Shanxi province in northern China is the country’s largest coal producer, leaving its coal-reliant economy and workers particularly exposed to the nation’s pledge to transition away from fossil fuels.
A new survey of Shanxi residents, exploring attitudes to climate change and the “just transition”, offers a rare insight into the views of Chinese people on the frontline of this policy drive.
While the province has installed significant new clean energy capacity, coal-related industries contributed around 80% of the province’s tax revenues and 55% of its jobs in 2022.
Indeed, Shanxi could lose more than 240,000 coal jobs by 2050 as China’s energy transition continues, according to energy thinktank Global Energy Monitor (GEM).
In an April 2025 speech, Chinese president Xi Jinping said the energy transition needed to “strike a balance between multiple goals including environmental protection, economic growth, job creation and poverty alleviation”.
So far, however, provincial policies relating to the energy transition have not been translated into “something…tangible to peoples’ lives”, says Tom Wang, executive director of People of Asia for Climate Solutions, a climate advocacy group and one of the groups who designed, carried out and helped analyse the results of the recent survey.
The survey asked almost 10,000 people in Shanxi about their views on China’s climate policies, the impacts on their local economy and whether they felt prepared for the energy transition. A detailed methodology can be found at the end of the article.
In this interview, Wang discusses the motivations for carrying out the survey and outlines its key findings.
The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
- On the importance of coal to Shanxi’s economy: “Millions of people and their families rely on coal-related jobs, such as coal miners, coal-truck drivers, coal power plant workers or coal-washing workers.”
- On the lack of awareness of climate change in some communities: “The most vulnerable communities, by which I basically mean the coal community, don’t really know about climate change. They know about the energy transition, they know a little bit about big policies…but they don’t really understand them.”
- On media narratives: “Most state-owned media talk a lot about climate change, peaking carbon emissions, renewable energy, the energy transition and so on…However, the media does not explain what that means for people’s everyday lives.”
- On the interest in low-carbon industry jobs: “People are quite happy to move on, if they are provided with good training and strong support to help that transition go smoothly.”
- On the importance of fast action: “2025 and 2026 will be two critical years for this province. They will be when we make our next five-year plan, the 15th five-year plan, which will cover 2026-2030. This will also be the five years we start to physically see the job losses in the coal mining industry, because of China’s overall climate policies.”
- On why young people were concerned about coal mines and power plants closing: “We have spent so much energy and resources on educating and preparing our young people for the coal industry, instead of preparing them for the transition.”
- On what needs to be done next: “We need to prepare our two communities – the coal community and the young generation – today. We cannot afford to wait any longer. We need to tangibly start to train people and raise new sectors, or at least raise incomes.”
- On the need for inter-provincial support: “The [richer] provinces should step up and say: ‘Look, brothers, you have supported our economies and now it’s time for us to help you.’”
Carbon Brief: Why did you want to conduct this survey? Why did you want to focus on Shanxi?
Tom Wang: I always say working on coal is my job, but, at the same time, it’s a personal issue for me, because I’m from Shanxi province. I grew up with coal, thinking that it was a necessary part of life. We burned coal for cooking, heating and even festival celebrations. But I also lost quite a lot of people in my family – my cousins and uncles, who were coal miners or working for coal-fired power plants – either because of coal-mine accidents or air pollution.
Shanxi province is the world’s largest coal producer. [Note: The province’s coal output reached 1.3bn tonnes in 2024.]…Every year, whether China’s economy is performing well or badly, we contribute around one-third of its coal. Millions of people and their families rely on coal-related jobs, such as coal miners, coal-truck drivers, coal power plant workers or coal-washing workers. Around you, your cousins, classmates or friends [are working in the coal industry].
Even in my first job as a teacher, part of my pay would come from money made from coal. So it was a big part of my life. That’s why we have to address coal in China, including – or even starting with – Shanxi.
And then there is the bigger context. Internationally, after COP28 and COP29, we talk about a coal phase-down, if not a coal phase-out. Then, domestically, China is working towards its dual-carbon goals – targeting a carbon emissions peak before 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060…This means we have five years to achieve a carbon emission peak and it also means that coal consumption should start to decline next year.
Therefore, Shanxi cannot depend on the coal economy. We have been relying so heavily on coal mining, coal sales and coal exports to other provinces. That income-generating industry is going to disappear very soon…which means millions of people’s jobs and livelihoods will undergo dramatic changes.
For more than a decade, Shanxi province’s own policies have also covered the energy transition. It’s worrisome that these policies have remained [high-level], without being translated into something more tangible to people’s lives.
People are not prepared. Coal miners are not prepared. Their wives are not prepared. The coal-truck drivers are not prepared. The metallurgical coal industry is not prepared. That’s why we wanted to do this survey and interview as many people as possible. We ask two simple questions: do you know about and support the energy transition – and are you prepared?
CB: What do people in Shanxi think about the energy transition, climate change and climate policy?
