The Federal Court ruled against a legal duty to protect Torres Strait Islanders from climate change, but the fight continues. The plaintiffs, from low-lying islands, argued government negligence. While the judge acknowledged climate impacts, he found no negligence.
However, the judge criticized past emissions targets, putting pressure on the current government's upcoming 2035 targets. The ruling is unlikely to stop future climate litigation. The case failed on legal grounds, not merit.
The judge found Australia's past targets inconsistent with climate science. The government is now setting its 2035 target, crucial for global efforts and Australia's Pacific standing. An appeal is possible.
Courts globally are holding governments accountable. Advancements in science strengthen the basis for considering government's role in climate impacts. Legal norms must evolve. Change relies on public action.
5 Comments
Matzomaster
The court is showing its age by being unable to grasp the reality of climate-change impacts and the government's responsibility in it.
Karamba
How can you say the judge acknowledged climate impacts and not find negligence? Seems like a cop-out.
Rotfront
If one more court fails to see the climate catastrophe then the world is truly headed to devastation.
Coccinella
It's disappointing for the plaintiffs, but not unexpected. The legal basis wasn't there, but this will push the government forward on future decisions.
Africa
Shame on the judge! How can you acknowledge the impacts of climate change and not find negligence? Total disconnect.