ICJ begins handing down watershed climate opinion
It is the biggest case ever heard at the International Court of Justice and experts say the judges' opinion could reshape climate justice, with major impacts on laws around the world.
"I think it will be a game-changer for the whole climate discourse we're going through," said Ralph Regenvanu, climate change minister of Vanuatu.
The Pacific island nation spearheaded the push for a court opinion amid growing frustration at sluggish progress in UN climate negotiations.
"We've been going through this for 30 years... It'll shift the narrative, which is what we need to have," Regenvanu told AFP.
The United Nations has tasked the 15 judges at the ICJ, a UN court that adjudicates disputes between nations, to answer two fundamental questions.
First: what must states do under international law to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions "for present and future generations"?
Second: what are the consequences for states whose emissions have caused environmental harm, especially to vulnerable low-lying island states?
ICJ advisory opinions are not binding upon states and critics say that top polluters will simply ignore what comes out of the court.
But others note the moral and legal clout enjoyed by the world's highest court and hope the opinion will make a tangible difference to national climate change policies and ongoing legal battles.
Andrew Raine, deputy director of the UN Environment Programme's law division, said the ICJ should "clarify how international law applies to the climate crisis."
"And that has ripple effects across national courts, legislative processes, and public debates," he told AFP.
To help answer the two questions, ICJ judges have pored over tens of thousands of pages of submissions from countries and organisations around the world.
Analysts say Wednesday's ruling is the most consequential of a string of recent rulings on climate change in international law as courts become a battleground for climate action.
Outside the court in the Hague, about a hundred demonstrators waved flags and posters bearing slogans like "No more delay, climate justice today".
Those bringing the cases are often from climate-vulnerable communities and countries, alarmed by the pace of progress toward curbing planet-warming pollution from fossil fuels.
The Paris Agreement struck through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has rallied a global response to the crisis, but not at the speed necessary to protect the world from dangerous overheating.
- 'Disappear beneath the waves' -
In December, the iconic Peace Palace in the Hague hosted the court's biggest-ever hearings, with more than 100 nations and groups giving oral statements.
In what was billed a "David Vs Goliath" battle, the debate pitted major wealthy economies against the smaller, less developed states most at the mercy of a warming planet.
Major polluters, including the US and India, warned the ICJ not to deliver a fresh legal blueprint for climate change, arguing the existing UNFCCC sufficed.
The US, which has since withdrawn from the Paris accord, said the UNFCCC contained legal provisions on climate change and urged the court to uphold this regime.
But smaller states said this framework was inadequate to mitigate climate change's devastating effects and that the ICJ's opinion should be broader.
These states also urged the ICJ to impose reparations on historic polluters.
"The cardinal principle is crystal clear. Responsible states are required to make full reparation for the injury they have caused," said Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh representing Vanuatu.
These states demanded a commitment and timeline to phasing out fossil fuels, monetary compensation when appropriate, and an acknowledgement of past wrongs.
Representatives from island states, many wearing traditional dress as they addressed the court for the first time in their country's history, made passionate pleas to the robed judges.
"Despite producing less than 0.01 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, on the current trajectory of GHG emissions, Tuvalu will disappear completely beneath the waves that have been lapping our shores for millennia," said Eselealofa Apinelu from Tuvalu.
Vishal Prasad, director of a campaign by Pacific Island students that pushed the issue before the court, said climate change will become "catastrophic as the years go by, if we do not course-correct."
