BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on Morning Report about the just-released annual Greenhouse Gas Inventory, and the opportunity presented by the fuel crisis to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, was inaccurate and unbalanced. The Authority found the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the broadcast, by relying on reputable experts in the field of climate science, and the findings of the Greenhouse Gas Inventory as an official and recognised report. It found the balance standard was not breached, noting the introduction made it clear the item was focused on the perspectives of climate scientists interviewed. In this context, the audience would not have expected alternative viewpoints to be presented or been left otherwise misinformed.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  The 17 April 2026 broadcast of Morning Report on RNZ National included an item about the just-released annual Greenhouse Gas Inventory, and the opportunity presented by the fuel crisis to make changes to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. The item was introduced:

Host:               Climate scientists say that the fuel crisis, hard as it is, is the perfect opportunity for the government to make meaningful changes to reduce New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions. Data released yesterday shows the greenhouse gasses New Zealand produces fell just 0.1 of a percent between 2023 and 2024. Climate change correspondent […] has more. 

Reporter:        It's how we get around, but transport of people and freight produced nearly 14 million tons of greenhouse gasses from burning fossil fuels in 2024. That's 18% of the country's total emissions, second only to the dairy industry. The numbers come from the annual Greenhouse Gas Inventory, the official tally of all the emissions we produce and soak up from the atmosphere. 

[2]  The item included comment from Ministry for the Environment Chief Science Advisor Alison Collins about the reasons for the slight drop in emissions, and patterns in long-term gross emissions.

[3]  It went on to include comment from Victoria University Climate Scientist James Renwick and University of Canterbury Climate Scientist Laura Revell:

Reporter:        Victoria University Climate Scientist James Renwick, who's also a former Climate Change Commissioner, says it's good to see emissions drop. 

Dr Renwick:   But 0.1% is about 1% of what we need. We really need to see something close to 10% per year, or 7% or 8% at the very least, if we're going to be living up to our Paris Agreement obligations.

Reporter:        Those obligations require New Zealand to halve its net emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 and to reach net zero by 2050. Dr Renwick says the latest drop is down to good luck rather than proactive policies. He thinks now is the perfect time for the government to act, with the fuel crisis sparking renewed interest in low carbon technology. 

Dr Renwick:   I saw this morning on the news that the National Government are very interested in rooftop solar. Well, that's good. Well, let's put some money into it and get a roll out of these solar panels on roofs, boost up the charging network for electric vehicles, get more electric vehicles on the road. 

Reporter:        University of Canterbury Climate Scientist Laura Revell says recent months have underscored the need for change.

Dr Revell:       This is the ideal moment to take stock and think about how we can get more New Zealanders into electric cars and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. 

Reporter:        There's one huge contributor to New Zealand's overall emissions – cows. Producing mostly methane, our dairy industry accounts for more than a quarter of the total. Dr Revell says there's disagreement over a fair way to measure methane emissions because it has a powerful but short-lived warming effect. She's more concerned about bringing down carbon dioxide emissions, but says that's not a reason to ignore agriculture. 

Dr Revell:       I think it's got to be like a ‘yes, and’. There's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to make the agriculture sector more efficient in reducing emissions of methane. That is a fantastic thing to do. But we absolutely have to also be investing attention and effort into reducing CO₂ emissions. 

The complaint

[4]  Neil Henderson complained the broadcast breached the accuracy and balance standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand.

Accuracy

Electric Vehicles

[5]  Henderson submitted Dr Renwick’s statement that New Zealand needs to get more electric vehicles (EVs) on the road to bring total emissions down was inaccurate:

a)  ‘Once an EV is on the road it is low in emissions but we must consider the full life cycle of the vehicle. It takes a lot more ore to extract the minerals to manufacture a battery than it does to get the iron and aluminium needed to make an internal combustion engine.’

b)  ‘I have seen figures that the energy used to produce a battery would run that car for six years of normal running with a conventional engine.’

c)  There are other factors to consider in EV production, such as the danger of extracting rare minerals to human health, new demand to our electricity supply (meaning greater need for coal or gas, or building wind farms which itself causes emissions), and that battery operated vehicles (especially trucks) are heavier, which would result in more damage to our roading network, ‘needing more energy consumption and emissions repairing the damage’.

d)  ‘All EVs do is lower emissions here to make us look smug while raising them somewhere else.’

