Latest news with #GrataFund
The Advertiser
24-07-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Pacific nations applaud 'lifeline' climate ruling
Australia and other nations have an obligation to curb carbon emissions and to redress climate change damage in other countries, an international court has found. The non-binding advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice at The Hague in the Netherlands paves the way to require high carbon-emitting countries to pay reparations to low-emitting countries. "For young people and for future generations, this opinion is a lifeline and an opportunity to protect all that we hold dear," said Vishal Prashad, the director of a group of island law students who spearheaded the campaign with the backing of the Vanuatu government. "Today is historic for climate justice and we are one step closer to realising this." Vanuatu's government had been engaging the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for 30 years before the decision, the nation's climate change adaptation minister Ralph Regenvanu said. "Today's ruling confirmed states do have legal obligations to act on climate change," Mr Regenvanu told reporters. "And these obligations are grounded in international law, they're grounded in human rights law, and in the duty to protect our environment." Australia's response to the ruling would dramatically impact its relationships with Pacific neighbours, La Trobe University anthropology and development lecturer Aidan Craney said. "We can either show solidarity or lose all legitimacy," he said. The legality of Australia's continued support for and subsidisation of fossil fuel projects could come under scrutiny after the decision, Grata Fund founder Isabelle Reinecke said. "This historic ruling by the world's highest court officially marks the end of an era of states ducking and weaving legal responsibility for climate harm," she said The international court's opinion would pave the way for exchanges between climate change-impacted states and large polluting nations over reparations, Australian National University international law expert Donald Rothwell said. "If settlements are not reached there is now a clearer pathway forward for international climate litigation by the specially impacted states," he said. Importantly, all states - not just signatories to the Climate Change Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement - would face obligations under the court's advice. While no judgment had been issued, advisory opinions could still be very influential in the interpretation and development of international law. "In this way, the ICJ advisory opinion does not only clarify existing rules, it creates legal momentum," said Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Center For International Environmental Law. ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear and Australia must play its part to keep global heating to 1.5C. "This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action," she said. ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and support climate adaptation efforts in low-income countries. Oxfam climate change policy lead Nafkote Dabi agreed. "Rich countries have to increase their financing to Global South countries to help them reduce emissions and protect their people from past and future harm," Ms Dabi said. "This is not a wish-list – it is international law." Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the finding foreshadowed potentially serious legal penalties. Action could be taken under customary international law if countries climate targets undershoot the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. Australia's commitment to the agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. "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, handing down 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. A response was sought from the federal government. Australia and other nations have an obligation to curb carbon emissions and to redress climate change damage in other countries, an international court has found. The non-binding advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice at The Hague in the Netherlands paves the way to require high carbon-emitting countries to pay reparations to low-emitting countries. "For young people and for future generations, this opinion is a lifeline and an opportunity to protect all that we hold dear," said Vishal Prashad, the director of a group of island law students who spearheaded the campaign with the backing of the Vanuatu government. "Today is historic for climate justice and we are one step closer to realising this." Vanuatu's government had been engaging the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for 30 years before the decision, the nation's climate change adaptation minister Ralph Regenvanu said. "Today's ruling confirmed states do have legal obligations to act on climate change," Mr Regenvanu told reporters. "And these obligations are grounded in international law, they're grounded in human rights law, and in the duty to protect our environment." Australia's response to the ruling would dramatically impact its relationships with Pacific neighbours, La Trobe University anthropology and development lecturer Aidan Craney said. "We can either show solidarity or lose all legitimacy," he said. The legality of Australia's continued support for and subsidisation of fossil fuel projects could come under scrutiny after the decision, Grata Fund founder Isabelle Reinecke said. "This historic ruling by the world's highest court officially marks the end of an era of states ducking and weaving legal responsibility for climate harm," she said The international court's opinion would pave the way for exchanges between climate change-impacted states and large polluting nations over reparations, Australian National University international law expert Donald Rothwell said. "If settlements are not reached there is now a clearer pathway forward for international climate litigation by the specially impacted states," he said. Importantly, all states - not just signatories to the Climate Change Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement - would face obligations under the court's advice. While no judgment had been issued, advisory opinions could still be very influential in the interpretation and development of international law. "In this way, the ICJ advisory opinion does not only clarify existing rules, it creates legal momentum," said Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Center For International Environmental Law. ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear and Australia must play its part to keep global heating to 1.5C. "This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action," she said. ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and support climate adaptation efforts in low-income countries. Oxfam climate change policy lead Nafkote Dabi agreed. "Rich countries have to increase their financing to Global South countries to help them reduce emissions and protect their people from past and future harm," Ms Dabi said. "This is not a wish-list – it is international law." Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the finding foreshadowed potentially serious legal penalties. Action could be taken under customary international law if countries climate targets undershoot the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. Australia's commitment to the agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. "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, handing down 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. A response was sought from the federal government. Australia and other nations have an obligation to curb carbon emissions and to redress climate change damage in other countries, an international court has found. The non-binding advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice at The Hague in the Netherlands paves the way to require high carbon-emitting countries to pay reparations to low-emitting countries. "For young people and for future generations, this opinion is a lifeline and an opportunity to protect all that we hold dear," said Vishal Prashad, the director of a group of island law students who spearheaded the campaign with the backing of the Vanuatu government. "Today is historic for climate justice and we are one step closer to realising this." Vanuatu's government had been engaging the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for 30 years before the decision, the nation's climate change adaptation minister Ralph Regenvanu said. "Today's ruling confirmed states do have legal obligations to act on climate change," Mr Regenvanu told reporters. "And these obligations are grounded in international law, they're grounded in human rights law, and in the duty to protect our environment." Australia's response to the ruling would dramatically impact its relationships with Pacific neighbours, La Trobe University anthropology and development lecturer Aidan Craney said. "We can either show solidarity or lose all legitimacy," he said. The legality of Australia's continued support for and subsidisation of fossil fuel projects could come under scrutiny after the decision, Grata Fund founder Isabelle Reinecke said. "This historic ruling by the world's highest court officially marks the end of an era of states ducking and weaving legal responsibility for climate harm," she said The international court's opinion would pave the way for exchanges between climate change-impacted states and large polluting nations over reparations, Australian National University international law expert Donald Rothwell said. "If settlements are not reached there is now a clearer pathway forward for international climate litigation by the specially impacted states," he said. Importantly, all states - not just signatories to the Climate Change Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement - would face obligations under the court's advice. While no judgment had been issued, advisory opinions could still be very influential in the interpretation and development of international law. "In this way, the ICJ advisory opinion does not only clarify existing rules, it creates legal momentum," said Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Center For International Environmental Law. ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear and Australia must play its part to keep global heating to 1.5C. "This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action," she said. ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and support climate adaptation efforts in low-income countries. Oxfam climate change policy lead Nafkote Dabi agreed. "Rich countries have to increase their financing to Global South countries to help them reduce emissions and protect their people from past and future harm," Ms Dabi said. "This is not a wish-list – it is international law." Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the finding foreshadowed potentially serious legal penalties. Action could be taken under customary international law if countries climate targets undershoot the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. Australia's commitment to the agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. "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, handing down 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. A response was sought from the federal government. Australia and other nations have an obligation to curb carbon emissions and to redress climate change damage in other countries, an international court has found. The non-binding advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice at The Hague in the Netherlands paves the way to require high carbon-emitting countries to pay reparations to low-emitting countries. "For young people and for future generations, this opinion is a lifeline and an opportunity to protect all that we hold dear," said Vishal Prashad, the director of a group of island law students who spearheaded the campaign with the backing of the Vanuatu government. "Today is historic for climate justice and we are one step closer to realising this." Vanuatu's government had been engaging the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for 30 years before the decision, the nation's climate change adaptation minister Ralph Regenvanu said. "Today's ruling confirmed states do have legal obligations to act on climate change," Mr Regenvanu told reporters. "And these obligations are grounded in international law, they're grounded in human rights law, and in the duty to protect our environment." Australia's response to the ruling would dramatically impact its relationships with Pacific neighbours, La Trobe University anthropology and development lecturer Aidan Craney said. "We can either show solidarity or lose all legitimacy," he said. The legality of Australia's continued support for and subsidisation of fossil fuel projects could come under scrutiny after the decision, Grata Fund founder Isabelle Reinecke said. "This historic ruling by the world's highest court officially marks the end of an era of states ducking and weaving legal responsibility for climate harm," she said The international court's opinion would pave the way for exchanges between climate change-impacted states and large polluting nations over reparations, Australian National University international law expert Donald Rothwell said. "If settlements are not reached there is now a clearer pathway forward for international climate litigation by the specially impacted states," he said. Importantly, all states - not just signatories to the Climate Change Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement - would face obligations under the court's advice. While no judgment had been issued, advisory opinions could still be very influential in the interpretation and development of international law. "In this way, the ICJ advisory opinion does not only clarify existing rules, it creates legal momentum," said Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Center For International Environmental Law. ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear and Australia must play its part to keep global heating to 1.5C. "This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action," she said. ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and support climate adaptation efforts in low-income countries. Oxfam climate change policy lead Nafkote Dabi agreed. "Rich countries have to increase their financing to Global South countries to help them reduce emissions and protect their people from past and future harm," Ms Dabi said. "This is not a wish-list – it is international law." Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the finding foreshadowed potentially serious legal penalties. Action could be taken under customary international law if countries climate targets undershoot the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. Australia's commitment to the agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. "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, handing down 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. A response was sought from the federal government.
