From ABC and Cairns News
A landmark outcome from the world’s highest court this week has put major fossil fuel countries like Australia on notice, declaring they could be liable for reparations.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its advisory opinion this week, outlining that nations have an obligation to prevent climate change and listing potential legal consequences for continuing to make the crisis worse.
It’s been celebrated around the world as a historic turning point for the climate movement. It’s also expected to unleash a new wave of climate litigation.
Australia is in the firing line for massive payments and with a federal government that worships the Earth Goddess Gaia, it is possible the Labor and Greens alliance could pay up while American President Donald Trump tells oil companies to “drill baby drill.”
Trump would not take one bit of notice of World Court deliberations which have no binding legal effect in the US and the Labor government in Australia should do the same.
Australia, one of the world’s biggest fossil fuel exporters, is likely to face new legal scrutiny.
“Under international law, it’s huge for Australia. It’s going to open us up to a lot more liability,” said climate law specialist at the University of Melbourne’s law school, Liz Hicks.
“There could be claims for reparations brought against Australia. I think this is something that the government hasn’t been taking seriously until now.”
Green lawyers have jumped onto the bandwagon warning Australia cannot ignore coal exports any longer which are contributing to ‘climate change’ which Trump has dismissed as a “green hoax”, while renegade National Party former leader Barnaby Joyce and One Nation leader Pauline Hanson urge the senate to reject Net Zero.
“The court has really met the moment in bringing all of those legal obligations and interpreting them in the climate reality, and the urgency of this kind of existential crisis for the entire world,” Retta Berryman, climate lead and lawyer for Environmental Justice Australia (EJA), said.
The ICJ’s decision isn’t binding for Australian courts, but its advice is considered highly influential and will inform legal arguments in cases back home.
Under the Paris Agreement, the legal framework for climate action over the past decade, countries set their own targets for how they will reduce their domestic greenhouse gas emissions.
Domestic. That’s the critical word here.
By only counting emissions released at home, fossil fuel exporters like Australia could brag about cutting down greenhouse gases whilst continuing to sell coal, oil and gas to international buyers, obligation-free.
“What states like Australia — and many, many states — were arguing, was that the Paris Agreement was exhaustive of all our obligations,” Melbourne Law School’s Dr Hicks explained.
“Our exports, the big contribution that we make to climate harms, fell outside of the Paris Agreement.”
The ICJ judges rejected that outright.
They declared that supporting fossil fuels — by the production, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences, and fossil fuel subsidies — constitutes an internationally wrongful act.
For Australia, the potential ramifications can’t be overstated.
