Following Dutch Footsteps, Activists to Sue Aussie Government on Climate
Landmark ruling raised 'energy and appetite of the community to stand up and use the courts when government fouls them,' says environmental lawyer
Signaling the global implications of last week's historic Dutch court ruling--the first in the world to use human rights as a legal basis to protect citizens against greenhouse gas emissions and global warming--environmentalists in Australia are reportedly preparing to launch a similar legal challenge against Prime Minister Tony Abbott's government for its notorious inaction on climate change.
In response to a lawsuit filed by the Amsterdam-based environmental nonprofit Urgenda Foundation along with over 800 Dutch citizens, the Hague District Court ruled last Wednesday that the government has a legal duty to reduce carbon emissions by 25 percent by 2020. It marked the first time a court has determined the appropriate emissions-reduction target for a state based on the duty of care owed to its people.
"Measured against the Dutch court's verdict on a fair and reasonable target for a rich nation, Australia's current 5% target looks inadequate. The spotlight will increasingly be on Australia to justify this target in light of the decision."
--Katherine Lake, University of Melbourne
News outlets predicted at the time that the decision could set a precedent, triggering similar cases all around the world. As Emma Howard wrote in the Guardian last week:
The verdict will likely not only inspire lawyers, but the environmental movement, which is tired after 23 years of international negotiations. The multiple successes of the fossil fuel divestment campaign have provided a new, hopeful narrative of international relevance in recent years--and this court case could do the same.
Like the UK's mass climate change lobby last week, this David and Goliath case shows that the climate change movement is not just made up of lentil-eating, sandal-wearing idealist liberals. All of the plantiffs who successfully sued their government today are Dutch citizens, crowdsourced by Urgenda, the environmental foundation behind the case.
Now, according to Australia's SBS News, environmental lawyers in Melbourne are preparing to launch similar action in that country.
The Urgenda victory "really raises the energy and appetite of the community to stand up and use the courts when governments and policy fouls them," Environmental Justice Australia lawyer Ariane Wilkinson told SBS reporter Abby Dinham in an interview on Tuesday.
Wilkinson said the legal strategy was still in its "early stages" and noted that "this question about harm to Australians themselves and a failure of policy to deliver on the emissions reductions required to stop dangerous climate change has not been before an Australian court."
In a blog post at The Conversation, Katherine Lake, research associate at the Centre for Resources, Energy and Environmental Law at University of Melbourne, added that "in Australia, environmental groups generally have to show a 'special interest' in the subject of the action, beyond that of the general public. This has been a stumbling block for public interest environmental litigation in Australia."
"We believe Australia should play its fair part in global efforts to avoid 2degC and the serious economic, social and environmental impacts that unconstrained climate change would have on Australia."
--Australian Climate Roundtable
Still, Lake wrote, "[i]t is possible that if the government's intransigence on climate change action continues, the courts in Australia will be increasingly called on to decide questions such as those raised in the Netherlands case."
She continued:
While the decision of the Dutch court was made in a domestic setting, it has broad international implications, particularly for developed countries such as Australia. Besides the growing diplomatic pressure on Australia to step up its action on climate change, there is, for the first time, judicial evidence to compel developed countries to take serious action.
Measured against the Dutch court's verdict on a fair and reasonable target for a rich nation, Australia's current 5% target looks inadequate. The spotlight will increasingly be on Australia to justify this target in light of the decision.
Abbott is facing calls for increased climate accountability from many fronts. On Monday, a coalition of environmental, public health, labor, business, and socially responsible investment groups known as the Australian Climate Roundtable came together to declare: "Australia should play its fair part in these efforts while maintaining and increasing its prosperity."
In the statement (pdf), the coalition said that supporting the global community's goal of limiting climate change to less than 2degC above pre-industrial levels "will require deep global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, with most countries including Australia eventually reducing net emissions to zero or below."
The statement went on: "Our broad coalition has come together because climate change and climate policy both impact our missions and members. We believe Australia should play its fair part in global efforts to avoid 2degC and the serious economic, social and environmental impacts that unconstrained climate change would have on Australia. Avoiding unconstrained climate change will provide important benefits and opportunities to Australia."