"That's why we're looking to the ICJ."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Barnaby Joyce wants Australia to abandon net zero - but his 4 central claims don't stack up
One-time Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce sought to dominate the first sitting week of the current federal parliament by proposing a divisive plan to reverse Australia's net zero emissions target. The campaign, backed by fellow former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, aims to repeal what Joyce calls Australia's "lunatic crusade" of net zero by 2050. It comes as Opposition Leader Sussan Ley convenes a working group to set a way forward on climate and energy policy following the Coalition's historic election defeat. Meanwhile, the Albanese government is considering Australia's next round of emissions reduction targets. And scientists warn just three years remain for the world to keep global warming below the vital 1.5°C threshold. If Australia is to take meaningful climate action, federal parliament must engage with the facts honestly and without distortion. So let's take a closer look at whether Joyce and McCormack's latest claims withstand scrutiny. Joyce describes as "perverse" the notion that Australia's net zero goal can meaningfully help address global climate change. This claim is not backed by science. Every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions adds to global warming. What's more, Joyce's claim ignores the near-universal agreement of nations signed up to the Paris Agreement - including Australia - to pursue efforts (including domestic measures) to limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. It's true that collective national efforts to curb warming have so far been insufficient. But that doesn't mean they should be abandoned. McCormack claims there is a growing global shift against net zero, and Joyce describes it as "a peculiar minority position". This statement is not backed by evidence. In fact, the number of countries, cities, businesses and other institutions pledging to get to net-zero is growing. In the United States, President Donald Trump has dismantled climate policy, damaging that nation's progress towards net zero. But many US states have retained the target, and global climate action will continue regardless of Trump's actions. A landmark court ruling this week is likely to further strengthen global pressure for nations to ramp up emissions reduction. The advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice observed countries are legally obliged to prevent harms caused by climate change - including by regulating the fossil fuel industry. As others have noted, Australia must now reconsider its stance on approving new fossil fuel projects - including those geared to export markets. Joyce claims a net zero policy agenda is "treacherous" for Australia's security and will "inflame our incapacity" to contend with geopolitical threats. But evidence suggests the opposite is true. There is a significant link between climate change and certain types of military conflicts. Research predicts the Australian Defence Force will become involved in more wars as the climate crisis escalates, and respond to more frequent climate-related disasters inside our borders. Both Joyce and McCormack say the net zero target and associated renewable energy rollout is devastating regional Australia. The Institute of Public Affairs, a prominent right-wing think tank, this week launched a documentary making similar claims. Joyce cited division in rural communities over renewable energy. In reality, there is significant support in regional Australia for such technology. A poll last year by Farmers for Climate Action found 70% of regional Australians in renewable energy zones support the development of renewable energy projects on local farmland. Joyce also pointed to "the removal of agricultural land from production" to support his stance. However, analysis shows very little farmland is required for the clean energy transition. What's more, the cost of inaction is high. Climate change is disproportionately affecting cost of living for regional households - for example, due to higher insurance premiums. Joyce also appears deaf to the myriad regional voices calling for stronger climate action. The Mackay Conservation Group, for example, is challenging Whitehaven's Winchester South coal mine in Queensland's Land Court. Similarly, an environment group based in the NSW Hunter Valley this week successfully appealed the expansion of MACH Energy's Mount Pleasant coal mine. Clearly, the efforts of Joyce and McCormack to undermine Australia's net zero goal are not backed by evidence. The Coalition must heed the facts - not backbench pressure - as it weighs its climate and energy policy. Only then can Australia avoid reigniting the divisive climate wars that stalled progress and positioned Australia as a global laggard. Likewise, the Albanese government must not be distracted from the climate action task. Australia's next round of climate targets should be based on the best available science, and make a meaningful, credible contribution to the objectives of the Paris Agreement. One-time Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce sought to dominate the first sitting week of the current federal parliament by proposing a divisive plan to reverse Australia's net zero emissions target. The campaign, backed by fellow former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, aims to repeal what Joyce calls Australia's "lunatic crusade" of net zero by 2050. It comes as Opposition Leader Sussan Ley convenes a working group to set a way forward on climate and energy policy following the Coalition's historic election defeat. Meanwhile, the Albanese government is considering Australia's next round of emissions reduction targets. And scientists warn just three