Indigenous leaders in ‘deepest pain imaginable' as Australian court dismisses climate case
Australian
government breached its duty of care to protect the Torres Strait Islands from
climate change
.
The lead plaintiffs, Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai from the islands of Boigu and Saibai, sought orders requiring the government to take steps to prevent climate harm to their communities, including by cutting greenhouse gas emissions at the pace climate scientists say is necessary.
In delivering the decision, Justice Michael Wigney noted: 'There could be little if any doubt that the Torres Strait Islands and their inhabitants face a bleak future if urgent action is not taken.'
In a statement on Tuesday afternoon, Uncle Paul said: 'I thought that the decision would be in our favour, and I'm in shock. This pain isn't just for me, it's for all people Indigenous and non-Indigenous who have been affected by climate change. What do any of us say to our families now?'
READ MORE
He added later: 'Mr [Anthony] Albanese [Australia's prime minister] and his expensive government lawyers will stand up and walk away ... They go home and sleep soundly in their expensive beds. We go back to our islands and the deepest pain imaginable.'
The class action, filed in 2021, argued the government had a legal duty of care towards Torres Strait Islander peoples and that it had breached this duty by failing to prevent or deal with damage in the Torres Strait linked to global heating.
Wigney's summary said the applicants' case had failed 'not so much because there was no merit in their factual allegations' but because the common law of negligence 'was not a suitable legal vehicle'.
He said the reality was that current law 'provides no real or effective legal avenue through which individuals and communities like those in the Torres Strait Islands' can claim damages or other relief for harm they suffer as a result of government policies related to climate change.
Wigney said that would remain the case unless the law changed.
'Until then, the only real avenue available ... involves public advocacy and protest and, ultimately, recourse via the ballot box,' he said.
'My heart is broken for my family and my community,' Uncle Pabai said after the judgment.
'I'll keep fighting and will sit down with my lawyers and look at how we can appeal.'
Brett Spiegel, principal lawyer at Phi Finney McDonald, the firm representing Uncle Pabai, Uncle Paul and their communities, said the legal team 'will review the judgment ... and consider all options for appeal'.
Hearings in the case were held in 2023 in Melbourne and on Country in the Torres Strait to allow the court to tour the islands and view the impacts of climate change.
On Saibai Island, homes were already being inundated by king tides, the cemetery had been affected by erosion and sea walls had been built.
The legal challenge is supported by the Urgenda Foundation and Grata Fund, a public interest organisation that helps individuals access the courts. It was modelled on the Urgenda climate case against the Dutch government – the first case in the world in which citizens established their government had a legal duty to prevent dangerous climate change.
[
Sally Hayden: Climate change is human made, but not all humans have played same role in it
Opens in new window
]
In the judgment summary, released on Tuesday, Wigney said 'the applicants succeeded in establishing many of the factual allegations that underpinned their primary case'.
In particular, the court found that when the federal government set climate targets in 2015, 2020 and 2021 – when a coalition was in power – it 'failed to engage with or give any real or genuine consideration to what the best available science indicated was required' for Australia to play its part to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement.
The court found 'when the Commonwealth, under a new government, reset Australia's emissions reduction target in 2022, it did have some regard to the best available science'.
Wigney found that the Torres Strait Islands 'have been, and continue to be, ravaged by climate change and its impacts'.
He agreed the evidence indicated this damage had become more frequent in recent times, 'including the flooding and inundation of townships, extreme sea level and weather events, severe erosion, the salination of wetlands and previously arable land, the degradation of fragile ecosystems, including the bleaching of coral reefs, and the loss of sea life'.
Despite this, Wigney found the applicants had not succeeded in making their primary case related to negligence.
He found the government did not owe Torres Strait Islanders a duty of care because, in respect to the law of negligence, courts had established that matters involving 'high or core government policy' were to be decided through political processes.
Isabelle Reinecke, the founder and executive director of Grata Fund, said 'the court was not yet ready to take the step we all need it to and hold the Australian government accountable for it's role in creating the climate crisis'.
But she said it had made strong findings that the 'Australian government knows that Torres Strait communities are being ravaged by climate change'.
In a joint statement, the climate change minister, Chris Bowen, and the minister for Indigenous Australians, Malarndirri McCarthy, said: 'Unlike the former Liberal government, we understand that the Torres Strait Islands are vulnerable to climate change, and many are already feeling the impacts.'
Bowen and McCarthy said the government 'remains committed to both acting to continue to cut emissions, and adapting to climate impacts we cannot avoid'.
