Last week, hundreds of scientists, policymakers and journalists flocked to the University of Exeter to attend an international conference on “tipping points”.
The conference saw experts discussing the dangers of a range of Earth system tipping points, including the dieback of the Amazon, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).
Attendees also explored “positive tipping points” – large-scale, self-propelling social changes that would reduce the impact of humans on the climate.
(For more on the key talking points, new research and ideas that emerged from the four-day event, see Carbon Brief’s full write-up of the event.)
On the sidelines of the conference, Carbon Brief asked a wide range of delegates which tipping point concerns them the most.
These are their responses, first as sample quotes, then, below, in full:
- Prof Gabi Hegerl: “I am particularly worried about tipping points that involve the biosphere and humans due to breaching thresholds for heat or drought that then ripple into food availability, livelihood and ecosystems.”
- Prof Carlos Nobre: “The Amazon is a very serious tipping point, because [dieback] could release around 250bn tonnes of CO2 by 2100 – which will make it impossible to [limit global warming] at 1.5C.”
- Gaia Vince: “I would say that we have already passed the tipping point for coral reef ecosystems…As a scuba diver, I find it a tragedy because I love coral reef ecosystems, but it’s also a tragedy for human systems.”
- Dr Andrew Hartley: “The tipping point I’m most concerned about is Amazon forest dieback…because of the significance of the carbon cycle and the feedback to the global climate. Also [due to] the effects that Amazon tipping has on food security, both locally and globally.”
- Prof Tim Lenton: “The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, for sure. The consequences of crashing that would be devastating globally – and also for where I live in the UK.”
- Prof Peter Cox: “The one that I’ve worked on most and worries me most at the moment is Amazon dieback. And that’s because we’ve got two things, two stressors, going on at once that push it in the wrong direction. Climate change is one, deforestation is another.”
- Prof Johan Rockström: “The tipping element that worries me most is coral reef systems, for the simple reason that the scientific uncertainty range is very limited.”
- Dr Patricia Pinho: “For me, it is the Amazon…I think it’s going to be a really profound, irreversible change that will affect the global population in the most dramatic way.”
- Prof Ricarda Winkelmann: “I’m mostly concerned about the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. This is because we know that, even at lower warming levels, they are already at risk of transgressing tipping points in certain regions.”
- Dr Nico Wunderling: “The tipping element that worries me most is the Amazon rainforest. This is because the Amazon rainforest is not only threatened by climate change, but also by deforestation at the same time.”
- Dr Rebecca Shaw: “The coral reef tipping point…It signals the end of the most colourful and biodiverse ecosystem which supports the nutrition and livelihoods of over one billion people.”
- Dr David Obura: “The ice [tipping elements] – because they are the first ones to go that have cascading impacts on other tipping elements.”
- Dr David Armstrong McKay: “The Amazon is actually probably closer to a deforestation-induced tipping point than to a climate change-induced tipping point. So, I actually think that could be potentially in the offing sooner than we would like.”
- Kate Raworth: “The tipping point that I fear we will fail to cross is [the social tipping point] around transforming our mindsets.”
Chair in climate system science in the school of geosciences at the University of Edinburgh
I am worried about all of them, but for the immediate future, I am particularly worried about tipping points that involve the biosphere and humans due to breaching thresholds for heat or drought that then ripple into food availability, livelihood and ecosystems. The Earth system tipping points will do that too, but maybe a little bit later. Examples [of this] are the coral diebacks triggered by marine heatwaves, forest change and fires, and droughts threatening livelihoods and putting people on the move.
I did a research project on the US Dust Bowl and the trigger [for that event] was drought causing vegetation and crop dieback, [which led to] extreme heat and dust storms in response – and migration, as memorialised in [the 1939 John Steinbeck novel] The Grapes of Wrath. And, now with warming, all droughts get supercharged.