years remain for the world to keep global warming below the vital 1.5°C threshold. If Australia is to take meaningful climate action, federal parliament must engage with the facts honestly and without distortion. So let's take a closer look at whether Joyce and McCormack's latest claims withstand scrutiny. Joyce describes as "perverse" the notion that Australia's net zero goal can meaningfully help address global climate change. This claim is not backed by science. Every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions adds to global warming. What's more, Joyce's claim ignores the near-universal agreement of nations signed up to the Paris Agreement - including Australia - to pursue efforts (including domestic measures) to limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. It's true that collective national efforts to curb warming have so far been insufficient. But that doesn't mean they should be abandoned. McCormack claims there is a growing global shift against net zero, and Joyce describes it as "a peculiar minority position". This statement is not backed by evidence. In fact, the number of countries, cities, businesses and other institutions pledging to get to net-zero is growing. In the United States, President Donald Trump has dismantled climate policy, damaging that nation's progress towards net zero. But many US states have retained the target, and global climate action will continue regardless of Trump's actions. A landmark court ruling this week is likely to further strengthen global pressure for nations to ramp up emissions reduction. The advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice observed countries are legally obliged to prevent harms caused by climate change - including by regulating the fossil fuel industry. As others have noted, Australia must now reconsider its stance on approving new fossil fuel projects - including those geared to export markets. Joyce claims a net zero policy agenda is "treacherous" for Australia's security and will "inflame our incapacity" to contend with geopolitical threats. But evidence suggests the opposite is true. There is a significant link between climate change and certain types of military conflicts. Research predicts the Australian Defence Force will become involved in more wars as the climate crisis escalates, and respond to more frequent climate-related disasters inside our borders. Both Joyce and McCormack say the net zero target and associated renewable energy rollout is devastating regional Australia. The Institute of Public Affairs, a prominent right-wing think tank, this week launched a documentary making similar claims. Joyce cited division in rural communities over renewable energy. In reality, there is significant support in regional Australia for such technology. A poll last year by Farmers for Climate Action found 70% of regional Australians in renewable energy zones support the development of renewable energy projects on local farmland. Joyce also pointed to "the removal of agricultural land from production" to support his stance. However, analysis shows very little farmland is required for the clean energy transition. What's more, the cost of inaction is high. Climate change is disproportionately affecting cost of living for regional households - for example, due to higher insurance premiums. Joyce also appears deaf to the myriad regional voices calling for stronger climate action. The Mackay Conservation Group, for example, is challenging Whitehaven's Winchester South coal mine in Queensland's Land Court. Similarly, an environment group based in the NSW Hunter Valley this week successfully appealed the expansion of MACH Energy's Mount Pleasant coal mine. Clearly, the efforts of Joyce and McCormack to undermine Australia's net zero goal are not backed by evidence. The Coalition must heed the facts - not backbench pressure - as it weighs its climate and energy policy. Only then can Australia avoid reigniting the divisive climate wars that stalled progress and positioned Australia as a global laggard. Likewise, the Albanese government must not be distracted from the climate action task. Australia's next round of climate targets should be based on the best available science, and make a meaningful, credible contribution to the objectives of the Paris Agreement. One-time Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce sought to dominate the first sitting week of the current federal parliament by proposing a divisive plan to reverse Australia's net zero emissions target. The campaign, backed by fellow former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, aims to repeal what Joyce calls Australia's "lunatic crusade" of net zero by 2050. It comes as Opposition Leader Sussan Ley convenes a working group to set a way forward on climate and energy policy following the Coalition's historic election defeat. Meanwhile, the Albanese government is considering Australia's next round of emissions reduction targets. And scientists warn just three years remain for the world to keep global warming below the vital 1.5°C threshold. If Australia is to take meaningful climate action, federal parliament must engage with the facts honestly and without distortion. So let's take a closer look at whether Joyce and McCormack's latest claims withstand scrutiny. Joyce describes as "perverse" the notion that Australia's net zero goal can meaningfully help address global climate change. This claim is not backed by science. Every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions adds to global warming. What's more, Joyce's claim ignores the near-universal agreement of nations signed up to the Paris Agreement - including Australia - to pursue efforts (including domestic measures) to limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. It's true that collective national efforts to curb warming have so far been