We’re writing to update you on the latest on the Paris Agreement and why Christopher Luxon’s “bottom line” to stay in Paris is less than what it sounds like.

Luxon’s strange commitment to Paris

After securing his leadership (again), Christopher Luxon had the opportunity to set a new course for National. Instead, he's doubled down on National’s confused commitment to the Paris Agreement and even said staying in Paris is a bottom line for coalition negotiations.

Asked whether staying in Paris would be a non-negotiable in coalition talks, Luxon said, “It is, because we need to stay in the Paris Agreement, because it only makes New Zealand poorer if we come out of it.”

It had seemed National wanted to kick Paris, the Zero Carbon Act, and the Farming Tax to touch, placing any future decisions beyond the election. While Groundswell supporters are, of course, well aware of the stalking threat of a misguided and counterproductive tax on agricultural emissions, most voters are worried about the direct effect of policies on their households.

Instead, Luxon has taken National’s most strident position yet, saying it’s a non-negotiable that New Zealand stay in the Paris Agreement.

As we said when Christopher Luxon won that latest leadership vote, the reason he faces this internal instability from low polling is that traditional National voters are looking elsewhere and that's simply because National has been ignoring them. It’s important to note here that National has MPs with a mix of private views on this, so when we say “National” we’re meaning what the party’s position is – more on those divisions later.

Voters in rural communities and the agricultural sector (along with our urban friends who know where their food comes from) have watched as the party traditionally styled as the “friend of the farmer” doubled down on James Shaw’s target of 50% emissions reduction by 2030 when setting their target of 51-55% reduction by 2035.

This is also the National Party that promised a Farming Tax on agricultural emissions by 2030 in the 2023 election. While they haven't talked about it in a while, they haven't clearly rejected it either. It is Coalition Government policy not to have a Farming Tax, but National has been less than direct on whether they've abandoned their previous election promise. (If anyone from National wants to clarify with us, they’re more than welcome to let us know).

Naturally, those long-time National voters are looking at other parties in the Coalition. Polls still mostly have the Government headed towards re-election, but National is set to lose several MPs. As long as National keeps pushing their voters to other parties, there’s no reason for them to expect a change.

What Luxon still doesn’t (or won’t) understand

Part of that failure to listen is the disrespect shown to the arguments entering the debate. We’re still getting the tired arguments from National about fickle free trade partners and trusting in theoretical biotech advancements in agricultural emissions reduction. No one is buying either of those, but National pretends because it doesn’t want to have to deal with the reality: Paris is a bad deal for New Zealand.

The Paris Agreement starts counting emissions from when New Zealand already had little to cut and doesn't account for how New Zealand exports feed millions around the world with lower emissions than they would otherwise generate.

Some will correctly point out that individual countries set their own targets in their Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), which is true. But will National commit to reducing New Zealand's NDC to something within the realm of sanity? That's one of ACT's Change or Leave items, which is still a potential outcome, even within Luxon's bottom line.

We know the current NDC targets aren't going to be met and it’s because the targets were a PR stunt. How they would be achieved wasn't part of the comms plan. James Shaw and Jacinda Ardern set the impossible 50% emissions reduction target by 2030 and then Simon Watts and Christopher Luxon upped the ante to their 51-55% reduction target by 2035.

Within those targets, and with the way the Paris Agreement counts emissions, there's no way to get there without cutting into agricultural emissions. When politicians say they're committed to Paris, we have to conclude that they're planning to come for farming in some way, however counterproductive and unworkable it may be.

Then, Luxon also basically admitted the other arguments against Paris, while just hand-waving them away.

Other countries aren't meeting their commitments, to which Luxon just says, "there's going to have to be a reckoning at some point". The obvious point, though, is that Paris also isn't working on a global scale. Even though New Zealand is just 0.17% of global emissions, Luxon wants us to stay in and suffer under the counterproductive and failing Paris framework.

In not meeting the impossible commitments, the easy answer for bureaucrats is to just pay to make the problem go away. Luxon says he isn't going to send those billions offshore, but he has no plan for how to stay in Paris, stay committed to his targets, not hit agriculture with a Farming Tax, and not pay out the difference in carbon credits.