Prof Carlos Nobre
Scientist and meteorologist who spearheaded the multi-disciplinary, multinational large-scale biosphere-atmosphere experiment in Amazonia
The Amazon is a very serious tipping point, because [dieback] could release around 250bn tonnes of CO2 by 2100 – which will make it impossible to [limit global warming] at 1.5C. We could also lose the largest [host to] biodiversity on the planet, which would induce a tremendous, large number of epidemics and several pandemics. Also, of course, the Amazon forest controls aspects of the global climate. In South America, the climate is entirely controlled by the Amazon forest.
I’m most worried about Amazon [dieback] because I have worked on it for 40 years. But the other tipping points deeply concern me. The melting of the permafrost will release more than 200bn tonnes [of greenhouse gases], mostly methane. Ice sheet melt in Greenland is a very serious tipping point because it could raise sea level rise by three metres in 200 years. The melting of Greenland has already started. Species extinction is also very serious.
One thing that was not much talked about [at this conference] is that when the ocean heats up, particularly the Arctic Ocean, then a tremendous amount of methane is released. And if that happens – if the Arctic Ocean warms up by 3-4C – the amount of methane that would be released could see [air] temperatures reach 8-10C [above pre-industrial levels]. At 8-10C, the only inhabitable places for us humans will be the top of the Alps, the Andes and the north and south poles. The rest of the planet would be uninhabitable.
Gaia Vince
Science writer and broadcaster
I would say that we have already passed the tipping point for coral reef ecosystems, for example. That really is a tragedy. As a scuba diver, I find it a tragedy because I love coral reef ecosystems, but it’s also a tragedy for human systems. They are the nursery for our fisheries. And, of course, they’re not just fisheries – they are a valid ecosystem and a biodiversity hotspot. This will have untold consequences and cascading impacts for other parts of the ecosystem, for example, the cycling of nutrients and coral reefs are really important to stop coastal erosion. And they actually provide sand, the lovely white sand that people go on holiday for Bucha.
Dr Andrew Hartley
Climate impacts scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre
The tipping point I’m most concerned about is Amazon forest dieback and reduction in the function of the Amazon forest, because of the significance of the carbon cycle and the feedback to the global climate. Also [due to] the effects that Amazon tipping has on food security, both locally and globally, because of [the Amazon’s] contribution to major commodity markets, such as soybean and maize.
This might interact with climate change in the future to lead to more severe events, particularly in populated areas of Brazil. If an Amazon tipping point were to occur, it might lead to more severe events on the coast of Brazil which would affect a much larger population. There are negative impacts across the forest from the drying of the forest, for example for the Indigenous communities, but also globally.
Prof Tim Lenton
Founding director of the Global Systems Institute and chair in climate change and Earth system science at the University of Exeter
The Atlantic Meridional Overtoning Circulation, or AMOC, for sure. The consequences of crashing that would be devastating globally – and also for where I live in the UK. By our own calculation, we could have less than half the viable area for growing a couple of major staple crops, wheat and maize worldwide. We would have a widespread water crisis. We could have collapses of the monsoons in West Africa and India that would displace hundreds of millions of people. It is hard to see that as anything other than a catastrophe.
Prof Peter Cox
Professor of climate system dynamics in mathematics and director of the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter
The one that I have worked on most and worries me most at the moment is Amazon dieback. And that’s because we’ve got two things, two stressors going on at once that push it in the wrong direction. Climate change is one, deforestation is another. You can imagine crossing the boundary in various ways – but, if you push diagonally, you get there quicker.
If I had spoken to you 25 years ago, I would have said I’m really worried about [Amazon dieback]. Then I went through a phase of thinking that the models have overdone it. And now I’m thinking the models that don’t include land-use change are underdoing it. So, I’m more concerned about that one.
There are others as well, but that is the one that is also quite fast. The other [tipping points] we worry about, we’re worried about a long-term commitment. It takes a while for the AMOC to shut down, it really does. It takes a while for the Greenland ice sheet to melt. We’ve done work that suggests you can overshoot even a little bit for these slow systems. The Amazon forest is a decadal dieback, especially if it is fire driven.