Livestock methane emissions

[6]  Henderson considered Dr Revell’s comments that New Zealand should reduce emissions from cows was misleading because the Greenhouse Gas Inventory’s figure that cows are responsible for 25% of emissions is inaccurate:

a)  ‘This is the figure for GROSS emissions. No allowance is made for the breakdown of emissions made in the past.’

b)  ‘It is based on the chosen metric of comparing greenhouse gases called GWP 100. But the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] in its most recent report, the AR6, has admitted that where methane emissions are constant or falling as they are in New Zealand, this metric overstates the warming of methane by 300 to 400%. This would lower the figure to 8% at the most.’

c)  The fact reporting by Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) continues to emphasise the metric in the Greenhouse Gas Inventory to portray the level of livestock emissions and ignore the IPCC’s recent findings ‘paints an inaccurate picture of methane’s effect on global temperatures’. RNZ’s specialist climate change reporters should be live to this matter and report according to updated science. Dr Revell, as an IPCC contributor, should be aware of this too.

d)  ‘I believe it is now well accepted that methane is a short-lived gas and this is reflected in its changed reduction target in that it does not need to get to net zero to be carbon neutral. But there has been no corresponding changes in emissions calculations as recorded in our greenhouse gas inventory. Only gross emissions are counted. No allowance is made for those emissions that have broken down.’

e)  ‘We need to stop focusing on emissions and focus on warming. GWP* has been developed to account for this. This reveals our livestock are causing an immeasurable four millionths of a degree of warming per year.’

f)  ‘This misinformation has serious consequences for the livestock industry should we see a change of government which will bring in a price on these emissions.’

[7]  Henderson provided other detailed views on the science around the measurement of methane in terms of emissions vs warming. We have not summarised everything here, as it is more than is required for us to consider whether this particular broadcast breached the accuracy standard.

Balance

[8]  Given these inaccuracies were not sufficiently challenged in the broadcast, Henderson submitted the report lacked balance.

[9]  He also considered RNZ’s ongoing reporting on these matters lacked balance – ‘I appreciate balance cannot be provided in every single programme but it surely must appear over time.’ For example, Dr William Happer, who has developed recent science indicating the effects of water vapour ‘swamps any [warming] effect methane may have’ was not interviewed when he came to New Zealand in December 2025.

The broadcaster’s response

[10]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint. It considered ‘[t]he complainant’s concerns ultimately amount to disagreement with prevailing scientific interpretations and policy approaches relating to climate change rather than any breach of broadcasting standards.’

Accuracy

[11]  In response to the complainant’s concerns under the accuracy standard, RNZ said:

a)  The accuracy standard ‘does not require broadcasters to resolve contested scientific debates or determine ultimate scientific truth. Rather, the relevant question is whether reasonable efforts were made to ensure material points of fact were accurate and not misleading.’

b)  Issues raised by the complainant ‘are matters of ongoing scientific and policy discussion. However, the role of RNZ is to report on such issues by reference to credible, widely accepted evidence and appropriately qualified expert commentary’.

c)  ‘In this case, the perspectives provided by the interviewees were consistent with the mainstream scientific understanding reflected in assessments by bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and with the framework used in New Zealand’s official greenhouse gas reporting.’

d)  ‘The complainant objects principally to the use of the GWP100 metric and argues alternative metrics such as GWP* provide a different interpretation of methane warming impacts. However, the use of GWP100 is consistent with the framework used in New Zealand’s official emissions reporting and internationally accepted inventory practice. The fact that alternative metrics or interpretations exist does not render the broadcast inaccurate.’

e)  It ‘was entitled to rely on recognised scientific expertise and established reporting frameworks when reporting these matters’.

f)  ‘Similarly, statements that electric vehicles may reduce emissions in New Zealand’s electricity system are supported by mainstream lifecycle analysis and widely accepted scientific literature.’