When it comes to climate change, awareness levels are very different between different demographic groups. For example, government workers and people with higher income or education levels know about climate change.
Some people [in the survey] could identify things happening around them, such as temperatures getting warmer every year, drought periods getting longer, how last winter we didn’t have any snow – and they found these worrisome, based on their own experiences of how the province should be.
Some people even mentioned extreme weather events, including heatwaves and a week-long rainstorm that ruined a lot of Shanxi province’s ancient temples – the most valuable thing that we have.
However, the most vulnerable communities, by which I basically mean the coal community, don’t really know about climate change. They know about the energy transition, they know a little bit about big policies, such as the dual-carbon goals – they say they know about these buzzwords, but they don’t really understand them.
CB: In the survey, people would say they supported the ‘dual-carbon goals’ when asked about them specifically, but then were not as supportive of implementation measures, such as closing coal mines or coal-fired power plants. Why is that?
TW: This is uniquely Chinese, because most state-owned media talk a lot about climate change, peaking carbon emissions, renewable energy, the energy transition and so on. The visibility of all these ‘big words’ is really high.
However, the media does not explain what that means for people’s everyday lives. They are just copy-pasting [readouts of] policies from the State Council into their newspaper. For them, that’s ‘job done’, but it doesn’t really make sense to ordinary people. That’s how Chinese media works.
That is why the survey finds that, although more than 70% of people are aware of words like carbon emissions peak, or that they’re aware of the energy transition, it doesn’t mean they know what these words mean or how to interpret them.
But when we interpret these policies for them and explain that the energy transition means we are going to use less coal, they can understand…and feel the impact on their lives quite sharply.
That’s why there’s such a gap. [People say they] support everything the government does, whether or not they understand what that means. However, when you ask if they support something that would change their life completely – for the better or for the worse – they have to think twice.
CB: The survey also asked people what they would like to see prioritised in a just transition away from coal. What did respondents say was important to them?
TW: Two things stood out to me. First, I often talk about a mechanism called JET-B. We all know JET-P, the Just Energy Transition Partnership. However, in Shanxi province, what we really need is the JET-B, a Just Energy Transition Brotherhood.
The rich provinces in China, which are mostly along the east coastline – for example, Jiangsu, Guangdong, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Fujian, Shandong – relied heavily on Shanxi’s coal in the past decades to develop their economies. [The JET-B calls on them to] support Shanxi with its energy transition.
Many [respondents] agreed with this! They expect other richer provinces to support us, because the whole province knows that we have been providing so much coal to other provinces, instead of using it ourselves.
Also, the people of Shanxi are actually willing to change or improve their own skill-sets. They know how dangerous it is to work in the coal industry, both because of accidents and because of pollution. There is a high awareness of the lack of a future for the coal industry among respondents. People are quite happy to move on, if they are provided with good training and strong support to help that transition go smoothly.
CB: In the report, you chose to pull out the responses from coal sector workers and young people as special focus areas. Why?
TW: Almost a half of [Shanxi’s] population works one way or another in or for the coal industry – they would have been a huge part of the survey whether we focused on them or not. But we did want to find out particularly how the coal community feels, because they will be the community who are most directly and immediately impacted by the energy transition.
Their responses are very important as an indicator to policymakers. They will have to be the very first group of people to be retrained and they should be supported in the transition into a cleaner and healthier future.
Prospects for the young generation are also a huge concern in Shanxi. We are losing many young people to other provinces – like a talent drain. Also, the energy transition and climate change are always about the future generations. I wanted young people to feel ownership over this topic and I wanted to hear about their [feelings towards their] own province. Do they want to stay here? Do they want to leave? What is keeping them here, or what is pushing them away?
These answers are valuable for policymakers because young people are leaving and trying to make a living [in other provinces]. Ironically, historically, we have a reputation of being the “stubborn province” – a community of people who refuse to leave their hometowns, because we are so attached to this place.
I don’t know why this is! I guess [the community feels] we have such a beautiful history, beautiful nature and lovely people. There are many reasons to be proud of being from Shanxi, but we are losing so many young people.
2025 and 2026 will be two critical years for this province. They will be when we make our next five-year plan, the 15th five-year plan, which will cover 2026-2030. This will also be the five years we start to physically see the job losses in the coal mining industry, because of China’s overall climate policies.
At the same time, in late 2024 and early 2025, Shanxi was put into the spotlight for its rich tourism opportunities. I’m not sure how familiar you are with the area?
CB: I have been to Shanxi before – to Datong, Pingyao and a couple of other areas…
TW: …so you saw the beautiful grottos in Datong and the ancient temples? When I was talking about [the week-long] rainstorm in 2021 that damaged our ancient cities and towns, I was talking about Pingyao!
I would feel so guilty if we weren’t able to hand down a beautiful Shanxi province to future generations. That is why the voice of the young generation is so interesting to me.