insufficient. But that doesn't mean they should be abandoned. McCormack claims there is a growing global shift against net zero, and Joyce describes it as "a peculiar minority position". This statement is not backed by evidence. In fact, the number of countries, cities, businesses and other institutions pledging to get to net-zero is growing. In the United States, President Donald Trump has dismantled climate policy, damaging that nation's progress towards net zero. But many US states have retained the target, and global climate action will continue regardless of Trump's actions. A landmark court ruling this week is likely to further strengthen global pressure for nations to ramp up emissions reduction. The advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice observed countries are legally obliged to prevent harms caused by climate change - including by regulating the fossil fuel industry. As others have noted, Australia must now reconsider its stance on approving new fossil fuel projects - including those geared to export markets. Joyce claims a net zero policy agenda is "treacherous" for Australia's security and will "inflame our incapacity" to contend with geopolitical threats. But evidence suggests the opposite is true. There is a significant link between climate change and certain types of military conflicts. Research predicts the Australian Defence Force will become involved in more wars as the climate crisis escalates, and respond to more frequent climate-related disasters inside our borders. Both Joyce and McCormack say the net zero target and associated renewable energy rollout is devastating regional Australia. The Institute of Public Affairs, a prominent right-wing think tank, this week launched a documentary making similar claims. Joyce cited division in rural communities over renewable energy. In reality, there is significant support in regional Australia for such technology. A poll last year by Farmers for Climate Action found 70% of regional Australians in renewable energy zones support the development of renewable energy projects on local farmland. Joyce also pointed to "the removal of agricultural land from production" to support his stance. However, analysis shows very little farmland is required for the clean energy transition. What's more, the cost of inaction is high. Climate change is disproportionately affecting cost of living for regional households - for example, due to higher insurance premiums. Joyce also appears deaf to the myriad regional voices calling for stronger climate action. The Mackay Conservation Group, for example, is challenging Whitehaven's Winchester South coal mine in Queensland's Land Court. Similarly, an environment group based in the NSW Hunter Valley this week successfully appealed the expansion of MACH Energy's Mount Pleasant coal mine. Clearly, the efforts of Joyce and McCormack to undermine Australia's net zero goal are not backed by evidence. The Coalition must heed the facts - not backbench pressure - as it weighs its climate and energy policy. Only then can Australia avoid reigniting the divisive climate wars that stalled progress and positioned Australia as a global laggard. Likewise, the Albanese government must not be distracted from the climate action task. Australia's next round of climate targets should be based on the best available science, and make a meaningful, credible contribution to the objectives of the Paris Agreement. One-time Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce sought to dominate the first sitting week of the current federal parliament by proposing a divisive plan to reverse Australia's net zero emissions target. The campaign, backed by fellow former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, aims to repeal what Joyce calls Australia's "lunatic crusade" of net zero by 2050. It comes as Opposition Leader Sussan Ley convenes a working group to set a way forward on climate and energy policy following the Coalition's historic election defeat. Meanwhile, the Albanese government is considering Australia's next round of emissions reduction targets. And scientists warn just three years remain for the world to keep global warming below the vital 1.5°C threshold. If Australia is to take meaningful climate action, federal parliament must engage with the facts honestly and without distortion. So let's take a closer look at whether Joyce and McCormack's latest claims withstand scrutiny. Joyce describes as "perverse" the notion that Australia's net zero goal can meaningfully help address global climate change. This claim is not backed by science. Every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions adds to global warming. What's more, Joyce's claim ignores the near-universal agreement of nations signed up to the Paris Agreement - including Australia - to pursue efforts (including domestic measures) to limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. It's true that collective national efforts to curb warming have so far been insufficient. But that doesn't mean they should be abandoned. McCormack claims there is a growing global shift against net zero, and Joyce describes it as "a peculiar minority position". This statement is not backed by evidence. In fact, the number of countries, cities, businesses and other institutions pledging to get to net-zero is growing. In the United States, President Donald Trump has dismantled climate policy, damaging that nation's progress towards net zero. But many US states have retained the target, and global climate action will continue regardless of Trump's actions. A landmark court ruling this week is likely to further strengthen global pressure for nations to ramp up emissions reduction. The advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice observed countries are legally obliged to prevent harms caused by climate change - including by regulating the