Civil servants from New Zealand’s foreign and trade ministry have advised politicians that reversing a ban on offshore oil and gas exploration could harm the country’s international reputation and relationships, anger Pacific nations and risk lawsuits over climate change.
In 2018, the country’s then centre-left prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, effectively banned fresh efforts to look for fossil fuels offshore. But the new right-wing government led by Christopher Luxon – a former CEO of Air New Zealand – introduced legislation to reverse the ban last week, allowing just four working days for consultation and aiming to pass it by the end of this year.
In official advice, which the government accidentally published despite attempting to keep secret, the ministry warned that the move “risks being seen as running counter to the Pacific regional and global consensus on transitioning away from fossil fuels”.
It goes on to cite the global agreement made at the COP28 UN climate summit last December calling on governments “to contribute” to “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”.
Greenpeace Africa in disarray as restructuring meets resistance
Saudi Arabia’s energy minister has downplayed the significance of this COP28 decision by calling it an “à la carte menu” of “choices”. But New Zealand-based Oil Change International campaigner David Tong said the advice from New Zealand’s civil servants shows the importance of the deal struck in Dubai.
“It provides an unambiguous example of experienced climate diplomats warning political decision-makers that domestic decisions to backslide on moves away from fossil fuels will lead to diplomatic backlash,” he told Climate Home.
The document, called a “regulatory impact statement”, was overseen by a business ministry official but features input from other departments. The section featuring the foreign and trade ministry’s advice was supposed to be redacted but the government accidentally tabled an unredacted version to parliament.
Pacific anger
A previously redacted section suggests that, in particular, the potential reaction of New Zealand’s “Pacific Island partners” to a reopening of oil and gas exploration is important for the government. It points out that the COP28 agreement “drew heavily” from the outcome of the 2023 Pacific Island Forum leaders meeting.
Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, told Climate Home that the previous New Zealand government’s decision to ban new offshore gas exploration was “courageous” and “strongly supported by the Pacific”.
Colombia adds nature to the mix with its $40-billion energy transition plan
She added that “any moves to restart offshore exploration would be out of line with the commitment we made in Dubai”. “We would have to question if New Zealand were truly committed to the safety and security of the Marshall Islands and all our brothers and sisters in the Pacific,” she added, referring to the threat faced by small island states of rising sea levels from global warming caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels.
Pacific nations have also criticised the Australian government’s recent decision to approve the expansion of three coal mines. Tuvalu’s climate minister Maina Talia recently told the Guardian newspaper that this was “immoral and unacceptable”.
Australia is hoping to co-host the COP31 climate summit in 2026 with at least one Pacific nation – but Turkiye also wants to host that summit.
Legal risks
In a section marked “legally privileged”, the statement highlighted two legal risks that would stem from reversing the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration.
It noted foreign and trade ministry officials’ assessment that such a move “could be perceived” as New Zealand not intending to meet its official United Nations climate plan, known as a Nationally Determined Contribution.
“This gives rise to international legal risk,” the document says, adding that “there have been attempts globally to take novel cases against States under international law, for breach of their climate change obligations”. “While these legal risks are low at this time, as is the risk of challenge, this is an active area of international litigation,” it continued.
Amazon state that will host COP30 strikes “largest carbon credit sale in history”
Governments are increasingly being sued – in both national and international courts – over their perceived lack of climate action.
In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland had breached its citizens’ human rights by not doing enough to cut greenhouse gas emissions, a conclusion the Swiss government disputes.
In response to a campaign led by the Pacific nation of Vanuatu, the International Court of Justice is preparing an advisory opinion on states’ legal obligations on climate change and human rights, and the consequences of causing harm.
In September 2022, the UN Human Rights Committee found that Australia’s failure to protect Indigenous Torres Strait Islanders from rising seas and extreme weather, because of its inadequate action on climate change, violated their human rights.
Nikki Reisch, director of the Center for International Environmental Law’s climate and energy programme, told Climate Home that lifting New Zealand’s fossil fuel exploration ban would be “ripe for legal challenge”.
“It’s likely to be challenged as contrary to the state’s climate obligations – both domestic and international – as well as its duties under human rights and constitutional laws to protect the right to life and other rights,” she said.
Trade deals
The foreign ministry also advised that lifting the ban on fossil fuel exploration would “likely be inconsistent with the obligations in several of New Zealand’s free trade agreements (FTA) not to reduce environmental protections for the purposes of encouraging trade or investment”.
New Zealand’s agreements with the European Union (EU) and the UK contain these kind of provisions. But the officials advised that the “risk of legal challenge” on this was “likely to be low”.
The civil servants’ advice was published on May 15, 2024. Tong said the risk of lawsuits had increased since then.
The EU has proposed Dan Jørgensen – a former Danish climate minister and convenor of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance – as its new energy commissioner, Tong noted. “He is likely to take a dim view of New Zealand forcing the Alliance to kick the country out,” he said.
Tong added that the UK’s new left-wing Labour government, which came into power in July, has pledged to end new offshore oil exploration. “Failure to implement the COP28 outcomes could spark trade risks under existing free trade agreements,” he said.