ABC News
14-07-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
Torres Strait Islanders travel to Cairns for landmark Australian Climate Case verdict
Torres Strait Islanders are awaiting the ruling in a landmark climate case today — one that, if successful, could have a significant impact on the future of their islands and culture. Guda Maluyligal traditional owners Uncle Paul Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai — from the islands of Saibai and Boigu — have travelled almost 900 kilometres from their ancestral homes to the Federal Court in Cairns to hear the outcome. For the past four years, they have led the case on behalf of all Torres Strait Islander peoples, arguing the Commonwealth has neglected its duty of care to take proper steps to protect their communities from the impacts of rising seas and climate change. Today, Federal Court Justice Michael Wigney will hand down his judgement. The first of its kind in Australia, the landmark litigation has been financed through the NGO the Grata Fund, and modelled on a successful case from the Netherlands. In 2023, the federal court visited the islands of Boigu and Saibai, about 6 kilometres from the shores of Papua New Guinea, and Badu. Evidence of coastal erosion, destruction of ancestral graves and soil salinity that prevents crops from growing was presented to the court. It also heard of extreme weather events, including storms that cause intense flooding and inundate the islands that lie at just 1.6 meters above sea level. The uncles also travelled more than 3,000 kilometres to attend Federal Court hearings in Melbourne in November 2023. The court heard that sea levels in the Torres Strait were rising at double the rate of the rest of the world and that inaction on climate change may cause irreversible impacts for First Nations people in the Torres Strait. Australia is the world's 11th highest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases, according to the CSIRO, contributing just over 1 per cent of global emissions. It's also among the largest fossil fuel exporters in the world. Climate scientist Malte Meinshausen, an expert in carbon budgets, told the court there were three "accepted methodologies" for determining each country's fair share of global emissions. Based on these, he said Australia needed to make deeper emissions cuts than its current 2030 targets if it wanted to be consistent with the global aim of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees. The court heard breaching this 1.5 degree limit would cause irreversible damage to small and low-lying islands, including those in the Torres Strait. The Commonwealth has acknowledged the Torres Strait Islands are vulnerable to the effects of climate change, but it argues Australia can't prevent or mitigate these effects on its own. It also said the question of its emissions target is for the parliament to decide, not the courts. "There is no consensus as to how GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions should be divided and in any case the question is one of policy and not climate science," it argued. The plaintiffs seek an order requiring the government to take action to prevent further harm to their communities, including by making deeper emissions cuts and implementing adaptation measures. If successful, the legal challenge could set an international precedent for how governments are held accountable for climate change impacts on vulnerable communities. At the heart of the case was the deep connection between Torres Strait Islanders and their land and what would be lost if the low-lying islands were claimed by the sea. The plantiffs' legal team argued the Guda Maluyligal people risked losing their culture if rising sea levels, caused by climate change, forced them to leave their homes. Uncle Pabai fears they will become "climate refugees". "The role I'm playing now is important in saving my people. For the next generation to come, I don't like to see Boigu under the water," he said. The case heard testimony from a number of elders and community members documenting sacred sites and cultural practices that have been handed down thousands of years, all at risk of being lost. Knowledge regarding the changing of the environment over time, including seasons shifting and animal migration times changing was part of the evidence. Whatever the outcome of the case, islanders vow they will continue to fight to protect their homelands. "We're not going to stop. If we stop, Saibai will be underwater," said Uncle Paul.