fossil fuel industry. As others have noted, Australia must now reconsider its stance on approving new fossil fuel projects - including those geared to export markets. Joyce claims a net zero policy agenda is "treacherous" for Australia's security and will "inflame our incapacity" to contend with geopolitical threats. But evidence suggests the opposite is true. There is a significant link between climate change and certain types of military conflicts. Research predicts the Australian Defence Force will become involved in more wars as the climate crisis escalates, and respond to more frequent climate-related disasters inside our borders. Both Joyce and McCormack say the net zero target and associated renewable energy rollout is devastating regional Australia. The Institute of Public Affairs, a prominent right-wing think tank, this week launched a documentary making similar claims. Joyce cited division in rural communities over renewable energy. In reality, there is significant support in regional Australia for such technology. A poll last year by Farmers for Climate Action found 70% of regional Australians in renewable energy zones support the development of renewable energy projects on local farmland. Joyce also pointed to "the removal of agricultural land from production" to support his stance. However, analysis shows very little farmland is required for the clean energy transition. What's more, the cost of inaction is high. Climate change is disproportionately affecting cost of living for regional households - for example, due to higher insurance premiums. Joyce also appears deaf to the myriad regional voices calling for stronger climate action. The Mackay Conservation Group, for example, is challenging Whitehaven's Winchester South coal mine in Queensland's Land Court. Similarly, an environment group based in the NSW Hunter Valley this week successfully appealed the expansion of MACH Energy's Mount Pleasant coal mine. Clearly, the efforts of Joyce and McCormack to undermine Australia's net zero goal are not backed by evidence. The Coalition must heed the facts - not backbench pressure - as it weighs its climate and energy policy. Only then can Australia avoid reigniting the divisive climate wars that stalled progress and positioned Australia as a global laggard. Likewise, the Albanese government must not be distracted from the climate action task. Australia's next round of climate targets should be based on the best available science, and make a meaningful, credible contribution to the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
UN climate chief urges Australia to 'go big' on 2035 emissions target
One of the world's top climate diplomats has urged the federal government to commit to an ambitious 2035 target to cut carbon emissions, saying Australia can reap "colossal" economic rewards if it embraces clean energy. The federal government is due to unveil its 2035 target by September this year, while the Coalition continues to be consumed by a furious internal debate on whether it should maintain its commitment to net zero by 2050. The Climate Change Authority is preparing advice on a 2035 target between 65 and 75 per cent, which will inform the target the government will submit to the UN's climate agency. UN climate change executive secretary Simon Stiell, who presides over the agency responsible for managing the Paris Agreement to limit global warming, is visiting Sydney and Canberra this week as he presses countries across the globe to ramp up their climate ambitions. Mr Stiell called the new climate target a "defining moment" for Australia, and said the government had "one shot to build a blueprint that protects Aussie workers and businesses by preparing them for a fast-changing global economy". Mr Stiell used a speech to a group of investors and clean energy representatives in Sydney to warn "unchecked climate change" would be an "economic wrecking ball" for the Australian and global economy, and that action was imperative. Mr Stiell said climate disasters were "already costing Australian homeowners $4 billion a year" and that unchecked climate change would "cripple Australia's food production" and drain trillions from national GDP by 2050. "You know half measures will destroy property and infrastructure, hammer households, bankrupt regions, and punch holes in public budgets," he said. "And you know that real action opens the door to real leadership and big rewards for this ambitious, capable country." Standing alongside Mr Stiell, the Climate Change Authority's (CCA) chair Matt Kean said the stakes "couldn't be higher" for Australia, but that pursuing net zero emissions also presented an opportunity for the sun-rich and mineral-rich nation. "'Shine, baby, shine' and 'store baby store' should carry an Australian trademark and be hollered from our rooftops — perhaps with an Aussie accent," Mr Kean said in a reference to United States President Donald Trump's "drill, baby, drill" remark. The CCA boss also said that, ahead of the next international climate conference, "maximum ambition should be the catch-cry". The United States has slashed clean energy subsidies and pulled out of the Paris Agreement under Mr Trump. However, Mr Stiell said investment in renewables in countries like India and China was "off the chart" and "trillions of dollars are shifting" globally. Mr Stiell said a "bog standard" 2035 target would be "beneath" Australia, and that government and business had the capacity to deliver transformational change. "This is the moment to get behind a climate plan that doesn't just write that vision into policy — but delivers in spades for your people," he said. "So don't settle for what's easy. Bog standard is beneath you. Go for what's smart by going big. "Go for what will build lasting wealth and national security. Go for what will change the game and stand the test of time."