Balance

[12]  Under the balance standard, RNZ submitted:

a)  The balance standard applies only to controversial issues of public importance discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes. The item ‘reported on emissions data and policy responses within the framework of accepted scientific and governmental reporting’.

b)  ‘The complainant effectively argues RNZ was required to include dissenting or minority scientific perspectives regarding methane emissions, greenhouse gas metrics, and climate science more broadly. RNZ submits there is no requirement under the standards to provide equal airtime to all competing scientific interpretations whenever mainstream scientific matters are reported.’

c)  ‘Audiences would reasonably have understood the item as reporting mainstream scientific and policy perspectives concerning emissions reduction.’

d)  ‘The omission of the complainant’s preferred scientific perspectives did not result in a lack of balance.’

The standards

[13]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹ The standard states:²

• Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content:
  • is accurate in relation to all material points of fact
  • does not materially mislead the audience (give a wrong idea or impression of the facts).
• Further, where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

[14]  The purpose of the balance standard (standard 5) is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.³ The standard states:⁴

When controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage.

Our analysis

[15]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[16]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁵

Accuracy

[17]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was materially inaccurate or misleading. If so, the second step is to consider whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[18]  The requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion. Broadcasters should still make reasonable efforts to ensure analysis, comment or opinion is not materially misleading with respect to any facts:⁶

• referred to; or
• upon which the analysis, comment or opinion is based.

[19]  The assessment of whether a broadcaster has made reasonable efforts includes consideration of the source of the material broadcast (eg whether it relied on a reputable organisation or authoritative expert) and the extent to which the issue of accuracy was reasonably capable of being determined by the broadcaster.

[20]  The complainant considers comments made by climate scientists featured in this broadcast were inaccurate. In making an assessment of whether the requirements of the accuracy standard were met, our role is not to determine the accuracy of complex scientific issues. Rather our role is to determine whether the accuracy standard applied to the broadcast and if so, whether RNZ met its obligations to make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy.

Electric Vehicles

[21]  The complainant submitted Dr Renwick’s comment that New Zealand needs to get more electric vehicles on the road to bring total emissions down was inaccurate, because they raise emissions elsewhere. Dr Renwick’s exact words were:

I saw this morning on the news that the National Government are very interested in rooftop solar. Well, that's good. Well, let's put some money into it and get a roll out of these solar panels on roofs, boost up the charging network for electric vehicles, get more electric vehicles on the road.

[22]  We accept Dr Renwick’s likely implication was that electric vehicles will bring down emissions, as his previous comments related to the need to decrease emissions at a higher rate.

[23]  Dr Renwick’s comments were not expressed as statements of fact, and likely constituted comment, analysis or opinion to which the standard does not apply. In any event, Dr Renwick is a respected and experienced climate scientist,⁷ and RNZ is entitled to rely on his views as an expert in the field of climate science. This amounts to ‘reasonable efforts’ to ensure accuracy as required by the standard.

[24]  While it is not our role to determine the precise benefits of EV use, we also note the suggestion that EVs will bring down emissions is consistent with other authoritative publications on the benefit of EVs when assessed on average across their lifecycle (not just when in use).⁸ The Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority has found: ‘An EV used in Aotearoa emits about 60% fewer emissions over its full life cycle than an equivalent petrol vehicle. This is the case even when accounting for emissions from raw material extraction, manufacture, and shipping.’⁹ The broadcast also did not purport to present an assessment of EVs pros and cons or to canvass any issues which might require management to ensure the best outcomes. In the circumstances, listeners were unlikely to have been misled by Dr Renwick’s brief comments.

Livestock methane emissions

[25]  The complainant also submitted Dr Revell’s comments that New Zealand should reduce emissions from cows was misleading because the Greenhouse Gas Inventory’s figure that cows are responsible for 25% of emissions is inaccurate. The relevant excerpt from the broadcast is:

Reporter:        There's one huge contributor to New Zealand's overall emissions – cows. Producing mostly methane, our dairy industry accounts for more than a quarter of the total. Dr Revell says there's disagreement over a fair way to measure methane emissions because it has a powerful but short-lived warming effect. She's more concerned about bringing down carbon dioxide emissions, but says that's not a reason to ignore agriculture. 

Dr Revell:       I think it's got to be like a ‘yes, and’. There's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to make the agriculture sector more efficient in reducing emissions of methane. That is a fantastic thing to do. But we absolutely have to also be investing attention and effort into reducing CO₂ emissions. 

[26]  Similarly, Dr Revell’s comments were prefaced as her opinion (‘I think’) in relation whether the agriculture sector should reduce emissions in light of methane’s short-lived properties. In any case, as an authoritative expert in atmospheric science,¹⁰ RNZ was entitled to rely on her comments.

