Palau’s leader says the world needs to be working toward reducing emissions and “not dropping targets”, in response to New Zealand slashing its methane reduction goals.

Last month, the New Zealand government announced it would cut biogenic methane reduction targets to 14-24 percent below 2017 levels by 2050. The previous target was a reduction of 24-47 percent.

Palauan President Surangel Whipps Jr, who is in Brazil for the annual United Nations climate change conference, COP30, said more work needed to go into finding solutions.

• READ MORE: Climate change minister defends weakened methane emissions target ahead of COP30
• COP30: NZ must commit to buying offshore credits to meet Paris target, climate experts say
• Pacific leaders to push 100 percent renewable energy plan at COP30 in Belém
• Indigenous activists storm COP30 climate summit in Brazil, demanding action
• Other COP30 reports

“[It’s] unfortunate because we all need to be working toward reduction, not dropping targets,” Whipps said.

“Countries struggle because it’s about making sure that their people have their jobs and maintain their industry. I can see the reason why maybe those targets were dropped, but that means we just need to work harder.”

Whipps said it probably meant the government needed to “step up” and help farmers reduce emissions.

Tuvalu’s climate minister also told RNZ Pacific he was disheartened by the new goal.

New Zealand Climate Minister Simon Watts previously told RNZ Pacific in a statement that methane reduction was limited by technology and the only alternative would have been to cut agriculture production.

“New Zealand has some of the most emissions-efficient farmers in the world, and we export to meet global demand,” Watts said.

“If we cut production to meet targets, we risk shifting production to countries who are not as emissions-efficient, which would add to global warming and have a greater impact on the Pacific.”

NZ ‘doesn’t care about Pacific’ – campaigner
Pacific Islands Climate Action Network campaigner Sindra Sharma said she wanted to know what scientists Watts spoke with.

“I’d like to see what the data is behind New Zealand having the most emissions-efficient farmers. It blows my mind that that is something he would say.”

Sharma said it was especially disappointing given New Zealand was a member of the Pacific Islands Forum.

“I think the signal that sends is extremely harmful. It shows we don’t care about the Pacific.”

Speaking to RNZ Morning Report on Thursday, Watts said the country had not weakened its ambitions on climate change.

“We’ve actually delivered upon what has been asked of us. We’ve submitted our NDC (Nationally Determined Contributions) plan for 2035 on time,” he said.

“We’ve done what we believe is possible in the context of our unique circumstances.

“We’ve taken a position around ensuring that we are ambitious with balancing that with economic challenges.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has been spreading misleading climate information at public meetings during the Aotearoa general election campaign.

Climate change has been topical during the campaign, with extreme weather events like the Hawke’s Bay floods still fresh in people’s minds.

Both major parties have made clear commitments to New Zealand’s climate targets, while Peters has been questioning the science and sharing incorrect climate information at public meetings.

• READ MORE: NZ election 2023: How a better funding model can help media strengthen social cohesion
• Other NZ election reports

At a gathering in Remuera last month Peters told voters, “Carbon dioxide is 0.04 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere and of that 0.04 percent, human effect is 3 percent.”

Three climate analysts, including NIWA’s principal climate scientist Dr Sam Dean, have told RNZ this figure is incorrect.

“It is not 3 percent. Humans are responsible for 33 percent of the carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere now,” Dr Dean said.

Peters also told voters New Zealand was a low-emitting country and tried to link tsunamis to climate change.

“We are 0.17 percent of the emissions in this world and China and India and the United States and Russia are not listening . . .  The biggest tsunami the world ever had was 1968 in recent times.

“We’ve only been keeping stats for the last 100 years, but you’ve got all these people out there saying these are unique circumstances and they haven’t got the scientific evidence to prove that.”

Dr Dean said New Zealand might have low net emissions compared to other countries but there was no doubt Aotearoa was a “dirty polluter” — and tsunamis had nothing to do with climate change.

“Proportionately on a per person basis, our emissions are very high and we produce more than our fair share of the pollution that is currently in the planet,” he said.

“As far as we know, tsunamis have nothing to do with climate change whatsoever.”

RNZ put some of Peters’ claims to him, asking him where he got the 3 percent figure he cited about the human impact on CO2.

“Oh, we’ve got somebody now that’s arguing about the basic science . . .  I get it from experts internationally and if you want me to do all your homework, put me on a payroll,” Peters replied.

Dr Dean who is an international expert is not the only scientist to debunk Peters’ climate claims.

Waikato University’s Dr Luke Harrington and Canterbury University’s Dr David Frame have both looked at Peters’ comments.

They describe his questions about the link between climate change and extreme weather events as “too cavalier” and “disingenuous”.

“Climate change doesn’t cause extreme flooding events in a vacuum — a whole range of natural ingredients need to come together in just the right way for an individual event to occur,” Dr Harrington said.

“What climate change does is intensify the wind and rain which results when these natural factors combine and an ex-tropical cyclone passes nearby. Events of such intensity will become more common and events of such rarity will become more intense as the world continues to warm.”

Dr Harrington suggested Peters “peruse” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report if he needed any evidence.

Dr Frame also referred to this report, saying there are strong links between (cumulative) anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and extreme rainfall events.

Dr Dean said inaccuracies aside, Peters’ figures ignore methane emissions, making the problem seem much smaller than it really is.

“That sort of story comes from the climate sceptic community and it’s a common tactic to phrase things in terms of very small numbers and then mix them up to trivialise the subject.”

Other political parties may have vastly different approaches to emissions reduction but they all accept the climate science.

National Party leader Chris Luxon — who may well have to work with Peters — had been clear there was no room for climate scepticism in this election.

“Give it up, I mean we’re in 2023. There’s no doubt about it. You can’t be climate denier or a climate minimalist,” Luxon said.

This may be a big ask if Winston Peters is not on board with the science.

Early voting began yesterday in the general election and polling day is on October 14.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.