissions Trading Scheme
Change the Emissions Trading Scheme. Change ETS pricing and forestry rules; reported to exclude new exotic forestry.Opportunity would change carbon pricing and forestry settings, which it says would drive down emissions and reward nature-based sinks.
Farm emissions
Put a price on farm emissions. A cap-and-trade scheme for farm methane and nitrous oxide.A separate mechanism would cap farm emissions and let farmers trade within the cap.

Te Pāti Māori

No stated position found (checked 17 Oct 2026)

Background and sources

The commitments now. New Zealand's first Paris pledge (its nationally determined contribution, or NDC) is to halve net greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and its second, lodged in January 2025, is a 51 to 55% cut below 2005 levels by 2035 (Ministry for the Environment; ODT/RNZ). The Zero Carbon Act's 2050 target is net zero for all gases except biogenic methane. A December 2025 law change cut the 2050 biogenic methane range from 24 to 47% to 14 to 24% below 2017 levels, required a review of that target by the end of 2040, and removed the requirement for ETS limits and price controls to reflect the NDC (New Zealand Legislation; ODT/RNZ). In November 2025 the government also announced the Commission would no longer have to evaluate its emissions reduction plans (The Spinoff).

Progress. The Climate Change Commission's 2026 monitoring report (22 July 2026) said the Government's projections show the second emissions budget (2026–2030) is likely to be met by 3.6 Mt, but more than half of the planned reductions (12.4 Mt) are "at significant risk". Government estimates show the 2030 methane target would be missed (a 7.9% cut against 10%). The Commission said the country "needs to more than double the current pace of decarbonisation", and expected the ETS to be unable to drive further cuts from about 2034 without changes (Climate Change Commission). Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said New Zealand was "on track" for its first two budgets (interest.co.nz).

Cost of the 2030 pledge. Treasury's June 2026 analysis estimates New Zealand would need 85 to 96 Mt of overseas mitigation to meet its first NDC, costing $4.4 to $5.0 billion in present value at a central price of about $53 a tonne, and $1.3 to $8.6 billion across its price range (Treasury). It put a further $0.2 to $1.6 billion on the 2035 pledge, and its 2023 range for the 2030 pledge had been $3 to $24 billion. There is no automatic penalty for missing a Paris target (ODT/RNZ).

Trade link. New Zealand's free trade agreement with the European Union includes an enforceable commitment to implement the Paris Agreement; a breach found by a disputes panel could lead to other trade obligations being lifted (BERL).

Farm emissions. The current government has ruled out a price on agricultural methane and relies on technology and industry partnerships (National). The Commission lists excluding agriculture from emissions pricing among policies that could increase emissions (interest.co.nz).

ACT

ACT would repeal the Zero Carbon Act and its 2050 net zero target, and tie New Zealand's emissions cap to a trade-weighted average of its major trading partners. It would remove the minimum price at Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) auctions and refund all net auction revenue to households; ACT says the ETS costs an average household about $478 a year. It would close the Climate Change Commission, saving what ACT puts at $14 to 15 million a year, and move its monitoring to a ministry. It opposes new climate taxes, including a tax on agricultural emissions. It would renegotiate the Paris commitment and says New Zealand "should be prepared to leave" if that fails. The biggest tradeoff: no auction floor and auction revenue returned to households, but trade risk if New Zealand leaves Paris and, if the carbon price falls, less price pressure on emitters to cut emissions.

  • ACT would seek "a fairer arrangement" under Paris and says New Zealand "should be prepared to leave" if one cannot be reached.
  • The 2050 net zero target would go, and the emissions cap would be tied to a trade-weighted average of trading partners.
  • The Commission would cease to exist and its monitoring and reporting would move to the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport.
  • The $71 minimum auction price would go, and auction money would go back to households. ACT has not said what carbon price it expects.
  • ACT opposes new climate taxes, including a tax on agricultural emissions.

Who gains

  • Party claimACT says households would gain through a refund of ETS auction revenue, and emissions-intensive businesses facing overseas competitors through industrial carbon assistance restored to its original 90 and 60 per cent rates. Farmers would face no new tax on agricultural emissions, which ACT opposes. [1][4]

Who pays

  • Established evidenceThe government would forgo net ETS auction revenue, which ACT would return to households. Permanent forest owners would remain responsible for pest control and for the cost if stored carbon is later released. [1]
  • Party claimACT says that if refunds became too small, the money would fund other tax relief. [1]
  • Established evidenceTreasury's credit costs apply only if New Zealand meets the pledges; no analysis of the costs of withdrawal was found. [5]

Cost and costing disputes

  • Party claimACT says the ETS costs an average household about $478 a year at a carbon price of about $55, and the Commission costs $14 to 15 million a year. ACT gives no source for either figure. [1][2]
  • Independent estimateTreasury estimates meeting the 2030 pledge would need $4.4 to $5.0 billion of overseas credits across its policy scenarios (range $1.3 to $8.6 billion on its price tests), and the 2035 pledge a further $0.2 to $1.6 billion. [5]

