Skip to content
NZVoteCheckNZVoteCheck home

Climate, energy and the environment: where every party stands

Agriculture is over half of New Zealand's gross emissions, which is why farm emissions pricing divides the parties more than any other climate question.

Emissions targets, oil and gas, farming's climate obligations, mining, and river water quality. All positions last verified 13 August 2026.

Find your match in 5 minutesHow positions are sourced

New Zealand should stay in the Paris climate agreement and keep to its emissions targets.

The Paris Agreement commits countries to emissions reduction targets. NZ First has said it would withdraw. Meeting the current target may require buying offshore carbon credits.

What this means in practice

The Paris Agreement commits countries to emissions targets. New Zealand's current target may require buying carbon credits from overseas to meet, which is the cost NZ First points to in arguing for withdrawal.

Supporters say

  • Trade partners increasingly require climate credentials; leaving puts market access at risk.
  • Climate impacts, drought, flooding, coastal erosion, cost New Zealand money already.
  • Reputation matters for a country selling food and tourism on a clean image.

Opponents say

  • Buying offshore credits sends billions overseas without reducing a single tonne here.
  • New Zealand is well under 1% of global emissions; the cost is real and the effect on the climate is negligible.
  • Targets set without a credible plan just penalise domestic industry.

New Zealand should look for more oil and gas, including funding a survey of offshore reserves.

Offshore exploration was banned in 2018 and the ban reversed in 2024. NZ First proposes a $1 billion government-funded survey of offshore reserves.

What this means in practice

Offshore exploration was banned in 2018 and the ban reversed in 2024. NZ First proposes going further with a $1 billion government-funded survey of offshore reserves. Gas matters in New Zealand because it fills the gap when hydro lakes are low and the wind isn't blowing.

Supporters say

  • Without domestic gas we import coal to keep the lights on in dry years, worse for emissions and for the balance of payments.
  • Energy security underpins manufacturing, which is where regional jobs are.
  • Owning the supply insulates households from global price swings.

Opponents say

  • New fossil infrastructure built now runs for decades and locks in emissions.
  • $1 billion of public money on exploration is a gamble the private sector wouldn't make on those terms.
  • The same money spent on renewables and storage delivers sooner.

Farmers should not have to pay for the greenhouse gases their animals produce.

Agriculture is roughly half of NZ's emissions. A 'split gas' approach treats methane from animals differently from CO₂. The government cut the 2050 methane target from 24–47% to 14–24%.

What this means in practice

Agriculture is over half of New Zealand's emissions, mostly methane from livestock. 'Split gas' treats methane differently from carbon dioxide, because methane is much more potent but breaks down within about a decade rather than lasting centuries. The government took agriculture out of the ETS and softened the 2050 methane target from 24–47% to 14–24%.

Supporters say

  • NZ farmers are among the most emissions-efficient in the world; taxing them shifts production to less efficient countries.
  • Methane is short-lived, so treating it like CO₂ overstates its long-run warming.
  • Farming is the export base, a cost here reaches every regional town.

Opponents say

  • Exempting half the country's emissions means everyone else pays more to reach the same target.
  • Without a price signal there's little incentive to adopt the technologies that reduce methane.
  • Other sectors have faced a carbon price for years; the exemption isn't equal treatment.

New Zealand should make it easier to mine and develop natural resources, including on the seabed.

The Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 lets ministers approve projects, including mines, outside the normal consenting process. Supporters say it unlocks growth and export earnings; opponents say it bypasses environmental scrutiny.

What this means in practice

The Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 lets ministers approve projects, including mines, outside the normal consenting process, with less public input. This asks whether that should be expanded or reversed.

Supporters say

  • Minerals are needed for the technology the energy transition itself depends on.
  • Mining jobs pay well and are in regions with few alternatives.
  • Consenting took so long that viable projects simply didn't happen.

Opponents say

  • Seabed damage is effectively permanent and affects fisheries that support more jobs long-term.
  • Ministerial approval removes the scrutiny that catches bad projects.
  • Iwi and hapū with Tiriti interests in the area get less say.

Farm animal numbers should be reduced and synthetic nitrogen fertiliser phased out to clean up rivers.

Intensive dairy farming is a major source of nitrogen in waterways. Most NZ lowland rivers are not safe to swim in.

  • ACT

    Strongly opposes

    Strongly opposed, treats it as an attack on productive farming.

    interest.co.nz: ACT's climate policy

  • Greens

    Strongly supports

    Campaigning to phase out synthetic nitrogen fertiliser and reduce cattle and sheep numbers to improve water quality.

    Green Party: Manifesto 2026

  • Labour

    Mixed / no clear position

    Middle position, supports freshwater standards and reversing the coalition's rollback, but not reducing herd numbers.

    NZ Herald on Hipkins: farming emissions policy under review

  • National

    Opposes

    No published 2026 freshwater policy. Inferred from the coalition's easing of freshwater rules for farmers and its opposition to limits on stocking rates, rather than a stated commitment.

    Beehive: Agriculture to come out of the ETS

  • NZ First

    Opposes

    No published position on stocking rates or fertiliser. Its 2026 platform is silent on freshwater, so this is inferred from its consistent rural and farming advocacy rather than a stated commitment.

    NZ First: Our Policy

  • Te Pāti Māori

    Supports

    Supports regenerative land use and restoring waterways as a kaitiakitanga obligation, without a specific stocking-rate cap.

    Te Pāti Māori: Policy

What this means in practice

Intensive dairy farming puts nitrogen into waterways through fertiliser and animal urine. Reducing that means either fewer animals per hectare, less synthetic fertiliser, or expensive on-farm mitigation like fencing, planting and effluent systems.

Supporters say

  • Most lowland rivers aren't safe to swim in, and that's a direct result of land use.
  • Cleaning up later costs far more than not polluting now.
  • Freshwater is a shared resource, not a free input for one industry.

Opponents say

  • Cutting stock numbers cuts export earnings the whole country relies on.
  • Farmers have already invested heavily in fencing, planting and effluent management.
  • Rules should be catchment-specific, not national limits applied to farms with very different soils.

Compare another sector

Economy, Tax & Cost of Living

Who pays tax and how much, how big the state should be, and who should own the banks, power companies and supermarkets.

Housing & Renting

Rent rules, state house building, help for first-home buyers, and whether to loosen planning rules to build more.

Health & Education

Free doctor's visits, how schools teach and test, school choice, and whether Māori-led health services should return.

Law, Order & Justice

Sentencing, prisons, police numbers, gangs, and whether justice should lean toward punishment or prevention.

Te Tiriti, Rights & Immigration

The place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in government, the Māori electorates, te reo Māori, and how many people should move here.

Not sure which of these you agree with?

Answer 30 plain-English questions and see which party matches you, and exactly which answers drove the result.

Take the quiz