However, the coalition warned, "[d]elayed, unpredictable and piecemeal action will increase the costs and challenges of achieving the goals and maximizing the opportunities... The foundations of climate policy need broad and durable support, and we all have a role in building it."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Signaling the global implications of last week's historic Dutch court ruling--the first in the world to use human rights as a legal basis to protect citizens against greenhouse gas emissions and global warming--environmentalists in Australia are reportedly preparing to launch a similar legal challenge against Prime Minister Tony Abbott's government for its notorious inaction on climate change.
In response to a lawsuit filed by the Amsterdam-based environmental nonprofit Urgenda Foundation along with over 800 Dutch citizens, the Hague District Court ruled last Wednesday that the government has a legal duty to reduce carbon emissions by 25 percent by 2020. It marked the first time a court has determined the appropriate emissions-reduction target for a state based on the duty of care owed to its people.
"Measured against the Dutch court's verdict on a fair and reasonable target for a rich nation, Australia's current 5% target looks inadequate. The spotlight will increasingly be on Australia to justify this target in light of the decision."
--Katherine Lake, University of Melbourne
News outlets predicted at the time that the decision could set a precedent, triggering similar cases all around the world. As Emma Howard wrote in the Guardian last week:
The verdict will likely not only inspire lawyers, but the environmental movement, which is tired after 23 years of international negotiations. The multiple successes of the fossil fuel divestment campaign have provided a new, hopeful narrative of international relevance in recent years--and this court case could do the same.
Like the UK's mass climate change lobby last week, this David and Goliath case shows that the climate change movement is not just made up of lentil-eating, sandal-wearing idealist liberals. All of the plantiffs who successfully sued their government today are Dutch citizens, crowdsourced by Urgenda, the environmental foundation behind the case.
Now, according to Australia's SBS News, environmental lawyers in Melbourne are preparing to launch similar action in that country.
The Urgenda victory "really raises the energy and appetite of the community to stand up and use the courts when governments and policy fouls them," Environmental Justice Australia lawyer Ariane Wilkinson told SBS reporter Abby Dinham in an interview on Tuesday.
Wilkinson said the legal strategy was still in its "early stages" and noted that "this question about harm to Australians themselves and a failure of policy to deliver on the emissions reductions required to stop dangerous climate change has not been before an Australian court."
In a blog post at The Conversation, Katherine Lake, research associate at the Centre for Resources, Energy and Environmental Law at University of Melbourne, added that "in Australia, environmental groups generally have to show a 'special interest' in the subject of the action, beyond that of the general public. This has been a stumbling block for public interest environmental litigation in Australia."
"We believe Australia should play its fair part in global efforts to avoid 2degC and the serious economic, social and environmental impacts that unconstrained climate change would have on Australia."
--Australian Climate Roundtable
Still, Lake wrote, "[i]t is possible that if the government's intransigence on climate change action continues, the courts in Australia will be increasingly called on to decide questions such as those raised in the Netherlands case."
She continued:
While the decision of the Dutch court was made in a domestic setting, it has broad international implications, particularly for developed countries such as Australia. Besides the growing diplomatic pressure on Australia to step up its action on climate change, there is, for the first time, judicial evidence to compel developed countries to take serious action.
Measured against the Dutch court's verdict on a fair and reasonable target for a rich nation, Australia's current 5% target looks inadequate. The spotlight will increasingly be on Australia to justify this target in light of the decision.
Abbott is facing calls for increased climate accountability from many fronts. On Monday, a coalition of environmental, public health, labor, business, and socially responsible investment groups known as the Australian Climate Roundtable came together to declare: "Australia should play its fair part in these efforts while maintaining and increasing its prosperity."
In the statement (pdf), the coalition said that supporting the global community's goal of limiting climate change to less than 2degC above pre-industrial levels "will require deep global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, with most countries including Australia eventually reducing net emissions to zero or below."
The statement went on: "Our broad coalition has come together because climate change and climate policy both impact our missions and members. We believe Australia should play its fair part in global efforts to avoid 2degC and the serious economic, social and environmental impacts that unconstrained climate change would have on Australia. Avoiding unconstrained climate change will provide important benefits and opportunities to Australia."
However, the coalition warned, "[d]elayed, unpredictable and piecemeal action will increase the costs and challenges of achieving the goals and maximizing the opportunities... The foundations of climate policy need broad and durable support, and we all have a role in building it."
