Menu

Response: Aotearoa

V

Home > Climate wiki > Response > Response Aotearoa

Summary

currently being re-written; content depending on election outcomes

Per head of population, Aotearoa is the worst country on Earth in cumulative emissions since 1850 (Fig. 1) having historically used more than six times our fair share of the carbon emissions budget that would have kept global temperature increases below 1.5°C. 

Countries' carbon emissions, with New Zealand's cumulative emissions the worst in the world
Fig. 1: The top 20 countries for cumulative emissions 1850-2021 weighted per capita in 2021 (left), versus the top 20 countries for cumulative per-capita emissions 1850-2021 (right). The ranking excludes countries with a population in 2021 of less than 1 million people. (Image: Carbon Brief 2021)

New Zealand ranks at the top of this list because of extensive deforestation during the 19th century, when much of its native Kauri forest was cleared for its valuable timber. The country’s tiny population at the time consequently had very high annual per-capita emissions, with the cumulative total by 1900 making up around two-thirds of the total amassed by the present day. – Carbon Brief 2021

New Zealand ranking in term of climate action December 2025
Fig. 2: New Zealand is one of the worst countries in the world in terms of meeting its commitments to keep temperatures under 1.5C. (Image: Climate Action Tracker)
Distractions from reducing emissions
Fig. 3: New Zealand is one of the worst countries in the world in terms of meeting its commitments to keep temperatures under 1.5C. (Image: Climate Action Tracker)

Our agricultural sector produces ~50% of our emissions (Fig. 4) but, propped up by taxpayer dollars, these are exempt from the Emissions Trading Scheme. Moreover, Three of New Zealand’s biggest emitters no longer have to reveal their climate impact. 

New Zealand contribution to greenhouse gas emissions to 2023
Fig. 4 Aotearoa New Zealand contribution to greenhouse gas emissions to 2023 Image: climatewatchdata.org

The Emissions Trading Scheme makes it more financially lucrative to plant radiata pine than to restore native forests (Fig. 6). This ignores the carbon stored in native forest soils vastly exceeds carbon in the soils of monoculture pine forests. And biodiverse native forest store just as much if not more carbon above the ground while also providing life-supporting ecosystem services.

The idea of planting trees in vast areas to remove carbon dioxide from the air and reduce the impact of climate change, for example, has attracted a lot of attention, with some claiming it’s the best “low-hanging fruit” approach to pursue, McElwee said. But large-scale tree planting could conflict directly with food security because both compete for available land. It could also diminish biodiversity, if fast-growing exotic trees replace native habitat. –  Rutgers University, 2020

We have run out of time to avoid some of the worsening climate impacts over the coming decades but we can avoid catastrophic impacts if ecosystems are restored and the New Zealand Government stops subsidising fossil fuels. 

Video 3:The 2025 Emissions Gap Report summarises the effects of failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep the planet with a safe operating temperature.
Fig. 5: Under the existing Emissions Trading Scheme, (ETS) the financial incentives to plant exotic trees are far greater than regenerating native forests. Radiata pine sequesters carbon faster in the trees, but not soils. More carbon is lost by the carbon-emitting harvesting methods, transporting felled timber (generally offshore), converting timber into wood products most of which will ultimately be burned or rot, releasing their carbon. Meanwhile, the biodiversity values and essential ecosystem services including soil carbon provided by natives are being sacrificed.

What can be done?

Video 1: Reducing Future Extreme Weather Impacts in Aotearoa New Zealand
Video 2: Dr. Hannah Ritchie (Our World in Data; University of Oxford) explain in 12 minutes how we can solve the climate crisis. We have the means to do it. But we must overcome the powerful resistance by those who benefit from the current fossil fuel system.
Fig. 6: In 2025 Project Drawdown devised a seven-part test if a particular practice or technology to climate solutions is plausible, ready, evidenced, effective, impactful, risky, and affordable. Click on the image to be taken to their website.

More information