(Reporting by Joe Lo, editing by Megan Rowling)
The post Civil servants warn fossil fuel exploration could harm New Zealand’s climate reputation appeared first on Climate Home News.
Civil servants warn fossil fuel exploration could harm New Zealand’s climate reputation
Climate Change
“Sink or swim”: WA Gov hugely underestimating decline in regional gas demand while sleeping on green exports, new report finds
PERTH, Tuesday 13 October 2026 — A new report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Springmount Advisory reveals green commodity exports are an untapped economic opportunity for Western Australia in a declining Asian gas market, while offering a genuine solution for decarbonising Asia.
From Gas to Green: Building Western Australia’s Future State is a comprehensive analysis of the declining gas market in Asia, and the untapped economic opportunity for WA to become a global leader in green commodity exports while driving the regional shift away from fossil fuels.
The report offers key recommendations for the WA Government to support regional decarbonisation through an orderly phase out of gas exports in favour of green iron and other green exports. It comes as global climate leaders from across business, politics and advocacy prepare to meet for the Global Citizen Now: Perth event focused on decarbonising WA.
Key findings:
- Gas demand is falling across WA’s core markets in Asia: Gas demand fell in 2025 and is projected to continue to decline, driven by a combination of global geopolitical factors and domestic concerns.
- Policy shifts in key markets since the war on Iran now prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas: Japan, South Korea and China have legislated energy plans that prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas.
- New WA gas would arrive in a saturated, uncertain Asian market filled with cheaper gas: The US is now the world’s largest liquefied gas producer and plans to double its capacity as it also targets Asian markets.
- Green commodities offer a real solution to sustain WA’s economy: WA can lead Australia’s green commodity exports, which by 2060 could be worth almost a trillion dollars.
- Exporting more WA gas is likely to delay or impede Asia decarbonisation: Despite claims by the gas industry, there is no evidence that WA gas is displacing coal in Asia, and in fact diverts resources from genuine decarbonisation options.
Geoff Bice, WA Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said: “As our export partners in Asia shift away from expensive and polluting gas, the WA Government has a golden opportunity to pivot our economy to green exports, like green iron, which is the most effective way to help our region to decarbonise.
“The writing is on the wall: gas is in decline, renewables are our future. In this context, it makes zero sense for the government to encourage high risk projects like Woodside’s reckless Browse gas proposal at Scott Reef.
“This report clearly shows that the WA Government faces a choice: sink or swim. They can either allow the gas industry to keep ripping off West Australians and continue propping up its decline, or choose the path that will deliver enormous benefits to the state and the world by becoming a leader in the rapidly expanding green economy.”
Tom Quinn, Managing Director of Springmount Advisory: “Western Australia prospers when it looks to the future and builds for future demand. Twenty years from now, what the world needs is green commodities made using WAs abundant renewable resources. Just like it did with iron ore in the 1950s and gas in the 1970s, WA should look to the future and build what the world will need, not sunsetting industries like gas that are already past their peak.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
Lucy Keller on 0491 135 308 or lucy.keller@greenpeace.org
A report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Springmount Advisory reveals the untapped green economic opportunity for Western Australia in a declining Asian gas market, which also offers a genuine solution for decarbonisation in Asia.
Is Western Australia clinging to a fading gas industry while a thriving green future passes it by? As major Asian trading partners rapidly pivot away from volatile gas imports toward cheap solar and battery storage, this report exposes a high-stakes choice: risk becoming stranded in an oversupplied fossil fuel market, or harness WA’s unmatched sun and wind to lead the global clean energy transition.
Summary
From Gas to Green: Building Western Australia’s Future State reveals that Western Australia (WA) faces a critical juncture as falling Asian gas demand, geopolitical gas supply volatility and accelerating renewable energy deployment undermine the long-term economic viability of gas exports. By harnessing its world-class wind and solar resources, the report demonstrates that WA can execute an orderly phase-out of gas and pioneer a green commodity export economy that could generate $987 billion in economic value by 2060, create 24,000 ongoing jobs, and drive a 9.6% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Key Findings
- Gas demand is falling in Asia – WA can no longer rely on gas exports: Gas demand in core Asian markets fell in 2025 and is projected to continue to decline in 2026. Legislated energy plans in Japan, South Korea, and China now prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas.
- Asia is increasing renewables, importing gas just gets in the way: Evidence from markets like Thailand suggests that gas imports are increasingly crowding out cheaper renewable energy investments and battery storage rather than displacing coal, locking in more emissions over time.
- Green commodities offer a real solution to decarbonise Asia – this is a major win for WA: With world-class renewables, WA can lead Australia’s green commodity exports, which by 2060 could be worth almost a trillion dollars ($987 billion) and support a genuine 9.6% reduction in global emissions.
Recommendations to WA government
Recommendation 1: Plan an orderly gas phase-out aligned with a trading partner pivot plan
Implement a managed, orderly phase-out of gas exports aligned with trading partners’ decarbonisation pathways, rather than waiting for demand to collapse, by:
- Developing and implementing a staged phase-out of gas facilities aligned with feedstock supply expiry or typical end of facility lifespans.