News.com.au
3 hours ago
- News.com.au
Pauline Hanson calls on Coalition to back urgency motion on net zero
One Nation senator Pauline Hanson is seizing on division in the Coalition to push through an urgency motion calling for Australia to abandon its net zero target. Senator Hanson, a long-time climate change denier, will introduce the motion on Monday following Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce's private members bill calling for the same thing. Aware of the divide in the Coalition, Senator Hanson said her motion would out opposition 'cowards'. 'They're gutless, you know, they're cowards,' she told Sky News when asked about the prospect of Coalition senators not backing her motion. 'Because a lot of these people on the floor of parliament have no understanding, cannot debate you about climate change. 'They don't even know anything about it. 'They're making decisions and voting on it.' 'Scam' She went on to say Australians have 'been hoodwinked'. 'It's a scam going on and if we head down this path, what will happen to Australians?' Senator Hanson said. 'You will be restricted where you travel, where you go, what you eat, and it will be based on your carbon emissions.' Australia's renewables targets do not impose restrictions on freedom of movement or diets. Earlier, Mr Joyce asked Australia's big-city residents if they are 'prepared to hurt the poor' by pursuing a carbon neutral future. Mr Joyce, who was banished to the backbench after the Coalition's brief post-election break-up, kicked off the second sitting week of the new parliament by introducing his Repeal Net Zero Bill. Unless Sussan Ley drastically changes course in rebuilding the Coalition as a moderate opposition, the private member's bill will not get far. But as a former Nationals leader, Mr Joyce holds clout within the party and his split from more green-minded Liberal Party colleagues has grown into somewhat of a backbench rebellion. Mr Joyce said on Monday there needed to be more give and take between city-living Australians and their rural and regional counterparts, saying there 'are certain things' the regions could do but do not 'because we're trying to be reasonable'. 'There's absolutely no reason that Mascot Airport can't work 24/7,' he told reporters, flanked by fellow Coalition rebels and disgruntled community members. 'But we understand that people don't want planes flying over themselves in the middle of the night … but we don't want transmission lines over our head either. 'We don't want wind towers either, so there's got to be a form of good pro quo.' Mr Joyce said the question 'affluent suburbs' needed to be asked was: 'Are you prepared to hurt the poor?' 'Are you prepared to hurt them and I don't think if you really explain the issue that people do want to hurt them,' he said. 'You don't feel virtuous if you're hurting people.' Mr Joyce's Bill proposes to abandon Australia's carbon-neutral target by 2050. The target is in line with goals set by other developed economies, but the task has been complicated by rapid energy demands from emerging economies and global disruptions driven by increased conflicts, such as Russia's war in Ukraine. Among Mr Joyce's supporters gathered outside Parliament House was fellow former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, another hefty voice in the party. Liberal MP Garth Hamilton also joined him, making him the only member of the senior Coalition partner to do so.