Prof Johan Rockström
Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and professor in Earth system science at the University of Potsdam
There is not a simple answer to this – there is a two-part answer.
The tipping element that worries me most is coral reef systems, for the simple reason that the scientific uncertainty range is very limited. We have, unfortunately, ample evidence that at 1.5C we’re very likely to knock over, potentially, the entire tropical coral reef system on Earth. [This threatens] the livelihoods of 400 million people and a fundamental nursing ground for the whole ocean food web. So that is one deep concern. It is the canary in the coal mine – the first kid on the block to fall over. We’re so close.
The second one is AMOC – the whole overturning of heat in the Atlantic, which connects the entire ocean system. Not only is the latest science showing that we are going from low likelihood to uncomfortably high likelihood, but we also know – with very little uncertainty – that this would cause a catastrophic impact across the entire world, and it would go fast. So the AMOC, I would argue, is today the most important scientific message to the world. If you want a really hard-hitting reason to act at a level of planetary emergency, it is the AMOC. That is the second one.
From a planetary boundary perspective, it is important to recognise that – on climate science grounds – the Amazon basin is not at risk of tipping until 3-5C of warming. But as soon as you factor in loss of biodiversity, deforestation and changes in hydrology – then the temperature risk goes down to between 1.5-2C. So suddenly – when taking a more integrated [assessment] approach – the conclusion is that it is also very close to a tipping point.
Dr Patricia Pinho
Deputy science director at the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM)
For me, it is the Amazon. When we think of the planetary crisis, we think about the Amazon and all the regulating climate services it provides. This is not only regionally, but we know it’s a global “climate good”, if you will. But it is highly sensitive to land-use change and increasing temperature. So, if we transition to a point of no return – Amazon dieback – and transforming or transitioning to another ecosystem, the function of the forest will not be doing what it has been doing for the past millennium and so on. And then we cannot revert this loss. I think it is going to be a really profound, irreversible change that will affect the global population in the most dramatic way.
Of course, we have the people on the front line that I’m working with – Indigenous people, traditional population – that are safeguarding this resource, but they are also at the front line of climate risks and the impacts that we already observe. If we miss this opportunity of really reverting from increasing greenhouse emissions and increasing temperature, we’re going to miss the window of opportunity to really protect the region, protect the ecosystem and the forest for the global society.
Prof Ricarda Winkelmann
Founding director of the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology and professor of climate system analysis at PIK and the University of Potsdam
So I am thinking about this from a risk perspective – so both the likelihood as well as the impacts – and I think the answer depends on that. Because when it comes to the likelihood and the particular threshold – and we know about those – I’m mostly concerned about the Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets. This is because we know that, even at lower warming levels, they’re already at risk of transgressing tipping points in certain regions.
But when it comes to the impacts and also the timescales over which those play out, there are other tipping elements that worry me most. In particular, regional tipping elements. So if we think of the mountain glaciers, for instance, these impacts are already experienced right now and several mountain glaciers are undergoing these accelerated changes. And so thinking about the timescales when it comes to the impacts is also incredibly important.
Dr Nico Wunderling
Junior professor at the Center for Critical Computational Studies at Goethe University Frankfurt and researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
The tipping element that worries me most is the Amazon rainforest. This is because the Amazon rainforest is not only threatened by climate change, but also by deforestation at the same time. So that means that the critical threshold from climate change alone, at around 3-4C of global warming, can come down to 1.5-2C. Climate change and deforestation basically go hand-in-hand to lower the [Amazon’s tipping] threshold because of this double threat.
Dr Rebecca Shaw
Chief scientist and senior vice-president at WWF
The coral reef tipping point – it comes first because of warming surface waters, and then the outcome is sealed by ocean acidification. It signals the end of the most colourful and biodiverse ecosystem which supports the nutrition and livelihoods of over one billion people and has captured the imagination of more people than any other through the characters like Nemo the clownfish, SpongeBob SquarePants, and, of course, Frank the coral [a character from an educational YouTube video].
