Take care when talking about emissions targets

There are a number of things that should be considered when making statements about emissions targets.

What is the baseline?

Do you describe what the starting point is?

Gross vs net.

Are there separate targets for emission reductions and removals? How much of the plan relies on carbon removal solutions (i.e., off-sets)? Given there is growing recognition that not all off-sets are created equal, do you understand what off-setting is proposed and whether that aligns with international best practice?

What is the plan?

How does the business expect to move from the baseline to the target over the period? What assumptions underpin the plan? Is the plan based on an achievable and verifiable strategy?

What are the risks?

Are you transparent about the risks associated with the plan? If you are relying on things outside your control like the development of new technology, what are the risks associated with those factors?

What are the targets?

Clearly described targets are ones that can be measured against. Is there a target year?

Progress review?

When will progress be reviewed and reported?

Provide information about any measurement scheme (which should be based on recognised standards and measurements, and should be capable of objective verification).

Is the statement balanced?

Taking everything into account, is the statement balanced? Is there a risk that the statement overstates the certainty that the target will be achieved and understates the risks associated with the plan?

‘Carbon neutral’

Claims should take into account the whole lifecycle of the good or service (e.g. both carbon produced during a good’s production process, and also its delivery and use).

We would expect New Zealand regulators to be supportive of businesses wanting to talk about their ambitious emission reduction targets with stakeholders. However, as discussed elsewhere in this publication, we expect them to be focused on claims that don’t stand up to close scrutiny. Any positive reactions from statements about climate targets would be quickly undone by regulatory criticism.