CB: It struck me how young people in Shanxi responded to the questions. Just over a quarter felt they did not have the skills they needed for a clean-energy economy and around half were worried about the closure of coal mines and coal-power plants. What can be done to address their concerns?
TW: In Shanxi province we have universities that are dedicated to the coal industry. These young people are trained to become engineers, coal miners, metallurgical coal factory technicians or steel factory workers. We have spent so much energy and resources on educating and preparing our young people for the coal industry, instead of preparing them for the transition away from coal.
Young people don’t know how to prepare for the energy transition. And then there’s the current job market. Shanxi’s economy is so weak – in 2024, our province had the lowest economic growth rate in China.
Shanxi is not supposed to have the weakest growth, theoretically speaking – we have both heavy industry and a services industry. But we didn’t do very well last year because coal prices were rising and falling and China was importing a lot of coal from other countries, which meant Shanxi lost market share for coal in 2024.
At the same time, Shanxi is not very good at setting up new industries. For example, China’s AI industry is getting stronger. Shanxi province is full of mountainous regions that could provide natural cooling environments for big data centres.
Data centres require two things: cooling and energy. Shanxi has both: natural cooling and energy, including a lot of renewable energy – curtailment is a big problem for us.
We have all of this potential but we’re not translating it into good, decent, healthy, strong, futuristic, sustainable jobs. That’s why the young generation doesn’t feel confident.
CB: What lessons should be taken away from the survey?
TW: We need to prepare our two communities – the coal community and the young generation – today. We cannot afford to wait any longer. We need to tangibly start to train people and raise new sectors, or at least raise incomes.
Communications are also critical. We, as communicators, know the importance of communications, but policymakers – and sometimes even China’s journalists – do not know that yet. I want to see more opinion leaders or TikTok influencers from my province [talking about Shanxi’s transition away from coal].
Wouldn’t it be beautiful to see a coal miner from Datong [which was once China’s largest coal production and export base] become a tour guide on TikTok and show that he can still make decent money without coal?
We need to inspire people. Young people and the coal community are feeling lost and sad, they don’t know what to do. We need to find the different seeds of possibilities and highlight that all these doors are out there. They might look as if they’re closed, but with a little pushing they will open.
That’s what I would like our policymakers and investors, as well as NGOs – although we don’t have many of them! – to say. And the [richer] provinces should step up and say: “Look, brothers, you have supported our economies and now it’s time for us to help you.” Not necessarily even with money, it could be with technology.
For example, once, I almost cried when I was visiting a museum in another province, because it was so well set-up and curated. As a tourist, I really appreciated its beauty.
The subject the exhibition was focused on was only 300 years old, whereas in Shanxi province so many of our artifacts are more than 500 years old. But we don’t have the investors and technologies, or even the awareness, to make our museums that attractive.
Having artists, professors, historians or curators come from these rich provinces and make our heritage stay here and shine [would be helpful] – it doesn’t have to be financial support that they send! We have this piece of gold but it isn’t shining because our policymakers aren’t doing their jobs and our people aren’t aware of its value.
As a final thought, a speaker at one of our recent conferences was a coal miner who was also a poet. One of his collections was called “Seeking starlight in the coal pit”.
That metaphor reminded me about an English poem I had read. The UK was probably the world’s very first coal-mining country and there’s a lot of poetry and poets that came out of the UK’s coal community as well. And it just so happened that a UK coal-miner poet also wrote a very similar poem. [The poem is titled “The stars are twinkling”.]
It is beautiful that two coal miners from two different centuries, countries and language groups both became poets who wrote about standing in a coal mine and seeing the stars.
Note on the survey methodology: According to the survey report, the findings of the report were primarily sourced from a survey, supplemented by in-depth interviews with 30 individuals representing a range of industries.
The survey was hosted on Credamo, an online survey website, and was open from 17 July 2024 to 18 August 2024. The survey organisers recruited 201 students from universities in Shanxi province as volunteers to promote the survey and gather responses. Volunteers were asked to ensure that at least one of every three responses they gathered was collected in-person.
In total, 9,776 complete responses were gathered. Respondents who responded to control questions incorrectly, or took less than seven minutes to complete the survey, had their responses removed, leaving 6,035 valid responses.
Among the respondents with valid responses, 44% were men, 54% were women, with 2% selecting ‘other’. Respondents were located in 11 towns or cities across Shanxi province: Changzhi (25%), Taiyuan (15%), Linfen (10%), Yuncheng (9%), Datong (7%), Jincheng (7%), Shuozhou (6%), Lüliang (6%), Xinzhou (5%), Jinzhong (5%) and Yangquan (3%). The survey respondents skewed young, with 55% aged 24 years old or younger. 57% of respondents completed a university degree.
The interview was conducted by Anika Patel on 2 April 2025 via Zoom.
The post Interview: What the people of China’s coal-rich Shanxi think about climate change appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Interview: What the people of China’s coal-rich Shanxi think about climate change
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