[27]  The complainant is particularly concerned with the Greenhouse Gas Inventory’s figure, reported in the broadcast, that the dairy industry accounts for a quarter of New Zealand’s overall emissions. This is the figure Dr Revell relied on when making her comments. He is concerned this figure is inaccurate and significantly inflates the warming effect from methane, given its short-lived nature.

[28]  In assessing whether RNZ made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy in this respect, we note it accurately reported on the Greenhouse Gas Inventory’s findings, which use the GWP100 metric to calculate emissions. The Inventory is produced each year by the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (with assistance from other government departments).¹¹ It is produced as part of New Zealand’s obligations under the Paris Agreement and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in accordance with guidelines produced by the IPCC.¹² While we acknowledge alternative metrics to measure methane may exist and there may be some disagreement as to which metric is best, RNZ is entitled to rely on the Inventory as an official and recognised report utilising established reporting frameworks when reporting on these matters.

[29]  The broadcast did nevertheless alert the audience to some of the factors identified by the complainant: ‘Dr Revell says there's disagreement over a fair way to measure methane emissions because it has a powerful but short-lived warming effect.’ It also noted Dr Revell was ‘more concerned about bringing down carbon dioxide emissions, but says that’s not a reason to ignore agriculture’ (our emphasis). 

Balance

[30]  The purpose of the balance standard is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience to arrive at their own informed and reasoned opinions.¹³ A key consideration is what an audience expects from a programme, and whether they were likely to have been misinformed by the omission or treatment of a significant perspective.

[31]  Various criteria must be satisfied before the balance standard’s requirement to present alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes which ‘discuss’ a ‘controversial issue of public importance’.

[32]  We consider the broadcast did discuss a controversial issue of public importance – potential responses to the fuel crisis and Greenhouse Gas Inventory results – and so the standard applies. However, we are not satisfied the audience would have expected the alternative perspectives identified by the complainant to be presented in the context of this story. It was not a discussion about the overall environmental impact of electric vehicles, or the most appropriate way to measure methane. The complainant’s concerns on these topics are most appropriately addressed under the accuracy standard, as we have done above.

[33]  The requirement to present significant points of view is likely to be reduced, or negated, where the programme’s introduction and presentation make it clear the programme is approaching an issue from a particular perspective.¹⁴ The item was introduced:

Climate scientists say that the fuel crisis, hard as it is, is the perfect opportunity for the government to make meaningful changes to reduce New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions. Data released yesterday shows the greenhouse gasses New Zealand produces fell just 0.1 of a percent between 2023 and 2024.

[34]  This signalled a focus on the climate scientists’ perspectives. The audience would then have understood the segment represented the viewpoints of the climate scientists spoken to, and would not have anticipated broader debate around the topics raised by the complainant or been left otherwise misinformed.

[35]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the balance standard.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint. 

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
26 August 2026 

 
Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Henderson’s original complaint to RNZ and correspondence – 26 April 2026

2  RNZ’s decision – 5 May 2026

3  Henderson’s referral to the Authority – 15 May 2026

4  Henderson’s further comments – 28 June 2026

5  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 2 July 2026

1 Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
² Standard 6: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁴ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁶ Guideline 6.1: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁷ “Professor James Renwick” Victoria University of Wellington | Te Herenga Waka <people.wgtn.ac.nz>
⁸ See for example, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority “Electric Vehicles and Aotearoa” (published July 2021) <eeca.govt.nz>; International Energy Agency “Global EV Outlook 2019: Scaling-up the transition to electric mobility” (2019) <eeca.govt.nz>; Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority “Life Cycle Assessment of Electric Vehicles: Final Report” (10 November 2015) <eeca.govt.nz>
⁹ Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority “Electric Vehicles and Aotearoa” (published July 2021) <eeca.govt.nz>
¹⁰ University of Canterbury “Professor Laura Revell” <profiles.canterbury.ac.nz>
¹¹ Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport “New Zealand’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory” (last updated: 16 April 2026) <environment.govt.nz>
¹² Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport “New Zealand’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory” (last updated: 16 April 2026) <environment.govt.nz>
¹³ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹⁴ Guideline 5.4 Balance: Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14