If humanity is not motivated to act in the face of the loss of coral reefs, is there hope that we will act in time to prevent the Amazon and glacier tipping points?
Dr David Obura
Chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and founding director of CORDIO East Africa
The ice [tipping elements] – because they are the first ones to go that have cascading impacts on other tipping elements. When [ice masses] reduce, we lose their albedo, waters heat up more [and] the AMOC can collapse. That has the biggest impact across the planetary system, including the Amazon.
My own [research], of course, is coral reefs. So, in a way, the coral reef tipping point does concern me the most. [But] it doesn’t have cascading impacts on other tipping elements. It does on people, in socioeconomic terms – but not on other system elements. So, in a sense, it is the least worrying one.
Dr David Armstrong McKay
Lecturer in geography, climate change and society in the school of global studies at the University of Sussex and lead author on an influential tipping points assessment, published in Science in 2022
One of the tipping systems that concerns me the most is Amazon rainforest dieback. Because even though we assessed it a few years ago as having a warming threshold that’s a bit higher than what we might be seeing – we’ve thought it is maybe at a best estimate of 3.5C – there’s also deforestation as well. The Amazon is actually probably closer to a deforestation-induced tipping point than to a climate change-induced tipping point. So I actually think that could be potentially in the offing sooner than we would like. That would have huge impacts for biodiversity, for South America as a whole, by shifting rainfall patterns, which would really affect a lot of people for agriculture or ecosystems. Also, the Amazon as an ecosystem is so incredibly biodiverse and amazing in itself, it would be a tragedy to lose it.
Kate Raworth
Senior visiting research associate and lecturer at the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute and co-founder and conceptual lead of Doughnut Economics Action Lab
The tipping point that I fear we will fail to cross is [the social tipping point] around transforming our mindsets. We need to move from the extractive, degenerative economy towards a regenerative one. This all starts within our head and it underlies everything.
[A failure to do this] is what is driving us towards all these [Earth system tipping points].
The post Experts: Which climate tipping point is the most concerning? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Experts: Which climate tipping point is the most concerning?
The US is expected to resume its attempt to sink measures for a greener global shipping sector at closed-door talks between governments at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in early September.
The US and oil-producing allies like Saudi Arabia want to weaken a proposed plan for cleaner fuels that aims to reduce planet-heating emissions from the industry, which relies heavily on dirty bunker fuels. Shipping currently represents 3% of global emissions.
Those that want a softer system are likely to back a Liberian proposal which expert analysis suggests would see emissions fall by only half at most by 2050, far short of the sector’s agreed climate goals.
After several years of debate, governments provisionally agreed in April 2025 on the “Net Zero Framework” (NZF), a series of emissions reduction targets for shipowners, backed up with financial rewards for meeting the targets and fees for missing them.
But in October 2025, after a high-profile intervention from US President Donald Trump and threats of sanctions and visa restrictions, the US convinced a majority of voting nations to postpone the adoption of the NZF for a year.
Ralph Regenvanu, climate minister for the Pacific nation of Vanuatu, called the delay “unacceptable” given the urgency of accelerating climate change.
After a round of low-profile talks in May, the first of three further sets of talks on how to clean up shipping will begin at the IMO’s riverside headquarters in London on Tuesday, culminating in a final public session in November.
Em Fenton, who follows the talks as senior director of climate diplomacy at Opportunity Green, an NGO focused on aviation and shipping, said governments should not be sidetracked by alternative proposals to the NZF, calling them “a distraction from a hard-fought multilateral compromise”.
“If countries want to deliver a just and fair maritime transition, there is really only one choice: back the NZF and stand together in solidarity against those who would tear it apart,” Fenton added.
Five proposals on the table
Governments will discuss five different proposals submitted in advance of next week’s meeting. The most ambitious of these is from the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu, which has proposed a levy on the entirety of a ship’s emissions rather than just those above a certain level, as the NZF envisions.
That had been the original demand of Pacific nations before the NZF was provisionally adopted in April 2025. At the time, Tuvalu’s transport minister Simon Kofe described the NZF as disappointing and not ambitious enough.