'We are finalising Australia's first national climate risk assessment and national adaptation plan to help all communities understand climate risk and build a more resilient country for all Australians,' they said. - Guardian
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Irish Times
EU and China agree to strengthen co-operation on climate change
The European Union and China have agreed to strengthen co-operation on climate change following Donald Trump's withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement . But a one-day summit in Beijing failed to resolve differences over trade imbalances and Russia's war against Ukraine. In a joint statement on climate, the two sides said they would enhance bilateral co-operation in such areas as energy transition, adaptation, methane emissions management and control, carbon markets and green and low-carbon technologies. Affirming their commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement, they said that 'green is the defining colour of China-EU co-operation'. READ MORE Before the start of the summit, Xi Jinping told European Council president António Costa and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen that the EU and China should handle their differences 'properly'. [ 'Dominance, dependency and blackmail': EU and China talks overshadowed by deep divisions Opens in new window ] And he rejected the EU's assertion that China's industrial policy had created an overcapacity in some sectors such as electric vehicles which threatened European competitiveness. 'We hope that the European side will keep the trade and investment markets open, refrain from using restrictive economic and trade instruments, and provide a good business environment for Chinese enterprises to invest and operate in Europe,' he said, according to Xinhua news agency. The summit itself, where the Chinese delegation was led by premier Li Qiang, was dominated by the trade relationship between the EU and China, which von der Leyen said had reached an inflection point. European Council leader António Costa, Chinese president Xi Jinping and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen. Photograph: Xie Huanchi/Xinhua/AP Speaking to reporters after the meeting, she said the EU's trade deficit with China had doubled in the past decade and had now reached €300 billion. 'As we said to the Chinese leadership, for trade to remain mutually beneficial, it must become more balanced. Europe welcomes competition, we like competition, but competition has to be fair,' she said. The EU raised three trade issues with China: better access for European firms to the Chinese market; overcapacity in some Chinese industrial sectors; and export controls on rare earths and related magnets. They agreed to work on reciprocal arrangements for public procurement contracts and China agreed to fast-track applications from European companies for rare earths export licences. Von der Leyen said the two sides discussed the issue of overcapacity at length, with the EU side complaining that China was producing too many subsidised goods for its own market to absorb and that these products were going to other markets. 'But the more other markets restrict Chinese exports, the greater the risk of trade diversion and pressure on the European Union's single market. And this puts our own industrial competitiveness at risk at a time when we are making significant investments – for example, in clean energy transition,' she said. 'The Chinese leadership has started to look into this issue under the term involution and expressed willingness to support more the consumption and less the production part. This is important. We need to see progress on this issue because without progress, it would be very difficult for the European Union to maintain its current level of openness.' The two sides also discussed the war in Ukraine and the EU urged China to use its influence over Vladimir Putin to encourage him to agree to an unconditional ceasefire and to enter into meaningful peace negotiations. The EU last week targeted two Chinese banks for helping to circumvent EU sanctions against Russia, and Costa said they had spoken about the danger of dual-use products exported from China being used in Russia's war effort.
Irish Independent
3 days ago
- Irish Independent
Countries face lawsuits if they fail to protect planet, International Court of Justice warns
Advocates immediately cheered the landmark advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on nations' obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they do not. 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system... may constitute an internationally wrongful act,' court president Yuji Iwasawa said during the hearing. He called the climate crisis 'an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet'. The non-binding opinion, which runs to more than 500 pages, was hailed as a turning point in international climate law. Notably, the court said a 'clean, healthy and sustainable environment' is a human right. That paves the way for other lawsuits, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account as well as domestic lawsuits, along with legal instruments such as investment agreements. The case was led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries. The world's highest court provided us with a powerful new tool to protect people All UN member states including major greenhouse gas emitters such as the US and China are parties to the court. Climate activists had gathered outside the crowded court with a banner that read: 'Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must act now.' They watched the ruling on a giant screen, clapping and cheering at times during the two-hour hearing. When it was over, others emerged from the courtroom laughing and hugging. 'Today, the tables have turned. The world's highest court provided us with a powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of the climate crisis – and to deliver justice for the harm their emissions have already caused,' former UN human rights chief and former president of Ireland, Mary Robinson said in a statement. Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, said: 'The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities. It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: Those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection, reparations and a future.' In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3cm, with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3C since pre-industrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels.
Irish Examiner
3 days ago
- Irish Examiner
Failing to protect planet from climate change ‘could violate international law'
The UN's top court has announced that if countries fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change they could be in violation of international law. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered an advisory opinion in a landmark case about nations' obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they do not, calling it an 'urgent and existential' threat to humanity. 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system… may constitute an internationally wrongful act,' court president Yuji Iwasawa said during the hearing. The court also said countries harmed by climate change could be entitled to reparations for the damage they have suffered from rising global temperatures, but what they are owed should be determined on a 'case by case' basis. The non-binding opinion, which runs to more than 500 pages, is seen as a potential turning point in international climate law. The court said a 'clean, healthy and sustainable environment' is a human right. Enshrining a sustainable environment as a human right paves the way for other legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account as well as domestic lawsuits, along with legal instruments such as investment agreements. The case is led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries. All UN member states including major greenhouse gas emitters such as the United States and China are parties to the court. Outside the court, climate activists gathered with a banner that read: 'Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must act now.' The courtroom, known as the Great Hall of Justice, was packed. After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising sea waters, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ in 2023 for an advisory opinion, an important basis for international obligations. A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions: What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? 'The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line,' Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings in December. In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3cm, with parts of the Pacific rising higher still. The world has also warmed 1.3C since pre-industrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. Vanuatu is one of a group of small states pushing for international legal intervention in the climate crisis, but it affects many more island nations in the South Pacific. 'The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough,' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, told the Associated Press. Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision. 'What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It's not just about future targets – it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots,' Joie Chowdhury, a senior lawyer at the Centre for International Environmental Law, told the Associated Press. The United States and Russia, both of whom are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions. But those who cling to fossil fuels could go broke doing it, the UN secretary-general told the Associated Press in an exclusive interview this week. Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change. In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens.