Evidence from elsewhere

  • Established evidenceThe Climate Change Commission's 2026 report, on current policies, says the pace of decarbonisation must more than double and the 2050 target is unlikely to be met without further action. It says the Government's projections show the second emissions budget (2026–2030) is likely to be met, by 3.6 Mt, but more than half of the planned reductions (12.4 Mt) are at significant risk, and government estimates show a 7.9% methane cut by 2030 against a 10% target. It lists excluding agriculture from emissions pricing among actions that could increase emissions. [6]
  • Established evidenceThe Commission expects the ETS to be unable to drive further cuts from about 2034 without changes, citing low market confidence, price volatility and uncertainty about the scheme's future. [6]

Risks and side effects

  • Established evidenceThe EU trade agreement includes an enforceable commitment to implement the Paris Agreement; a breach found by a disputes panel could lead to other trade obligations being lifted (BERL). [7]
  • ContestedRemoving the auction floor and returning industrial carbon assistance to its original 90 and 60 per cent rates, "with the automatic phase-down stopped while that disadvantage remains", could reduce the price pressure on some emitters to cut emissions. ACT says the aim is to "Protect Kiwi jobs where overseas competitors face lower or no carbon prices". No independent analysis of the effect on emissions was found. [1][3]

Implementation

  • Established evidenceRepealing the Zero Carbon Act and the Commission needs legislation. ACT has not given start dates or said how the trade-weighted cap would be calculated. [1][2]

Strongest case for

  • Party claimACT says New Zealand makes 0.17% of global emissions, so offshoring production costs jobs without cutting emissions, and the $71 auction floor helped cause six failed auctions. Seymour: "Climate policy should cut emissions, not export jobs." [1][3]

Strongest case against

  • ContestedNo named critic of ACT's domestic plan was found. More generally, Chris Hipkins calls the carbon price "too low to drive meaningful emissions reductions". Christopher Luxon says leaving Paris would get products "kicked off the shelves". [8][9]
  1. Scrap Net Zero, Cut the Carbon Tax · ACT New Zealand · accessed 15 Oct 2026 · archived copy (17 Oct 2026)
  2. Scrap the Climate Change Commission · ACT New Zealand · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  3. ACT pledges to scrap country's net zero target · 1News · accessed 15 Oct 2026 · archived copy (17 Oct 2026)
  4. ACT pledges climate policy grounded in economic reality, wants to repeal Zero Carbon Act · interest.co.nz · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  5. New Zealand's Nationally Determined Contributions: Potential fiscal costs associated with offshore mitigation (technical annex, TP 26/01) · The Treasury · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  6. 2026 Monitoring report: Emissions reduction · Climate Change Commission · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  7. Climate and gender equality pledges binding in EU FTA · BERL · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  8. Labour promises to restore 'credibility and certainty' to the carbon market · interest.co.nz · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  9. Luxon makes Paris climate deal coalition bottom line · Farmers Weekly (RNZ) · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  10. Bill halving methane reduction targets passes · Otago Daily Times (RNZ) · accessed 15 Oct 2026
Change history

Every recorded change to this entry, newest first, including our own corrections after checks.

  1. 17 Oct 2026 Used ACT's own wording for its target, industrial assistance and farm-tax positions, and rewrote the second risk as a risk. [1][4]
  2. 17 Oct 2026 Typed ACT's statement on using refunds for other tax relief as a party claim, and quoted its industrial assistance wording as its page gives it. [1]
  3. 17 Oct 2026 Agent review on PR #48; quoted Seymour's words in full and kept them apart from the free-units change, gave the $55 carbon price as ACT does, and said the government would forgo auction revenue ACT would return. [1][3]
  4. 17 Oct 2026 Agent review on the redesign PR; marked the 2050 target change as repeal or loosen, stopped stating a lower carbon price as fact, removed a party claim from the evidence, said ACT gives no source for its cost figures, and added Treasury's note that credit costs apply only if the pledges are met. [1][2][5][10]
  5. 17 Oct 2026 Matched the Climate Change Commission line to the report: the second budget is likely to be met on the Government's projections, and the 7.9% methane figure is a government estimate. [6]
  6. 16 Oct 2026 Third agent review; removed an unsourced line about overseas credits after leaving Paris. [1]
  7. 16 Oct 2026 Second agent review; quoted ACT's 'fairer arrangement' wording, stated the EU trade risk once, noted ACT gives no source for 2.2%, and added the Commission's budget projection. [1][10][6]
  8. 16 Oct 2026 First agent review; separated ACT's $478 household figure from its refund, and gave the EU trade clause in BERL's words. [1][7]
  9. 16 Oct 2026 Fact-check before review; kept permanent forest owners' existing duties as ACT states them, named the ministry ACT would move monitoring to, and described Treasury's credit estimate across its scenarios. [1][2][5]
  10. 16 Oct 2026 Reviewed for consistent treatment across parties; standard tradeoff line, shared Commission and Treasury items, split claim types and checked quotes. [1][2][8][6][5]
  11. 15 Oct 2026 First researched from party and independent sources. [1][2]
As at 17 Oct 2026About ACTReport a problem with this entry