For this reason, six Pacific countries abstained in the vote on the NZF. While they supported the original plan for its adoption in October 2025, they have used the delay to push again for more ambition.
John Kautoke, advisor to a group of Pacific nations called 6PAC+, told Climate Home News that the NZF “cannot diminish its already inadequate ambition. If anything, the NZF must increase in ambition if we are going to renegotiate its parameters.”
-
New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation
A new bill prevents corporations being sued for the climate damage their emissions cause, as the government says climate action should be handled at the national level not in court -
Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry
The government is restricting nickel production to push up prices but producing more sustainable nickel for a premium requires addressing the industry’s coal issue -
As marine heat breaks records, countries seek ocean roadmap at COP31
Africa and the EU are leading a push for COP31 to deliver a roadmap that lays out measures to protect fast-warming oceans
Analysis by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST) suggests that, of the five proposals, only Tuvalu’s would meet the 2030 and 2040 emissions reduction targets for global shipping that were agreed by governments in 2023. Those were for cuts of 20% between 2008 and 2030, 70% by 2040 and then reaching net zero “by or around, i.e. close to 2050”.
Despite this, the UK, Australia, Canada and South Africa have formally proposed that governments adopt the NZF, which won support in a 63-13 vote among governments at the April 2025 talks. Trump’s US walked out halfway through.
According to IMarEst’s analysis, while the NZF proposal will not be enough to meet the industry’s targets, it will reduce emissions more cheaply than the Pacific proposal.
A proposal by Brazil – which fought hard for the NZF last October – suggests tweaking the framework to make meeting targets easier in the short term and harder in the long term.
While this compromise will make it more appealing to the owners of polluting ships and countries that support them, IMarEst estimates it would lead to higher cumulative emissions than either the NZF or Pacific proposals.
The NZF stipulates that fees for high-polluting shipowners should be be put into a Net Zero Fund and used to promote clean shipping fuels and a fairer transition. The Brazilian proposal would delay raising and spending these funds by two years, from 2029 to 2031.
Liberia’s proposal weakens emissions cuts
The US and Saudi Arabia are likely to swing behind a new proposal from Liberia, whose government makes millions of dollars a year selling the right for shipowners to register their vessels in the small West African nation via a US-based company.
This proposal would weaken the emissions reduction targets. IMarEst says it would cut the industry’s emissions at most by a half by 2050, falling far short of the target agreed in 2023 for international shipping to reach net zero “close to 2050”.
It would also replace the NZF’s fees for missing targets with a carbon trading system. As a result, there would be no Net Zero Fund and therefore less money available to incentivise green fuels and make the transition more equitable for poorer nations.
Pacific advisor Kautoke said that, as well as preventing shipping from reaching zero emissions by 2050, Liberia’s proposal would mean the Pacific “will not receive any support to deal with the disproportionately negative impacts created by the cost of the transition”.
“We get a double blow if we adopt the Liberian proposal,” he warned. “We get all the cost of a transition without any support, and we have an industry that continues to burn fossil fuels to an unforeseen point.”
Japanese proposal favours shipowners
Japan has submitted a late proposal to amend the NZF so that shipowners have more control over how the fees they would pay for emitting above a set threshold are spent.
University College London professor Tristan Smith has argued that this change means there will be no central mechanism to incentivise investments in clean fuels. He wrote on LinkedIn that under the system put forward by Japan, shipowners would be able to select which green projects their fees would go to. They could choose their own or those of a sister company or other shipowners, rather than funding broader just transition projects that would benefit marine workers or developing countries hit by rising shipping costs.
Despite its flaws, Smith added that Japan’s proposal “could still get taken seriously by some, given how appealing it may seem to shipowners who have consistently demanded control of revenues, and given how the US and other member states have pushed back against the IMO Net Zero Fund and [greenhouse gas] pricing.”
Tacit or explicit approval?