The numbers don't add up and we have every reason to expect that the gap will mean eventually hitting farmers and Kiwis with a Farming Tax or some other punitive solution.

Political calculations, but just done wrong

Now, why has Luxon made this announcement? On first glance, it may look like National is playing for voters in the middle worried about climate change – except climate change doesn't rate as an issue for those voters. Voters consistently rank the economy, cost of living, and core government services over climate change.

Those voters in the centre aren’t poring over the details of environmental regulations and they aren’t deeply committed to the Paris Agreement. What they want is results.

They’re unhappy with economic conditions like their growing grocery bills and their wages not keeping up with inflation. They aren’t particularly picky about what the solutions are and just want someone to fix their problems. Well, cheaper food, higher wages, and more and higher value exports are all the result of a successful New Zealand Agriculture Sector.

That's what killed the original Farming Tax. Middle voters came to understand that a price on agricultural emissions would make their food more expensive, make New Zealand poorer, and wouldn't fix anything about climate change.

But National wasn't under pressure in the centre on climate change anyway. Hipkins has already distanced himself from his old government's agricultural emissions policies and is vaguely saying that Labour "isn't campaigning on a price on agricultural emissions".

If Labour was feeling pressure to signal a rightward move to the centre, it makes no sense for National to move left at the same time.

The other reason for a major party to rule out a change their likely partners want is to try to take the issue off the table. As National sees voters moving to other parties over Paris and other issues, making Paris non-negotiable removes the potential for change all together and gets rid of the incentive to move their votes.

But declaring Paris non-negotiable doesn't make it so. Luxon's weak position inside National and inside the Coalition doesn't let him rule policies out like he's trying to here. Both David Seymour and Winston Peters have effectively said "we'll see about that".

The divides in National also mean it's worth keeping the pressure up. More than a few National MPs are privately in agreement that the Paris and Net Zero policies aren't working. Agriculture Minister Todd McClay said at a recent event that there would never be a price on agricultural emissions as long as he's the Ag Minister.

Luxon may well find after the election that he’s required to negotiate about his non-negotiable.

While he’s made some kind of political calculation with his bottom line on Paris, Luxon is really just as bad at political maths as he is on emissions numbers.

Where the parties are on Paris

As always, Groundswell isn't here to tell you how to vote. But we are here to keep you informed about your options, what the politicians are up to when it comes to farming and rural communities, and to tell the politicians what you care about. Our Quit Paris campaign has forced the parties to take clear positions on the Paris Agreement:

• National - Staying in Paris is a bottom line, increased emissions reduction targets, hoping $400 million funding unproven biotech research will make the difference.
• Labour - Stay in Paris, now saying they have no plans for a price on agricultural emissions.
• ACT - Change or Leave, either New Zealand changes its Paris commitments to realistic targets and a split gas approach or withdraw from the Agreement, scrap Net Zero and the Zero Carbon Act.
• NZ First - We need to get out of Paris altogether
• Greens - Stay in Paris, Farming Tax on agricultural emissions, cap and trade methane with a declining cap.
• Opportunity - Stay in Paris, domestic cap-and-trade on agricultural emissions, "market-based emissions controls"
• Maori Party - Stay in Paris (and not much else)

For those looking at their options inside the Coalition, you may want to consider splitting your vote. Stronger positions on Paris from ACT and NZ First list MPs along with the National electorate MPs (some of whom are privately reasonable on Paris) could change the mix of views in the next parliament and cabinet.

If enough people do that, it could even create an overhang, which you may have heard about. This would happen if more National electorate MPs get elected than the number of seats their share of the party vote would normally qualify for. Those MPs get added onto the total number of MPs in Parliament, skewing it disproportionately towards that party.

It would be a strong message to the institutional National Party that their old voters have had enough, while keeping the Coalition in power.

Thank you again for your support.

Kind regards,
Bryce, Laurie, and the Team at Groundswell NZ

‍