Green

The Greens would strengthen the Zero Carbon Act so the government Budget process must be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, gross emissions reduction targets (before forests are counted) and international commitments. The Climate Change Commission would set the number of units in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Free units for industry would be phased out and forestry offsets removed, with ETS money going to a fund to cut industrial emissions. Farm emissions would be priced to meet the methane targets, with support for farmers. The Greens would meet the Paris pledges at home and, if needed, through projects overseas, and show the pledge's cost in the government's accounts. No costs or start dates are given. The biggest tradeoff: a cap on gross emissions with farming priced, but new costs for farmers and for industries that lose free units.

  • The Greens would meet the pledges through "strong domestic action" and, if needed, overseas projects, and show the cost in the accounts.
  • The Zero Carbon Act would require the government Budget process to be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, gross emissions reduction targets and international commitments.
  • The Commission would set unit supply in line with emissions budgets, instead of ministers.
  • Free allocation would be phased out and forestry offsetting removed; the Greens say this would make the ETS a cap on gross emissions.
  • A price on agricultural emissions, with money and advice to help farmers cut emissions.

Who gains

  • Party claimThe Greens say companies with high emissions would pay to help electrify the economy, which they say would ease the cost of living as fossil fuels are phased out. [1][2]

Who pays

  • Established evidenceFarmers would face a price on farm emissions (level not published), with financial and technical support the Greens say would help them cut emissions. Industries now getting free ETS units would pay for them, with ETS money going to a fund to help industry cut emissions. Forest owners would lose the ability to sell offsets to emitters. [2]
  • Established evidenceTaxpayers would bear the cost of any overseas credits bought to meet the 2030 pledge. Treasury assumes the Crown pays the full cost. [6]

Cost and costing disputes

  • Established evidenceThe Greens have not published a cost or revenue figure for the plan. [2]
  • Independent estimateTreasury estimates meeting the 2030 pledge would need $4.4 to $5.0 billion of overseas credits across its policy scenarios (range $1.3 to $8.6 billion on its price tests), and the 2035 pledge a further $0.2 to $1.6 billion. [6]

Evidence from elsewhere

  • Established evidenceThe Climate Change Commission's 2026 report, on current policies, says the pace of decarbonisation must more than double and the 2050 target is unlikely to be met without further action. It says the Government's projections show the second emissions budget (2026–2030) is likely to be met, by 3.6 Mt, but more than half of the planned reductions (12.4 Mt) are at significant risk, and government estimates show a 7.9% methane cut by 2030 against a 10% target. It lists excluding agriculture from emissions pricing among actions that could increase emissions. [7]
  • Established evidenceThe Commission expects the ETS to be unable to drive further cuts from about 2034 without changes, citing low market confidence, price volatility and uncertainty about the scheme's future. [7]

Risks and side effects

  • ContestedBeef + Lamb NZ, responding to Labour's policy, says no country is looking to include agriculture in an emissions trading scheme, so farmers could face costs overseas competitors do not. [8]
  • ContestedEnding free units would raise costs for trade-exposed industries that now receive them. More generally, ACT's David Seymour says there is "no point shutting down a clean and efficient New Zealand business" when "the same products are then made overseas with higher emissions". The Greens would direct ETS money to a fund to help industry cut emissions. No independent analysis was found. [2][9]

Implementation

  • Established evidenceThe changes need amendments to the Zero Carbon Act and ETS law. The manifesto gives no timetable or farm emissions price. Letting the Commission set unit supply would move that decision from ministers to the Commission. [2]

Strongest case for

  • Party claimThe Greens say ending free units and forestry offsets would make a "genuine 'cap-and-trade' system" and pricing farming would meet methane targets. Greens MP Steve Abel: "We have to get gross cuts in emissions at source." [2][4]

Strongest case against

  • ContestedNo named critic of the Greens' plan was found. More generally, Federated Farmers' Richard Dawkins opposes charging for emissions, asking "What is the farming behaviour it is trying to change?" [3]
  1. Manifesto 2026 · Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  2. Manifesto 2026: Climate action, emissions reduction · Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  3. Climate politics heat up ahead of poll · Farmers Weekly · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  4. Greens push to include agriculture in Emissions Trading Scheme · 1News · accessed 16 Oct 2026 · archived copy (17 Oct 2026)
  5. Reprioritising the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund (briefing 2324-1197) · Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment · accessed 16 Oct 2026
  6. New Zealand's Nationally Determined Contributions: Potential fiscal costs associated with offshore mitigation (technical annex, TP 26/01) · The Treasury · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  7. 2026 Monitoring report: Emissions reduction · Climate Change Commission · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  8. Red Meat Farmers Welcome Labour's Emissions Pricing Pledge · Rural News · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  9. ACT pledges to scrap country's net zero target · 1News · accessed 15 Oct 2026 · archived copy (17 Oct 2026)
  10. Govt 'won't send billions offshore' for carbon credits: PM · Otago Daily Times (RNZ) · accessed 15 Oct 2026
Change history

Every recorded change to this entry, newest first, including our own corrections after checks.

