Latest news with #FloraVano
The Advertiser
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Australia may be target of legal action on climate
Australia could become the subject of legal action after an international court said countries have an obligation to prevent climate change harm and redress damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The non-binding advisory opinion was issued by a 15-judge panel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in The Netherlands overnight. It opens the way for countries to potentially sue each other over climate change impacts. Social justice group ActionAid Australia, which lobbies for women's rights, said the advice was a wake-up call for the Labor federal government. "This ruling is a powerful tool we can use to demand that those most responsible for this climate crisis be held accountable," the group's Vanuatu country manager Flora Vano said on Thursday. Ms Fino, who travelled to the Hague last year to deliver testimony as part of the court proceedings, said women and girls on the frontlines of the climate crisis will be able to fight for justice and accountability. ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear. "Australia must do all it can to keep global heating to 1.5 degrees," she said. "This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action." ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and increase funding to low-income countries, including those in the Pacific, to support climate adaptation efforts. Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the court has pointed to potentially serious legal consequences. Action could be taken under customary international law if countries don't put forward climate targets aligned to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. "Importantly, these obligations also apply to countries whether or not they are Parties to the Paris Agreement," it added. Australia's current commitment to the Paris Agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The world court's opinion comes after Vanuatu University law students argued that the people of Pacific island countries are unjustly bearing the brunt of climate change compared to high-emitting economies. "The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, reading out the court's opinion. The court decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion. The 133-page opinion was in response to two questions the United Nations General Assembly put to the UN court. The first was: what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? The second was: regarding the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? A response is being sought from the federal government. Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Adaptation Ralph Regenvanu described the court's opinion as a "very important course correction in this critically important time". "For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity," he said at The Hague. Australia could become the subject of legal action after an international court said countries have an obligation to prevent climate change harm and redress damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The non-binding advisory opinion was issued by a 15-judge panel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in The Netherlands overnight. It opens the way for countries to potentially sue each other over climate change impacts. Social justice group ActionAid Australia, which lobbies for women's rights, said the advice was a wake-up call for the Labor federal government. "This ruling is a powerful tool we can use to demand that those most responsible for this climate crisis be held accountable," the group's Vanuatu country manager Flora Vano said on Thursday. Ms Fino, who travelled to the Hague last year to deliver testimony as part of the court proceedings, said women and girls on the frontlines of the climate crisis will be able to fight for justice and accountability. ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear. "Australia must do all it can to keep global heating to 1.5 degrees," she said. "This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action." ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and increase funding to low-income countries, including those in the Pacific, to support climate adaptation efforts. Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the court has pointed to potentially serious legal consequences. Action could be taken under customary international law if countries don't put forward climate targets aligned to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. "Importantly, these obligations also apply to countries whether or not they are Parties to the Paris Agreement," it added. Australia's current commitment to the Paris Agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The world court's opinion comes after Vanuatu University law students argued that the people of Pacific island countries are unjustly bearing the brunt of climate change compared to high-emitting economies. "The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, reading out the court's opinion. The court decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion. The 133-page opinion was in response to two questions the United Nations General Assembly put to the UN court. The first was: what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? The second was: regarding the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? A response is being sought from the federal government. Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Adaptation Ralph Regenvanu described the court's opinion as a "very important course correction in this critically important time". "For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity," he said at The Hague. Australia could become the subject of legal action after an international court said countries have an obligation to prevent climate change harm and redress damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The non-binding advisory opinion was issued by a 15-judge panel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in The Netherlands overnight. It opens the way for countries to potentially sue each other over climate change impacts. Social justice group ActionAid Australia, which lobbies for women's rights, said the advice was a wake-up call for the Labor federal government. "This ruling is a powerful tool we can use to demand that those most responsible for this climate crisis be held accountable," the group's Vanuatu country manager Flora Vano said on Thursday. Ms Fino, who travelled to the Hague last year to deliver testimony as part of the court proceedings, said women and girls on the frontlines of the climate crisis will be able to fight for justice and accountability. ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear. "Australia must do all it can to keep global heating to 1.5 degrees," she said. "This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action." ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and increase funding to low-income countries, including those in the Pacific, to support climate adaptation efforts. Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the court has pointed to potentially serious legal consequences. Action could be taken under customary international law if countries don't put forward climate targets aligned to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. "Importantly, these obligations also apply to countries whether or not they are Parties to the Paris Agreement," it added. Australia's current commitment to the Paris Agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The world court's opinion comes after Vanuatu University law students argued that the people of Pacific island countries are unjustly bearing the brunt of climate change compared to high-emitting economies. "The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, reading out the court's opinion. The court decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion. The 133-page opinion was in response to two questions the United Nations General Assembly put to the UN court. The first was: what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? The second was: regarding the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? A response is being sought from the federal government. Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Adaptation Ralph Regenvanu described the court's opinion as a "very important course correction in this critically important time". "For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity," he said at The Hague. Australia could become the subject of legal action after an international court said countries have an obligation to prevent climate change harm and redress damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The non-binding advisory opinion was issued by a 15-judge panel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in The Netherlands overnight. It opens the way for countries to potentially sue each other over climate change impacts. Social justice group ActionAid Australia, which lobbies for women's rights, said the advice was a wake-up call for the Labor federal government. "This ruling is a powerful tool we can use to demand that those most responsible for this climate crisis be held accountable," the group's Vanuatu country manager Flora Vano said on Thursday. Ms Fino, who travelled to the Hague last year to deliver testimony as part of the court proceedings, said women and girls on the frontlines of the climate crisis will be able to fight for justice and accountability. ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear. "Australia must do all it can to keep global heating to 1.5 degrees," she said. "This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action." ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and increase funding to low-income countries, including those in the Pacific, to support climate adaptation efforts. Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the court has pointed to potentially serious legal consequences. Action could be taken under customary international law if countries don't put forward climate targets aligned to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. "Importantly, these obligations also apply to countries whether or not they are Parties to the Paris Agreement," it added. Australia's current commitment to the Paris Agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The world court's opinion comes after Vanuatu University law students argued that the people of Pacific island countries are unjustly bearing the brunt of climate change compared to high-emitting economies. "The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, reading out the court's opinion. The court decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion. The 133-page opinion was in response to two questions the United Nations General Assembly put to the UN court. The first was: what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? The second was: regarding the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? A response is being sought from the federal government. Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Adaptation Ralph Regenvanu described the court's opinion as a "very important course correction in this critically important time". "For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity," he said at The Hague.
Perth Now
6 days ago
- Politics
- Perth Now
Australia may be target of legal action on climate
Australia could become the subject of legal action after an international court said countries have an obligation to prevent climate change harm and redress damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The non-binding advisory opinion was issued by a 15-judge panel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in The Netherlands overnight. It opens the way for countries to potentially sue each other over climate change impacts. Social justice group ActionAid Australia, which lobbies for women's rights, said the advice was a wake-up call for the Labor federal government. "This ruling is a powerful tool we can use to demand that those most responsible for this climate crisis be held accountable," the group's Vanuatu country manager Flora Vano said on Thursday. Ms Fino, who travelled to the Hague last year to deliver testimony as part of the court proceedings, said women and girls on the frontlines of the climate crisis will be able to fight for justice and accountability. ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear. "Australia must do all it can to keep global heating to 1.5 degrees," she said. "This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action." ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and increase funding to low-income countries, including those in the Pacific, to support climate adaptation efforts. Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the court has pointed to potentially serious legal consequences. Action could be taken under customary international law if countries don't put forward climate targets aligned to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. "Importantly, these obligations also apply to countries whether or not they are Parties to the Paris Agreement," it added. Australia's current commitment to the Paris Agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The world court's opinion comes after Vanuatu University law students argued that the people of Pacific island countries are unjustly bearing the brunt of climate change compared to high-emitting economies. "The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, reading out the court's opinion. The court decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion. The 133-page opinion was in response to two questions the United Nations General Assembly put to the UN court. The first was: what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? The second was: regarding the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? A response is being sought from the federal government. Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Adaptation Ralph Regenvanu described the court's opinion as a "very important course correction in this critically important time". "For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity," he said at The Hague.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change