- Committing to no new gas development for gas expansion, including Browse and Kimberley fields.
- Developing new, reciprocal trade relationships with existing gas trade partners, structured to progressively replace gas exports with green commodities – integrated with recommendation 2.
Recommendation 2: Develop an integrated green commodity export strategy, positioning WA as a global green iron manufacturing hub
Establish an integrated green commodity export strategy that immediately prioritises green iron development, positioning WA as a global green iron manufacturing hub, by:
- Committing to green commodity export targets to give industry and investors a clear demand signal.
- Prioritising green iron as the lead sector within the broader green commodity strategy, given WA’s iron ore endowment and first-mover potential.
Recommendation 3: Reject false solutions such as carbon dumping (CCS) and blue hydrogen
Reject carbon dumping (also described as carbon capture and storage, or CCS) and blue hydrogen as viable decarbonisation technologies, and prioritise green hydrogen and proven renewables for clean energy and fuel production by:
- Excluding blue hydrogen projects (and CCS-dependent projects) from all government support programs.
- Requiring existing hydrogen-based production (including ammonia, methanol, synthetic fuels) to have clear, near-term transition timelines to switch to green hydrogen production.
What you can do
Together, we can push for a prosperous green future.
You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
REPORT: “From Gas to Green” Building Western Australia’s Future State
Cleaner cooking projects in the UN carbon market will have to set aside a share of their credits to insure against the risk that the trees they save are lost to fire, drought or logging, after the market’s regulator rejected calls to exempt the sector.
The requirement is part of a new rulebook that the Paris Agreement carbon market regulator – the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body – approved last Friday for programmes that aim to cut emissions by distributing new and cleaner cookstoves in regions that still burn wood or charcoal for cooking.
These are the UN mechanism’s first rulebooks for cookstoves, one of the carbon market’s most popular credit types and also one of its most criticised for overstating climate benefits.
They consist of two methodologies: one for programmes that aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions by distributing more efficient cookstoves that burn less wood or charcoal, and a separate methodology for projects shifting households to lower-emissions cookers running on electricity or liquid petroleum gas (LPG).
Mkhuthazi Steleki, the South African chair of the Supervisory Body, said “this decision gives cleaner cooking projects a new pathway under the UN carbon market, with clear rules to ensure that each credit represents a real and credible emission reduction”.
Industry and NGOs lobby to weaken UN carbon credit rules in “coordinated” push
In copycat submissions and a private briefing to government officials, the groups have opposed a proposal to tighten safeguards for emissions offsetsLaunch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes
Repeated delays are raising questions about the bank’s momentum and whether it can mobilise investment to finance Africa’s oil and gas ambitions in an era of energy transition
Exemption push rejected
More efficient cookstove projects earn credits based on the amount of carbon they save by preserving trees that would have otherwise been cut down and burned for fuel. But if those trees later burn in a wildfire or are logged, the carbon stored would be released anyway, erasing the climate benefits of the credits.
Several carbon credit developers, conservation NGOs and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) disputed that cookstove projects face this risk, in what critics described as a “coordinated lobbying campaign”.
They argued that, unlike forest protection schemes, this type of credit represents a “flow” of avoided emissions rather than a “stock” of stored carbon that can be released. They also warned that requiring a buffer would impose disproportionate costs and undermine the financial viability of these activities.
But the UN carbon market regulator was not persuaded by the argument. It decided that projects would have to protect against this reversal risk by handing over a percentage of credits to a so-called “buffer pool” instead of selling them.
‘New paradigm’
The amount of credits to be given up is calculated by applying different methods for natural risks, like wildfires, droughts or hurricanes, and human-caused ones, such as logging or land clearing.
For natural risks, project developers will need to apply local risk values derived from new modelling published by a group of independent scientists.
Campaigners have broadly welcomed the decision. Federica Dossi, an expert at Brussels-based advocacy group Carbon Market Watch, said it sets a new paradigm for calculating reversal risk based on empirical data. “This approach is grounded in science and we hope to see this now being adopted by other carbon crediting mechanisms in the voluntary market,” she added.
Backers claim this method is more rigorous than current practice in the voluntary carbon market, which largely relies on expert guesswork.
Pre-COP draws attention to Pacific’s climate plight and 1.5C goal
Pushback over science
As Climate Home News previously revealed, the same industry and NGO groups that sought an exemption from the “buffer pool”, along with some corporate buyers, criticised the use of a study backed by the UN carbon market’s experts that recommended the new risk assessment approach.
The groups pushed for more flexible rules that would have allowed natural risk values drawn from other sources, including national databases, or from the project developers themselves.
While the Supervisory Body rejected this approach, it gave project developers and countries the option to propose alternative values that would first need to be vetted by the mechanism’s expert panel and then approved by the regulator.
A carbon market expert told Climate Home News that, while it is too early to say how this provision will be used, they expect requests will have to be backed up with solid scientific evidence, lowering the risk of unfounded claims.