  1. 17 Oct 2026 Second agent review on PR #48; separated the Green Party's statement on the 2030 pledge from Chlöe Swarbrick's conditional quote, and stated the biggest tradeoff in the same voice as other parties'. [10]
  2. 17 Oct 2026 Agent review on PR #48; dropped an extra caveat on the Greens' claimed gains that other parties' gains do not carry, quoted Seymour's words in full, and attributed the gross-emissions cap in the summary. [9][1]
  3. 17 Oct 2026 Agent review on the redesign PR; marked the 2050 target change as making it stricter, attributed the gross-emissions cap to the Greens, and said they give no figures for the cost-of-living effect. [1][2]
  4. 17 Oct 2026 Matched the Climate Change Commission line to the report: the second budget is likely to be met on the Government's projections, and the 7.9% methane figure is a government estimate. [7]
  5. 17 Oct 2026 Agent review; quoted what ACT's David Seymour said about production moving overseas, instead of linking it to free units. [9]
  6. 17 Oct 2026 Owner's call; added the who-pays line on overseas credits that National's entry carries, in the same words, since every party keeping the Paris pledges faces it. [6]
  7. 16 Oct 2026 Second agent review; described high-emitting companies without the manifesto's label, dropped a caveat other entries lack, cut the MBIE background, and added the Commission's budget projection. [2][7]
  8. 16 Oct 2026 First agent review; named the fund the manifesto gives, dated the MBIE briefing, noted farmer support in who pays, and said no figures back the cost-of-living claim. [2][5]
  9. 16 Oct 2026 Fact-check before review; tied 1.5°C to the Budget process as the manifesto does, said whose policy Beef + Lamb NZ was answering, and described Treasury's credit estimate across its scenarios. [2][8][6]
  10. 16 Oct 2026 Reviewed for consistent treatment across parties; standard tradeoff line, shared Commission and Treasury items, split claim types and checked quotes. [4][5][7][6]
  11. 15 Oct 2026 First researched from party and independent sources. [2]
As at 17 Oct 2026About GreenReport a problem with this entry

Labour

Labour says it is "fully committed" to the Paris Agreement and would put New Zealand "on course" to meet its targets. It says it would "urgently review" the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which it says is "broken" because the carbon price is too low. Labour says the review would favour "genuine emissions reductions" over offsets, reconsider forestry's place in the scheme, write rules to stop whole farms being converted to forestry, and make sure the ETS supports the Paris targets. New forestry registrations would be paused during the review. Labour would not price farm emissions by default; Chris Hipkins has said pricing is "not ruled out for all time". No cost or timetable is given. The biggest tradeoff: an ETS geared to direct cuts with no default farm price, but the effect on household and business costs depends on a carbon price Labour has not set.

  • Labour says it is fully committed to the Paris Agreement and would align the ETS with the Paris targets.
  • A review of the ETS, with new forestry registrations paused and rules against whole-farm conversions.
  • Labour would not price farm emissions by default, and Hipkins says pricing is "not ruled out for all time"; it has not said what it would do instead.

Who gains

  • Party claimLabour says a working ETS gives businesses "the certainty to invest" and helps farmers "compete in global markets". Labour says ETS revenue could be invested in affordable energy and resilience. Under its plan, farmers would not face a default farm emissions price, and new rules would limit whole-farm forestry conversions. [1][5]

Who pays

  • Established evidenceForestry investors face a pause on new ETS registrations while the review is under way. [1]
  • Established evidenceTaxpayers would bear the cost of any overseas credits bought to meet the 2030 pledge. Treasury assumes the Crown pays the full cost. [7]

Cost and costing disputes

  • Established evidenceLabour has not published a cost, a target carbon price or revenue figures. [1]
  • Independent estimateTreasury estimates meeting the 2030 pledge would need $4.4 to $5.0 billion of overseas credits across its policy scenarios (range $1.3 to $8.6 billion on its price tests), and the 2035 pledge a further $0.2 to $1.6 billion. [7]

Evidence from elsewhere

  • Established evidenceThe Climate Change Commission's 2026 report, on current policies, says the pace of decarbonisation must more than double and the 2050 target is unlikely to be met without further action. It says the Government's projections show the second emissions budget (2026–2030) is likely to be met, by 3.6 Mt, but more than half of the planned reductions (12.4 Mt) are at significant risk, and government estimates show a 7.9% methane cut by 2030 against a 10% target. It lists excluding agriculture from emissions pricing among actions that could increase emissions. [8]
  • Established evidenceThe Commission expects the ETS to be unable to drive further cuts from about 2034 without changes, citing low market confidence, price volatility and uncertainty about the scheme's future. [8]

Risks and side effects

  • Established evidenceLabour has not said what carbon price it wants, so the review's effect on household and business costs is not known. [1]

Implementation

  • Established evidenceLabour would implement changes after the review but has not said when the review would finish. [1][10]

Strongest case for

  • Party claimChris Hipkins says "The carbon price is too low to drive meaningful emissions reductions" and that leaving Paris "would be giving up on our kids' future". [3]
  • ContestedFederated Farmers backs "Labour's commitment to pause new forestry registrations." [11]

Strongest case against

  • ContestedGreenpeace's Niamh O'Flynn says "A review of the ETS is not climate action" while farming stays out. David Seymour says Labour "wants to increase that cost on Kiwis" by raising the carbon price. [9][6]
  1. Labour to accelerate climate action · New Zealand Labour Party · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  2. Luxon backtracks on climate commitments · New Zealand Labour Party · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  3. Labour promises to restore 'credibility and certainty' to the carbon market · interest.co.nz · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  4. Labour ends 18-year pledge to price agricultural emissions · Centrist · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  5. Labour climate shift wins cautious backing from farmers · Farmers Weekly · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  6. Only ACT Will Cut The Carbon Tax · ACT New Zealand (via Scoop) · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  7. New Zealand's Nationally Determined Contributions: Potential fiscal costs associated with offshore mitigation (technical annex, TP 26/01) · The Treasury · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  8. 2026 Monitoring report: Emissions reduction · Climate Change Commission · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  9. Labour's climate announcement is a cop-out · Greenpeace Aotearoa · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  10. Climate election divide: Paris, power and the ETS emerge as major 2026 battlegrounds · Waatea News · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  11. Federated Farmers Praises Labour's Emissions Tax Backdown · Rural News · accessed 15 Oct 2026
Change history

Every recorded change to this entry, newest first, including our own corrections after checks.

  1. 17 Oct 2026 Matched the Climate Change Commission line to the report, and said ETS revenue could be invested in affordable energy and resilience, as Labour's release says. [8][1]
  2. 17 Oct 2026 Owner's call; added the who-pays line on overseas credits that National's entry carries, in the same words, since every party keeping the Paris pledges faces it. [7]
  3. 16 Oct 2026 Second agent review; attributed 'urgently', removed ACT's claim from who pays (it stays in the case against), and added the Commission's budget projection. [1][8]
  4. 16 Oct 2026 First agent review; attributed the Paris aim, worded the cost tradeoff as depending on an unset carbon price, quoted Federated Farmers on the forestry pause, and added Labour's use of ETS revenue. [1][11]
  5. 16 Oct 2026 Fact-check before review; removed an unsourced review lead and an unsourced risk claim, and described Treasury's credit estimate across its scenarios. [1][9][7]
  6. 16 Oct 2026 Reviewed for consistent treatment across parties; standard tradeoff line, shared Commission and Treasury items, split claim types and checked quotes. [1][6][8][7]
  7. 15 Oct 2026 First researched from party and independent sources. [1]
As at 17 Oct 2026About LabourReport a problem with this entry

National

National would keep New Zealand in the Paris Agreement, which Christopher Luxon has made a bottom line in coalition talks. It would keep the 2050 net zero target and the methane target it set in 2025 (a 14 to 24% cut below 2017 levels by 2050, reviewed in 2040). Farm emissions would not be priced; National relies on technology and says over $400 million is being invested with industry. Luxon says the government will "do everything we can" on the 2030 pledge but is not "sending billions of dollars offshore" for credits. National has not said it would change the Climate Change Commission; in 2025 the government said the Commission would no longer have to evaluate emissions reduction plans. The biggest tradeoff: no new cost on farmers and no stated plan to buy overseas credits, but government estimates put the 2030 methane cut at 7.9%, short of the 10% target.

  • National would keep New Zealand in the Paris Agreement; Luxon has made this a coalition bottom line and says the government is not "sending billions of dollars offshore" for credits.
  • National would keep the 2025 targets. It has not said it would change the Commission, which the government said in 2025 would no longer have to evaluate emissions reduction plans.
  • National says more than $400 million is being invested with industry in methane-cutting tools, with the first expected on farms in 2026.

Who gains

  • Party claimFarmers and exporters, who National says get certainty and no emissions price on farming. [2][5]

Who pays

  • Established evidenceTaxpayers would bear the cost of any overseas credits bought to meet the 2030 pledge. Treasury assumes the Crown pays the full cost. [6]

Cost and costing disputes

  • Independent estimateTreasury estimates meeting the 2030 pledge would need $4.4 to $5.0 billion of overseas credits across its policy scenarios (range $1.3 to $8.6 billion on its price tests), and the 2035 pledge a further $0.2 to $1.6 billion. [6]
  • Party claimNational says over $400 million is being invested with industry in methane-cutting tools. [2]

Evidence from elsewhere

  • Established evidenceThe Climate Change Commission's 2026 report, on current policies, says the pace of decarbonisation must more than double and the 2050 target is unlikely to be met without further action. It says the Government's projections show the second emissions budget (2026–2030) is likely to be met, by 3.6 Mt, but more than half of the planned reductions (12.4 Mt) are at significant risk, and government estimates show a 7.9% methane cut by 2030 against a 10% target. It lists excluding agriculture from emissions pricing among actions that could increase emissions. [8]
  • Established evidenceThe Commission expects the ETS to be unable to drive further cuts from about 2034 without changes, citing low market confidence, price volatility and uncertainty about the scheme's future. [8]

Risks and side effects

  • Established evidenceNational has not said how much, if any, of the 2030 pledge it would cover with overseas credits, so the cost of meeting it is not known. [4][7]

Implementation

  • Established evidenceThe targets are already in law. [10]
  • Party claimNational says the first methane-cutting tool is expected on farms in 2026, with up to 11 by 2030. [2]

Strongest case for

  • Party claimSimon Watts says "technology and partnership, not taxes, will deliver the reductions that we need." Todd McClay says the changes give farmers and exporters certainty and a clear pathway to reduce emissions. [2][5]

Strongest case against

  • ContestedClimate scientist James Renwick says the coalition's policy moves have "on balance gone in the wrong direction". From the other side, David Seymour says "Paris needs to change, or New Zealand needs to leave." [9][4]
  1. Policies · New Zealand National Party · accessed 15 Oct 2026 · archived copy (15 Oct 2026)
  2. Government sets methane targets for 2050 · New Zealand National Party · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  3. Luxon makes Paris climate deal coalition bottom line · Farmers Weekly (RNZ) · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  4. 'We ain't sending billions of dollars offshore': PM talks NZ's Paris Agreement targets · interest.co.nz · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  5. Climate politics heat up ahead of poll · Farmers Weekly · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  6. New Zealand's Nationally Determined Contributions: Potential fiscal costs associated with offshore mitigation (technical annex, TP 26/01) · The Treasury · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  7. Govt 'won't send billions offshore' for carbon credits: PM · Otago Daily Times (RNZ) · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  8. 2026 Monitoring report: Emissions reduction · Climate Change Commission · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  9. 'The window for action is closing': NZ's rate of emissions reduction needs to more than double - Climate Change Commission · interest.co.nz · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  10. Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2025 · New Zealand Legislation · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  11. Bill halving methane reduction targets passes · Otago Daily Times (RNZ) · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  12. The updates to climate law, explained · The Spinoff · accessed 15 Oct 2026
Change history

Every recorded change to this entry, newest first, including our own corrections after checks.

  1. 17 Oct 2026 Attributed the 2030 methane estimate in the biggest tradeoff to the government, as the Commission's report does. [8]
  2. 17 Oct 2026 Matched the Climate Change Commission line to the report: the second budget is likely to be met on the Government's projections, and the 7.9% methane figure is a government estimate. [8]
  3. 16 Oct 2026 Third agent review; gave Todd McClay's comment as reported speech, since the wording is a paraphrase. [2]
  4. 16 Oct 2026 Second agent review; quoted Luxon in the Paris cell, replaced a risk other entries lack with the unstated credit position, and added the Commission's budget projection. [4][8]
  5. 16 Oct 2026 First agent review; said National has not stated plans for the Commission, moved the Minister's response to the detail, and gave the Commission's methane projection in the tradeoff. [12][9][8]
  6. 16 Oct 2026 Fact-check before review; said the Commission no longer has to evaluate emissions plans, and described Treasury's credit estimate across its scenarios. [12][6]
  7. 16 Oct 2026 Reviewed for consistent treatment across parties; standard tradeoff line, shared Commission and Treasury items, split claim types and checked quotes. [9][5][4][8][6]
  8. 15 Oct 2026 First researched from party and independent sources. [2][3]
As at 17 Oct 2026About NationalReport a problem with this entry

NZ First

NZ First would take New Zealand out of the Paris Agreement "altogether". It argues that New Zealand produces about 0.17% of global emissions, that four countries produce about 60% of the world's carbon dioxide, and that money spent meeting Paris pledges would be better spent on the environment at home. It says that if New Zealand honours its Paris obligations, "up to $22 billion" of taxpayers' money could go offshore. NZ First has also said it would review the Climate Change Commission. Its policy does not say what would happen to the Zero Carbon Act targets, the Emissions Trading Scheme or farm emissions, and gives no start date. The biggest tradeoff: no overseas credit costs or Paris obligations, but trade risk under the EU agreement's Paris clause.

  • NZ First says New Zealand should "get out of the Paris Accord altogether" and spend the money at home instead.
  • NZ First's David Wilson said the party would review the Commission; no detail has been published.

Who gains

  • Party claimNZ First says farmers, taxpayers and the productive sector would avoid Paris-related regulation and the cost of sending money offshore. [1]

Who pays

  • Established evidenceTreasury's credit costs apply only if New Zealand meets the pledges; no analysis of the costs of withdrawal was found. [3]

Cost and costing disputes

  • Party claimNZ First says "up to $22 billion" of taxpayers' money would go offshore if New Zealand honours its Paris obligations. It gives no source; Treasury's 2023 range for the 2030 pledge was $3 to $24 billion. [1][9]
  • Independent estimateTreasury estimates meeting the 2030 pledge would need $4.4 to $5.0 billion of overseas credits across its policy scenarios (range $1.3 to $8.6 billion on its price tests), and the 2035 pledge a further $0.2 to $1.6 billion. [3]

Evidence from elsewhere

  • Established evidenceThe Climate Change Commission's 2026 report, on current policies, says the pace of decarbonisation must more than double and the 2050 target is unlikely to be met without further action. It says the Government's projections show the second emissions budget (2026–2030) is likely to be met, by 3.6 Mt, but more than half of the planned reductions (12.4 Mt) are at significant risk, and government estimates show a 7.9% methane cut by 2030 against a 10% target. It lists excluding agriculture from emissions pricing among actions that could increase emissions. [5]
  • Established evidenceThe Commission expects the ETS to be unable to drive further cuts from about 2034 without changes, citing low market confidence, price volatility and uncertainty about the scheme's future. [5]

Risks and side effects

  • Established evidenceThe EU trade agreement includes an enforceable commitment to implement the Paris Agreement; a breach found by a disputes panel could lead to other trade obligations being lifted (BERL). [4]

Implementation

  • Established evidenceNZ First has not published a timetable or said how withdrawal would be carried out. Its policy does not say whether the Zero Carbon Act targets or the ETS would change. [1]

Strongest case for

  • Party claimWinston Peters says major emitters will not follow through, so "our sacrifice will make no difference". NZ First says four countries produce about 60% of CO2, and the money would do more at home. [6][1]

Strongest case against

  • ContestedChris Hipkins says Paris "is essential for bringing countries together to address a problem affecting every country". Christopher Luxon says leaving would get New Zealand products "kicked off the shelves" overseas. [7][8]
  1. We Will Withdraw From The Paris Accord · New Zealand First · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  2. Climate election divide: Paris, power and the ETS emerge as major 2026 battlegrounds · Waatea News · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  3. New Zealand's Nationally Determined Contributions: Potential fiscal costs associated with offshore mitigation (technical annex, TP 26/01) · The Treasury · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  4. Climate and gender equality pledges binding in EU FTA · BERL · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  5. 2026 Monitoring report: Emissions reduction · Climate Change Commission · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  6. Winston Peters channels 'Make New Zealand First Again', wants NZ out of Paris · interest.co.nz · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  7. Labour promises to restore 'credibility and certainty' to the carbon market · interest.co.nz · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  8. Luxon makes Paris climate deal coalition bottom line · Farmers Weekly (RNZ) · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  9. Govt 'won't send billions offshore' for carbon credits: PM · Otago Daily Times (RNZ) · accessed 15 Oct 2026
Change history

Every recorded change to this entry, newest first, including our own corrections after checks.

  1. 17 Oct 2026 Matched the Climate Change Commission line to the report: the second budget is likely to be met on the Government's projections, and the 7.9% methane figure is a government estimate. [5]
  2. 16 Oct 2026 Third agent review; reworded who pays to say Treasury's credit costs apply only if the pledges are met. [3]
  3. 16 Oct 2026 Second agent review; stated the EU trade risk once, gave Treasury's 2023 range beside the $22 billion, and added the Commission's budget projection. [9][5]
  4. 16 Oct 2026 First agent review; gave the EU trade clause in BERL's words. [4]
  5. 16 Oct 2026 Fact-check before review; linked the $22 billion to Paris obligations as NZ First does, and described Treasury's credit estimate across its scenarios. [1][3]
  6. 16 Oct 2026 Reviewed for consistent treatment across parties; standard tradeoff line, shared Commission and Treasury items, split claim types and checked quotes. [5][3][4]
  7. 15 Oct 2026 First researched from party and independent sources. [1]
As at 17 Oct 2026About NZ FirstReport a problem with this entry

Opportunity

Opportunity makes recommitting to the Paris Agreement and protecting the Climate Change Commission's role one of its five bottom lines for any coalition. It would "restore the integrity" of the Paris pledge and follow the Commission's advice on meeting the 2050 targets. It proposes a cap-and-trade scheme for farm methane and nitrous oxide, and changes to Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) pricing and forestry rules; news reports say it would also give the Commission power over ETS price controls and budgets. It would set up a $5 billion Climate Resilience Fund and a $1 billion fund, backed by ETS revenue, to move industry off coal and gas. No start dates are given. The biggest tradeoff: a cap on farm methane and nitrous oxide and new climate funds, but new costs for farmers and emitters.

  • Recommitting to Paris is one of Opportunity's five coalition bottom lines.
  • Opportunity would follow the Commission's advice on the 2050 targets; news reports say it would also give it power over ETS settings.
  • Opportunity would change carbon pricing and forestry settings, which it says would drive down emissions and reward nature-based sinks.
  • A separate mechanism would cap farm emissions and let farmers trade within the cap.

Who gains

  • Party claimOpportunity says the next generation gains from a "resilient and prosperous New Zealand", and communities from a $5 billion Climate Resilience Fund. Industry moving off coal and gas gets a $1 billion fund. [1][2]

Who pays

  • Established evidenceFarmers would face a cap on methane and nitrous oxide. The $1 billion industry fund would be backed by future ETS auction revenue. [2][3][5]
  • Established evidenceTaxpayers would bear the cost of any overseas credits bought to meet the 2030 pledge. Treasury assumes the Crown pays the full cost. [6]

Cost and costing disputes

  • Party claimOpportunity puts $5 billion into the Climate Resilience Fund, including $500 million for nature-based solutions, and $1 billion into the industry fund. [2]
  • Established evidenceOpportunity has not published a cap level or price for farm emissions, or a funding source for the $5 billion fund. [2]
  • Independent estimateTreasury estimates meeting the 2030 pledge would need $4.4 to $5.0 billion of overseas credits across its policy scenarios (range $1.3 to $8.6 billion on its price tests), and the 2035 pledge a further $0.2 to $1.6 billion. [6]

Evidence from elsewhere

  • Established evidenceThe Climate Change Commission's 2026 report, on current policies, says the pace of decarbonisation must more than double and the 2050 target is unlikely to be met without further action. It says the Government's projections show the second emissions budget (2026–2030) is likely to be met, by 3.6 Mt, but more than half of the planned reductions (12.4 Mt) are at significant risk, and government estimates show a 7.9% methane cut by 2030 against a 10% target. It lists excluding agriculture from emissions pricing among actions that could increase emissions. [7]
  • Established evidenceThe Commission expects the ETS to be unable to drive further cuts from about 2034 without changes, citing low market confidence, price volatility and uncertainty about the scheme's future. [7]

Risks and side effects

  • ContestedBeef + Lamb NZ, responding to Labour's policy, says no country is looking to include agriculture in an emissions trading scheme, so farmers could face costs overseas competitors do not. [9]

Implementation

  • Established evidenceA new farm emissions scheme and changes to the Commission's powers would need legislation. Opportunity has not published a timetable. Giving the Commission power over ETS settings, as reported, would move those decisions from ministers to the Commission. [2][3]

Strongest case for

  • Party claimOpportunity says "The next generation needs us to stop kicking the climate can" and "Climate policy shouldn't change every time the government does." [1][2]
  • ContestedGreenpeace's Rhiannon Mackie says "Opportunity is on the right track" on farm emissions. [8]

Strongest case against

  • ContestedGreenpeace wants farming added to the existing ETS instead, warning a separate scheme risks "more years of delay". No farm-sector response to Opportunity's scheme was found; more generally, Federated Farmers' Richard Dawkins opposes charging for farm emissions. [8][4]
  1. Bottom lines · The Opportunity Party · accessed 14 Oct 2026
  2. Climate Action · The Opportunity Party · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  3. NZ minor party proposes methane emissions pricing, handing ETS controls to climate commission · Carbon Pulse · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  4. Climate politics heat up ahead of poll · Farmers Weekly · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  5. Climate election divide: Paris, power and the ETS emerge as major 2026 battlegrounds · Waatea News · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  6. New Zealand's Nationally Determined Contributions: Potential fiscal costs associated with offshore mitigation (technical annex, TP 26/01) · The Treasury · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  7. 2026 Monitoring report: Emissions reduction · Climate Change Commission · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  8. Opportunity climate policy a step in the right direction · Greenpeace Aotearoa · accessed 15 Oct 2026
  9. Red Meat Farmers Welcome Labour's Emissions Pricing Pledge · Rural News · accessed 15 Oct 2026
Change history

Every recorded change to this entry, newest first, including our own corrections after checks.

  1. 17 Oct 2026 Matched the Climate Change Commission line to the report: the second budget is likely to be met on the Government's projections, and the 7.9% methane figure is a government estimate. [7]
  2. 17 Oct 2026 Owner's call; added the who-pays line on overseas credits that National's entry carries, in the same words, since every party keeping the Paris pledges faces it. [6]
  3. 16 Oct 2026 Second agent review; added the Commission's budget projection to the shared evidence. [7]
  4. 16 Oct 2026 First agent review; kept the case for to the party's reasons, quoted Greenpeace once on delay, and noted no farm-sector response was found. [2][8][4]
  5. 16 Oct 2026 Fact-check before review; said whose policy Beef + Lamb NZ was answering, and described Treasury's credit estimate across its scenarios. [9][6]
  6. 16 Oct 2026 Reviewed for consistent treatment across parties; standard tradeoff line, shared Commission and Treasury items, split claim types and checked quotes. [2][4][3][7][6]
  7. 15 Oct 2026 First researched from party and independent sources. [1][2]
As at 17 Oct 2026About OpportunityReport a problem with this entry