Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court of New Zealand has ruled that climate change must be considered when the government decides to offer oil and gas blocks for tender.
- The court found that climate change is a mandatory consideration at the earlier stage of offering blocks for tender, not at the permitting stage.
- The ruling has significant implications for the country’s energy policy and the extraction of fossil fuels.
- The case was brought by a group of law students who argued that the government had not properly considered the impacts of climate change when granting exploration permits.
- The Supreme Court’s decision is at odds with earlier rulings, which found that climate change was not a relevant consideration at the permitting stage.
Introduction to the Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court of New Zealand has made a landmark ruling that climate change must be considered when the government decides to offer oil and gas blocks for tender. The court found that climate change is a mandatory consideration at the earlier stage of offering blocks for tender, not at the permitting stage. This decision has significant implications for the country’s energy policy and the extraction of fossil fuels. The case was brought by a group of law students who argued that the government had not properly considered the impacts of climate change when granting exploration permits.
Background to the Case
The case was taken to the Supreme Court by a group of Victoria University law students, known as Students for Climate Solutions, now called Climate Clinic Aotearoa. The students argued that when the then-Energy Minister Megan Woods made her decision to grant the permits, she did not properly consider the impacts of climate change, despite advice from the Climate Change Commission that the government should avoid locking in new fossil fuel assets. The students argued that climate change should be considered at the point when a minister is deciding whether to grant a permit. The Supreme Court’s decision dismissed the students’ case, but on the basis that once a tender process had already been completed, going on to refuse a permit would undermine the intent of offering a block for tender.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court found that climate change is "so obviously relevant" to a decision that could lead to the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels that it must be considered. The court ruled that the Crown Minerals Act’s aim was to "promote" prospecting, exploration, and mining "for the benefit of New Zealand". The court found that ‘benefit’ was "not simply a recognition of the benefits that flow from mining". The justices wrote in their decision that "climate change is a matter of pressing concern for New Zealand and its well-being both in the near and long term". The court also noted that the Crown has entered into binding obligations on New Zealand’s behalf in connection with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Implications of the Ruling
The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for the country’s energy policy and the extraction of fossil fuels. The ruling suggests that the government must consider climate change when deciding whether to offer oil and gas blocks for tender. This could lead to a reduction in the number of blocks offered for tender, as the government may need to take into account the potential impacts of climate change. The decision also highlights the importance of considering climate change in decision-making processes, particularly when it comes to the extraction of fossil fuels.
Comparison with Earlier Rulings
The Supreme Court’s decision is at odds with earlier rulings, which found that climate change was not a relevant consideration at the permitting stage. The High Court earlier found against the students’ case, ruling that while no one could doubt the importance of climate change issues, the purpose of the Crown Minerals Act was to promote mining for fossil fuels. The Court of Appeal also dismissed the students’ appeal, with a panel of three judges finding that there was no requirement for the minister to consider climate change when making permitting decisions. However, one of the three appeal judges, Justice Jillian Mallon, found that climate change was a ‘permissive’ consideration – in other words, that the minister could factor it into her decision if she chose to.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision is a significant step forward in recognizing the importance of considering climate change in decision-making processes, particularly when it comes to the extraction of fossil fuels. The ruling highlights the need for the government to take into account the potential impacts of climate change when deciding whether to offer oil and gas blocks for tender. The decision also has implications for the country’s energy policy and the extraction of fossil fuels, and suggests that the government must consider climate change when making decisions about the use of natural resources.
