Withdraw from the Paris climate agreement
Pitched as freeing New Zealand farmers and households from the cost of climate targets that NZ First says the country's biggest trading rivals are ignoring.
The Policy: NZ First Climate and Paris Agreement Policy — 2026 Election →
NZ First leader Winston Peters wants New Zealand to withdraw from — or at minimum renegotiate — the 2015 Paris climate agreement, arguing it imposes large costs on a country responsible for a tiny share of global emissions. This is the party's stated position heading into the 2026 election, not government policy: the National-led coalition has confirmed New Zealand remains in Paris.
What it does:
- Would have New Zealand exit, or seek to reopen, its commitments under the Paris Agreement, the 2015 UN treaty under which countries set national emissions-reduction pledges.
- Targets New Zealand's current pledge to cut net emissions 50% below gross 2005 levels by 2030, a target NZ First argues is unaffordable.
- Peters frames New Zealand as contributing roughly 0.17% of global emissions, and has said meeting the target could transfer "22 maybe 32 billion" out of the economy — a figure higher than official estimates. Domestically, agriculture makes up about 53% of New Zealand's gross emissions, which is why the debate centres on farmers.
The result:
The proposal is contested on both its cost claims and its trade consequences. RNZ's fact-check found no country has followed the United States out of Paris — China, India and Russia remain signatories — and that Treasury's costing for buying overseas mitigation across 2021-2030 was roughly \$3-23 billion, not Peters' \$22-32 billion. By Budget 2026 Treasury had narrowed the estimate to about \$5 billion for the 2030 target. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says New Zealand cannot afford to leave, arguing membership protects export access for a country that sells more than 80% of its agricultural production abroad. ACT has also called for withdrawal if targets cannot be made "realistic," so two of three coalition parties favour leaving, while National and the official coalition position is to stay in.
The impacts to watch:
- Trade exposure: the EU-New Zealand free trade agreement contains an enforceable clause requiring both sides to implement their Paris targets; lawyers and Labour's Megan Woods warn walking back commitments could put billions in exports at risk. The deal removed tariffs on 91% of NZ goods exports from day one.
- Farming groups are split from NZ First on the remedy: Federated Farmers, Beef + Lamb NZ chair Kate Acland and the Dairy Companies Association's Kimberly Crewther say they do not support withdrawal, but want the way Paris is applied domestically changed.
- Pacific relations: Peters, who is also Foreign Minister, has suggested a talanoa with Pacific leaders to "revisit" Paris; ANU development researcher Terence Wood warned that pulling back would damage New Zealand's standing in a region for which climate change is an existential issue.
- New Zealand is currently not on track to meet the 2030 target, facing a projected shortfall of roughly 84 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent — the gap that drives the offshore-credit cost the debate turns on.
This overview is summarised by AI from public sources. It may contain errors and is a guide, not the definitive record — we welcome corrections.
Where our research raises a question the policy doesn't answer, we put it to you — these are our questions, not government policy. Your vote stays anonymous even when you sign up (we use sign-up only to send you more things to vote on that you care about), and we report aggregated results only — the country's sentiment, never how any individual voted.
Key milestones
Peters puts re-evaluating Paris on the table
Winston Peters began publicly arguing that New Zealand should re-evaluate its Paris commitments, framing the country's roughly 0.17% share of global emissions against the cost of compliance and saying meeting the target could transfer "22 maybe 32 billion" out of the economy. An RNZ fact-check tested the claims: it found Treasury's own costing for buying overseas mitigation across 2021-2030 was about \$3-23 billion (not \$22-32 billion), and that no country had followed the United States in leaving Paris — China, India and Russia all remained signatories.
Government and farm sector push back
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts responded that New Zealand cannot afford to quit Paris, arguing that participation protects trade access for a nation that exports more than 80% of its agricultural production. The remedy also split NZ First from the farm lobby it was courting: trade specialist Stephen Jacobi called withdrawal "completely mad" because of the market-access and reputational cost, while Beef + Lamb NZ chair Kate Acland and Dairy Companies Association director Kimberly Crewther said their organisations did not support leaving — though they did want the way Paris is applied at home changed.
ACT joins the call; Pacific dimension surfaces
The debate widened when ACT leader David Seymour said Paris needed to change or New Zealand should leave, prompting Peters to claim NZ First had raised the idea first. National's Christopher Luxon held the line, reaffirming the 2050 net-zero commitment and warning that buyers would switch away from a country outside the accord. Peters, who is also Foreign Minister, separately suggested a talanoa with Pacific leaders to "revisit" Paris — drawing criticism from ANU development researcher Terence Wood, who said withdrawal would damage New Zealand's standing in a region where climate change is an existential concern.
Treasury narrows the cost to about \$5 billion
Treasury revealed it now expected the bill for the overseas carbon credits needed to meet the 2030 target to be up to about \$5 billion, with a further \$0.2-\$1.6 billion potentially needed for 2035 — sharpening the number at the heart of the argument. Officials put the shortfall at roughly 84 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent. Prime Minister Luxon insisted the government would not shut down farms or "send billions of dollars offshore," while Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick argued it was impossible to meet the target without offshore mitigation and Labour's Chris Hipkins said the gap had to be closed at home.
Fieldays: Peters calls Paris a "fiction"
Campaigning at Fieldays at Mystery Creek, NZ First leader Winston Peters told a largely rural audience that the Paris Agreement is a "fiction" New Zealand cannot afford, and that the country should ditch its targets rather than send billions offshore to meet the 2030 goal. He urged farmers to "take some insurance" by backing NZ First despite their usual voting habits. The stance put him publicly at odds with his coalition partner: Prime Minister Christopher Luxon reaffirmed that New Zealand would stay in Paris to protect the marketability of its exports.
What people are saying
Online reaction splits sharply: NZ First supporters and many rural voices cheer the idea of dropping what they see as costly "virtue signalling," while climate advocates, trade-watchers and Pacific commentators warn it would damage exports and New Zealand's reputation. Peters' own Facebook posts on the theme draw heavy engagement on both sides.
See the conversation:
Aggregated — individual posts are not cited.
Sources
- NZ Herald — Peters at Fieldays ↗
- RNZ — Fact-checking Winston Peters on the climate accord ↗
- interest.co.nz — Climate Change Minister says NZ can't afford to quit Paris ↗
- NZ Herald — ACT calls for NZ to leave Paris without 'realistic targets' ↗
- Farmers Weekly — NZ would be 'completely mad' to quit Paris pact ↗
- RNZ — Peters wants talanoa with Pacific leaders on Paris Agreement ↗
- RNZ — Government facing up to \$5 billion bill over carbon credits (Treasury) ↗
- Stats NZ — New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions ↗
- UNFCCC — The Paris Agreement (official treaty) ↗
- Winston Peters / NZ First — Facebook statement on the Paris accord ↗