Supreme Court finds government must consider climate change when offering oil and gas tenders

The Supreme Court has found that climate change is a mandatory consideration when the government considers opening up new blocks for exploration and extraction. Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King The country's highest court has found that governments must consider climate change when deciding whether to offer oil and gas blocks for tender. Resources Minister Shane Jones said climate change considerations "do not trump the need for energy security and affordability" and he will be asking officials to look at the court decision closely. He stopped short of saying whether the government would consider amending the law. In its decision on Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal that former Energy and Resources Minister Megan Woods was required to take climate change into account when she granted on-shore exploration permits to two companies in 2021. However, the court found that climate change is a mandatory consideration at the earlier stage of offering blocks for tender. Climate change was "so obviously relevant" to a decision that could lead to the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels that it must be considered, the panel of five Supreme Court justices ruled. "Climate change is a matter of pressing concern for New Zealand and its well-being both in the near and long term," the justices wrote in their decision. "Moreover, the Crown has entered into binding obligations on New Zealand's behalf in connection with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. "Petroleum extraction and consumption are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand and internationally." 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". "Climate change is therefore a mandatory relevant consideration ... when deciding whether to offer petroleum exploration permits for tender," the decision said. "This is because climate change is so obviously relevant to a decision to commence a process which is intended, if successful, to progress through to extraction of petroleum." Student group first took case in 2021 The case against the Energy and Resources minister was taken all the way to the Supreme Court by a group of Victoria University law students. Students for Climate Solutions, now called Climate Clinic Aotearoa, first took the case in 2021. The group argued that when 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. Friday's judgment 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 proper place to consider climate change and other mandatory considerations was at the earlier stage to offer...

Preview: ~500 words