Next week, governments are expected to make statements saying which proposals – or which aspects of proposals – they prefer. Another set of talks will be held from November 23-27 before a potentially final round from November 30-December 4.
A new framework to tackle shipping emissions could be adopted at those talks if two-thirds of countries that are present and signed up to a regulation called Marpol Annex VI – endorsed by just over 100 states – vote in favour of it, as they did in April 2025.
The US and its allies are also trying to change the rules to make the next stage more difficult. Decisions that have been adopted at IMO meetings usually take effect automatically unless a certain number of countries object within a certain time period decided by governments, a system known as tacit approval.
But the US wants that to require explicit approval instead, so that any new emissions standard would not come into force unless enough governments – representing a certain percentage of the world’s shipping fleet – actively indicate support for it.
Critics say this change would give a small number of countries with large shipping registries the power to block implementation. Liberia has the world’s biggest shipping registry, run by an American company, followed by Panama and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
Liberia and Panama have supported the US at the talks on the Net Zero Framework. The Marshall Islands has long been one of the most vocal supporters of climate action in shipping but, with its officials and shipping registry income vulnerable to US retaliation, did not sign on to the recent Pacific proposal vowing to strengthen the NZF if it is re-opened.
Brazilian negotiator Adriana de Medeiros Gabinio warned in April that the NZF’s opponents are trying to change the rules by which it comes into force as a “safety net to block” it.
The post Battle over cleaning up shipping set to resume at London talks appeared first on Climate Home News.
Battle over cleaning up shipping set to resume at London talks
SYDNEY, Wednesday 26 August 2026 — New 2026 Sustainability Reports released by supermarket giants Coles and Woolworths this week demonstrate the retailers are failing on their commitments to end deforestation in their supply chains.
Adele Chasson, Nature Policy Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said:
“These so-called sustainability reports are revealing. Despite their public commitments in 2024 and 2025, neither Coles nor Woolworths have taken deforestation-linked beef off their shelves. Meanwhile, bulldozers continue to tear up forests and bushland, pushing wildlife closer to extinction and causing mass toxic runoff to flow into the Great Barrier Reef. Millions of native animals like koalas are losing their homes to beef pastures each year, while the big supermarkets put off action.
“Australians would be shocked to know that beef on the shelves of our biggest supermarkets could be pushing threatened species to the brink of extinction. Collectively Coles and Woolworths have made more than $2 billion in profits in the last year, profiting from the destruction of wildlife and precious Australian nature. Coles and Woolworths owe it to shoppers to deliver on their promises and end deforestation in their supply chains now.
“As big beef buyers, Coles and Woolworths have an essential role to play in keeping Australia’s unique forests standing. They can help stop the Great Barrier Reef from being poisoned by runoff and protect iconic forest wildlife by taking deforestation off their shelves. It’s time these big companies put their money where their mouths are and follow through on their promise of sourcing and supplying deforestation-free beef.”
New Zealand’s parliament has adopted a controversial new law blocking a whole avenue of climate litigation and shutting down its most advanced corporate lawsuit, which has been blamed by the government for shaking business confidence and investment.
The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, expected to take effect in the coming days after it is formally signed by the Governor-General, prevents all current and future civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law.
Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said last week that the aim was to give businesses “certainty around their climate change obligations”, noting it would not alter the government’s responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 nor business obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme.
“Our response to climate change is best managed by the Government at a national level and not through piece-meal litigation in the courts,” he added in a statement.
Such litigation, he said, “risks developing a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted” to tackle climate change.
South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right
Constitutional Court rules that Shell and its partners failed to consult affected communities and did not properly consider environmental risksPeruvian farmer loses climate case against RWE – but paves way for future action
Experts say that despite dismissing the lawsuit, the ruling sets a precedent by confirming that climate science can establish legal liability for the damage caused by emissions
Goldsmith singled out a key domestic climate lawsuit brought by Northland iwi leader and activist Mike Smith against six big companies: dairy firms Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, energy firms Genesis Energy and Z Energy, New Zealand Steel and coal mining firm BT Mining. A seventh original defendant, Channel Infrastructure, was dropped after it permanently decommissioned its Marsden Point oil refinery.