A landmark decision by a top UN court has cleared the way for countries to sue each other over climate change, including over historic emissions of planet-warming gases. But the judge at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands on Wednesday said that untangling who caused which part of climate change could be difficult. The ruling is non-binding but legal experts say it could have wide-ranging consequences. It will be seen as a victory for countries that are very vulnerable to climate change, who came to court after feeling frustrated about lack of global progress in tackling the problem. The unprecedented case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was the brainchild of a group of young law students from low-lying Pacific islands on the frontlines of climate change, who came up with the idea in 2019. "Tonight I'll sleep easier. The ICJ has recognised what we have lived through - our suffering, our resilience and our right to our future," said Flora Vano, from the Pacific Island Vanuatu, which is considered the country most vulnerable to extreme weather globally. "This is a victory not just for us but for every frontline community fighting to be heard." The ICJ is considered the world's highest court and it has global jurisdiction. Lawyers have told BBC News that the opinion could be used as early as next week. Campaigners and climate lawyers hope the landmark decision will now pave the way for compensation from countries that have historically burned the most fossil fuels and are therefore the most responsible for global warming. Many poorer countries had backed the case out of frustration, claiming that developed nations are failing to keep existing promises to tackle the growing problem. But developed countries, including the UK, argued that existing climate agreements, including the landmark UN Paris deal of 2015, are sufficient and no further legal obligations should be imposed. On Wednesday the court rejected that argument. Judge Iwasawa Yuji also said that if countries do not develop the most ambitious possible plans to tackle climate change this would constitute a breach of their promises in the Paris Agreement. He added that broader international law applies, which means that countries which are not signed up to the Paris Agreement - or want to leave, like the US - are still required to protect the environment, including the climate system. The court's opinion is advisory, but previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments, including when the UK agreed to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year. "The ruling is a watershed legal moment," said Joie Chowdhury, Senior Attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law. "With today's authoritative historic ruling, the International Court of Justice has broken with business-as-usual and delivered a historic affirmation: those suffering the impacts of climate devastation have a right to remedy for climate harm, including through compensation," she added. The court ruled that developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure. It added that where it is not possible to restore part of a country then its government may want to seek compensation. This could be for a specific extreme weather event if it can be proved that climate change caused it, but the Judge said this would need to be determined on a case by case basis. It is not clear how much an individual country could have to pay in damages if any claim was successful. Previous analysis published in Nature, estimated that between 2000 and 2019 there were $2.8 trillion losses from climate change - or $16 million per hour. A simple guide to climate change Four ways climate change worsens extreme weather What you can do to reduce carbon emissions Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to get exclusive insight on the latest climate and environment news from the BBC's Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt, delivered to your inbox every week. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here. Solve the daily Crossword
BBC News
6 days ago
- Politics
- BBC News
Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change
A landmark decision by a top UN court has cleared the way for countries to sue each other over climate change, including over historic emissions of planet-warming the judge at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands on Wednesday said that untangling who caused which part of climate change could be ruling is non-binding but legal experts say it could have wide-ranging will be seen as a victory for countries that are very vulnerable to climate change, who came to court after feeling frustrated about lack of global progress in tackling the problem. The unprecedented case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was dreamt up in 2019 by a group of young law students in low-lying Pacific islands on the frontlines of climate change."Tonight I'll sleep easier. The ICJ has recognised what we have lived through - our suffering, our resilience and our right to our future," said Flora Vano, from the Pacific Island Vanuatu, which is considered the country most vulnerable to extreme weather globally."This is a victory not just for us but for every frontline community fighting to be heard." The ICJ is considered the world's highest court and it has global jurisdiction. Lawyers have told BBC News that the opinion could be used as early as next week. Campaigners and climate lawyers hope the landmark decision will now pave the way for compensation from countries that have historically burned the most fossil fuels and are therefore the most responsible for global poorer countries had backed the case out of frustration, claiming that developed nations are failing to keep existing promises to tackle the growing developed countries, including the UK, argued that existing climate agreements, including the landmark UN Paris deal of 2015, are sufficient and no further legal obligations should be Wednesday the court rejected that Iwasawa Yuji also said that if countries do not develop the most ambitious possible plans to tackle climate change this would constitute a breach of their promises in the Paris added that broader international law applies, which means that countries which are not signed up to the Paris Agreement are still required to protect the environment, including the climate court's opinion is advisory, but previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments, including when the UK agreed to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year. Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to get exclusive insight on the latest climate and environment news from the BBC's Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt, delivered to your inbox every week. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.