Signaling the global implications of last week's historic Dutch court ruling--the first in the world to use human rights as a legal basis to protect citizens against greenhouse gas emissions and global warming--environmentalists in Australia are reportedly preparing to launch a similar legal challenge against Prime Minister Tony Abbott's government for its notorious inaction on climate change.
In response to a lawsuit filed by the Amsterdam-based environmental nonprofit Urgenda Foundation along with over 800 Dutch citizens, the Hague District Court ruled last Wednesday that the government has a legal duty to reduce carbon emissions by 25 percent by 2020. It marked the first time a court has determined the appropriate emissions-reduction target for a state based on the duty of care owed to its people.
"Measured against the Dutch court's verdict on a fair and reasonable target for a rich nation, Australia's current 5% target looks inadequate. The spotlight will increasingly be on Australia to justify this target in light of the decision."
--Katherine Lake, University of Melbourne
News outlets predicted at the time that the decision could set a precedent, triggering similar cases all around the world. As Emma Howard wrote in the Guardian last week:
The verdict will likely not only inspire lawyers, but the environmental movement, which is tired after 23 years of international negotiations. The multiple successes of the fossil fuel divestment campaign have provided a new, hopeful narrative of international relevance in recent years--and this court case could do the same.
Like the UK's mass climate change lobby last week, this David and Goliath case shows that the climate change movement is not just made up of lentil-eating, sandal-wearing idealist liberals. All of the plantiffs who successfully sued their government today are Dutch citizens, crowdsourced by Urgenda, the environmental foundation behind the case.
Now, according to Australia's SBS News, environmental lawyers in Melbourne are preparing to launch similar action in that country.
The Urgenda victory "really raises the energy and appetite of the community to stand up and use the courts when governments and policy fouls them," Environmental Justice Australia lawyer Ariane Wilkinson told SBS reporter Abby Dinham in an interview on Tuesday.
Wilkinson said the legal strategy was still in its "early stages" and noted that "this question about harm to Australians themselves and a failure of policy to deliver on the emissions reductions required to stop dangerous climate change has not been before an Australian court."
In a blog post at The Conversation, Katherine Lake, research associate at the Centre for Resources, Energy and Environmental Law at University of Melbourne, added that "in Australia, environmental groups generally have to show a 'special interest' in the subject of the action, beyond that of the general public. This has been a stumbling block for public interest environmental litigation in Australia."
"We believe Australia should play its fair part in global efforts to avoid 2degC and the serious economic, social and environmental impacts that unconstrained climate change would have on Australia."
--Australian Climate Roundtable
Still, Lake wrote, "[i]t is possible that if the government's intransigence on climate change action continues, the courts in Australia will be increasingly called on to decide questions such as those raised in the Netherlands case."
She continued:
While the decision of the Dutch court was made in a domestic setting, it has broad international implications, particularly for developed countries such as Australia. Besides the growing diplomatic pressure on Australia to step up its action on climate change, there is, for the first time, judicial evidence to compel developed countries to take serious action.
Measured against the Dutch court's verdict on a fair and reasonable target for a rich nation, Australia's current 5% target looks inadequate. The spotlight will increasingly be on Australia to justify this target in light of the decision.
Abbott is facing calls for increased climate accountability from many fronts. On Monday, a coalition of environmental, public health, labor, business, and socially responsible investment groups known as the Australian Climate Roundtable came together to declare: "Australia should play its fair part in these efforts while maintaining and increasing its prosperity."
In the statement (pdf), the coalition said that supporting the global community's goal of limiting climate change to less than 2degC above pre-industrial levels "will require deep global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, with most countries including Australia eventually reducing net emissions to zero or below."
The statement went on: "Our broad coalition has come together because climate change and climate policy both impact our missions and members. We believe Australia should play its fair part in global efforts to avoid 2degC and the serious economic, social and environmental impacts that unconstrained climate change would have on Australia. Avoiding unconstrained climate change will provide important benefits and opportunities to Australia."
However, the coalition warned, "[d]elayed, unpredictable and piecemeal action will increase the costs and challenges of achieving the goals and maximizing the opportunities... The foundations of climate policy need broad and durable support, and we all have a role in building it."