Smith argued that these companies had caused him harm under public nuisance and negligence law, as well as a third breach of a duty to cease contributing to climate change that has yet to be tested domestically. He did not seek financial compensation, instead asking for the companies to immediately stop emitting or contributing to net greenhouse gas emissions.
In one of the most advanced corporate climate accountability lawsuits in the world, a trial had been scheduled for April 2027 after the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the case to continue.
Corporate lobbying in the shadows
Smith described the passing of the bill as “deeply concerning”, particularly as it coincided with the Supreme Court hearing another of his climate lawsuits. In that case, Smith v Attorney-General, he argues that the government’s response to climate change and its impacts on Māori communities in particular breaches rights to life and culture.
“That timing raises profound questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law,” said Smith. “Whatever one’s view of the merits of these cases, it is deeply troubling when parliament intervenes to remove a legal pathway while the courts are actively considering fundamental questions about climate responsibility, rights and the crown’s obligations.”
The bill – which says that no person (including the government) can be found liable in tort for emissions-related climate change effects – followed major lobbying efforts by the companies defending themselves in Smith’s lawsuit. They outlined a proposed legal amendment in a briefing note to the government in 2024.
The centre-right government has been fiercely criticised over its lack of transparency in relation to this lobbying activity. The national ombudsman recently found that the Prime Minister’s Office effectively withheld information requested by the Environmental Law Initiative about meetings, discussions and conversations regarding Smith’s case.
Green groups fail to stop bill
The bill sparked huge concern among environmental campaigners in New Zealand and elsewhere. Greenpeace Aotearoa called it a “shocking abuse of executive power” and the vast majority of submissions to a parliamentary inquiry said it should be rejected.
But in the end, it was adopted with little resistance, moving relatively smoothly through parliament, passing its third reading by 67 votes to 53. Sam Bookman, climate law lecturer at Melbourne Law School, told Climate Home News he was not surprised by this, given that the coalition government has a secure majority.
A complaint has been made to the UN special rapporteur on climate change and human rights by Smith, the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pou Tikanga and youth coalition Climate Clinic Aotearoa over what they see as the government’s heavy-handed approach. Smith is also challenging the new law in yet another lawsuit.
“Pathetic”: New Zealand plans to barely cut emissions between 2030 and 2035
Bookman thinks it “very unlikely” that such a challenge will succeed, noting that New Zealand’s constitution is firmly anchored in parliamentary sovereignty.
But the expert in climate law does not see the bill as the end of legal action in the country, noting that New Zealand has a “sophisticated climate litigation landscape with a growing number of specialist and experienced lawyers and NGOs”.
The country is also approaching its next general election in November, and some opposition parties have pledged to restore access to the courts if elected.
Amanda Larsson, global project lead on agriculture for Greenpeace International, said: “This law deserves to be tested, and I strongly encourage the international climate litigation community to unite and help defend New Zealanders’ fundamental right to hold polluters accountable before this becomes a global blueprint.”
Copycat legislation on the rise
New Zealand’s move is part of a small but growing legislative effort to shut down climate litigation around the world.
In the US, Republican politicians introduced legislation in the House and Senate in April that would shield fossil fuel firms from climate liability lawsuits. Similar laws have already been passed at state level in Tennessee, Utah, Iowa and Louisiana.
The German state of Bavaria has put forward a similar proposal to the Federal Council, aiming to block private climate claims as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments imposing such liability. There are also proposals to limit available remedies and actions in the Netherlands and Belgium.
UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court
Bookman said he expects more efforts to counter climate damages litigation and advised plaintiffs to think about how to respond, including drawing on broader support in opposing them.
“Even though it’s very hard for plaintiffs to win these types of cases, companies are very eager to avoid the expense, embarrassment and political accountability that come even with unsuccessful lawsuits,” he said.
The post New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation appeared first on Climate Home News.
New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits