Home

Jen Purdie,Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Sustainability, University of Otago The government’s announcement that it would move ahead with plans for a new facility to import liquefied natural gas (LNG), potentially as early as next year, was framed as a way to shore up energy security. But the decision instead marks another major step backwards for domestic efforts to decarbonise. Notably, it comes as communities across the North Island – including Mount Maunganui – are recovering from just the kind of extreme weather events climate change is projected to intensify. With the United States now withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, and New Zealand simultaneously weakening its own climate settings, it is easy to feel a sense of drift. Despite 89% of people globally wanting stronger climate action, the erosion of the international rules-based order risks pulling more countries away from cooperative solutions. But the energy transition now has real momentum. So how much difference does the US withdrawal from Paris – and New Zealand’s turn back towards fossil fuels – actually make? A setback, not a stop Before the US withdrew, 93% of global emissions came from countries with net-zero policies in place; that figure has now fallen to 83%. The drop would have been larger if not for pledges by 24 US states, along with many cities and corporations, to stick to Paris Agreement targets. So, while the US exit might be a massive blow, it is far from the end of global climate action. Current Paris Agreement pledges and targets would see global emissions peak in the next few years, if countries follow through. Many states – including the US, United Kingdom, China, Australia and Canada – are already recording declines. New Zealand’s emissions have flatlined since 2008 but it is still doing less than its fair share on a per-capita basis. Globally, the race is now on between avoiding dangerous climate tipping […]