Isabella Kaminski’s Post

In my latest blog I revisit a perennial topic in Australian environmental law reform, the 'climate trigger'. See: https://lnkd.in/g9rCBy3z

Today, I attended the EU Environment Council with the Greek Secretary General for Natural Environment and Water, Petros Varelidis. Many important topics on the Agenda concerning EU environmental policy and legislation. The most important development being the adoption of the Nature Restoration Law after some very difficult negotiations! Main outcomes: - Adoption of the Nature Restoration Law. - Adoption of the General Approach of the Council for the draft Directive on Waste. Trilogues between the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission will follow for the final adoption of the Directive. - Adoption of the General Approach of the Council for the draft Directive on Green Claims. Trilogues between the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission will follow for the final adoption of the Directive. - Adoption of the General Approach of the Council for the draft Directive on Soil Monitoring and Resilience. Trilogues between the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission will follow for the final adoption of the Directive. - Adoption of the Conclusions for the 8th Environment Action Programme. - Policy debates on the Commission's Communications on “Europe’s 2040 climate target” and on “managing climate risks - protecting people and prosperity”.

Important #legal opinion to protect the #marine #environment against the impacts of #climatechange by the international tribunal for the law of the #sea (ITLOS). The ITLOS Advisory Opinion sets clear legal grounds - under UNCLOS - for why the 1.5C threshold of the #ParisAgreement and the relevant timelines and #pathways must be kept to protect the marine environment against the impacts of climate change - and that states have a #duediligence #obligation to adopt all necessary measures to do so. The IUCN Commission on Environmental Law took part in the proceedings with written and oral statements. In its unanimous opinion, the tribunal stated that the oceans are #warming and becoming more #acidic as a direct result of #carbondioxide resulting in harm to #livingresources and marine life, hazards to human #health and hindrance to marine activities such as #fishing. The tribunal requires #states to exercise due diligence, under which they have to put in place #legislation, administrative #procedures and #enforcement mechanisms to regulate activities emitting #greenhousegases – including from the #privatesector. #climatejustice #environmentallaw #litigation The Guardian

As we witness the devastating effects of climate change and environmental degradation, every effort toward conserving and restoring our natural resources becomes increasingly crucial. Yet on Thursday, the full Federal Court dismissed what came to be known as the Living Wonders Climate case, ruling that it is not the Environment Minister’s responsibility to shield the environment from climate harm. This is a blow and a setback in our race to Net Zero. In its judgement, the Federal Court commented that "...the arguments on this appeal do underscore the ill-suitedness of the present legislative scheme of the [Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act] to the assessment of environmental threats such as climate change and global warming and their impacts on [matters of national environmental significance] in Australia."[1] Calls to reform the EPBC Act have been ongoing for some time, and there are movements to implement new nature-positive laws in Australia. However, in its recent budget, the Albanese Government dedicated $307 million[2] towards nature-positive improvements in our laws and institutions. While that might seem like a bit of money, it's just a drop in the ocean of what the Government is prepared to hand out: "New research from the Australia Institute has found that state and federal governments provided $14.5 billion in subsidies to fossil fuel producers and major consumers in 2023-24 – the equivalent of $27,581 for every minute of every day, or $540 for every person in Australia."[3] If we are to make any progress in tackling the pressing issue of climate change, there needs to be a unified approach towards conservation. This means making hard decisions, taking bold steps and disrupting the status quo. This must include the Government taking decisive action to expedite the overhaul of Australia’s environmental laws, phase out fossil fuel subsidies, and redirecting those billions towards initiatives that will benefit nature. Anything less is lip service. 1.https://https://lnkd.in/gWJw99zs 2. https://lnkd.in/gb__TdvX 3 https://lnkd.in/gpHqFBQe

Earlier this month, the High Court ruled that the UK’s climate action plan isn’t fit for purpose, thanks to the work of environmental groups who believe legal challenges are key to environmental justice ⚖ Environmental law charity ClientEarth first took the government to court in 2022 as record high temperatures scorched the UK. The ruling went in their favour, and the government released a revised climate plan. But this was still too vague, ClientEarth said. It relied too heavily on new and unproven technologies, and didn’t set out a proper plan to reduce emissions. Now, they’ve won again – the High Court found the UK government’s climate action plan in breach of the Climate Change Act. The Secretary of State is expected to have to draw up a new climate strategy within 12 months. We'll all be watching. What can you do? Follow ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth and Good Law Project for more information on how to support their call for effective climate action in the UK 🇬🇧

Environmentalists’ Climate Change Case Goes Up In Smoke What Happened? Australia’s environmental protection framework has failed to protect the Australian environment from climate change. Environmental advocacy group, the Environmental Council of Central Queensland (ECoCeQ) were contesting requests put before the federal Minister for the Environment and Water (Environment Minister) to allow coal mines Narrabri and Mt Pleasant to continue operating close to 2050. The present case Environment Council of Central Queensland Inc v Minister for the Environment and Water [2024] FCAFC 56 is the third instalment of the ‘Living Wonders’ case. In this case, ECoCeQ sought judicial review (court’s examination of whether government officials made a legally correct decision) of a decision made by the Office of the Environment Minister. The Environment Minister’s office determined that extending the operational life of the aforementioned coal mines and the associated greenhouse gas emissions these mines would produce, would not adversely harm the environment. ECoCeQ strongly disputed this contention. It argued that the Australian environment had already suffered the impacts of climate change and extending these mines’ operational life would only exacerbate the adverse effects that climate change will have on the Australian environment. ECoCeQ raised five grounds for judicial review in this appeal. Arguably the most significant ground of appeal was ground two. ECoCeQ submitted that the Environment Minister failed to consider how extending each mine’s operational life would contribute to climate change. Crucially, all three justices rejected this ground of appeal and ultimately the appeal was dismissed. Ground two was rejected as the court found the Environment Minister did consider that extending the life of the mines would contribute to higher greenhouse gas emissions and, in turn, contribute to climate change. However, the Environment Minister determined these mines’ continued operation would not be a “substantial cause” of ongoing climate change that would harm the Australian environment. Why Is This Significant? Assertions promulgated by the media that the judgment demonstrates the Environment Minister can plainly ignore the consideration of climate change when granting approvals for fossil fuel activities is false. Rather, the decision demonstrates that Australia’s main environmental protection Act, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is ill-suited to address the threat climate change poses to the Australian environment. Arguably, legislative reform is needed to prohibit new fossil-fuel energy infrastructure developments if Australia is to effectively combat climate change. Disclaimer This post’s content is informational only and is not intended in any way to constitute advice. Image courtesy of Unsplash #law #legalindustry #climatechange

In looming Northern Territory environmental regression, Environment Centre NT has revealed that a leaked Lia Finocchiaro MLA CLP government briefing document details a secret CLP plan to pass laws that give the Chief Minister and an unelected bureaucrat (the Territory Coordinator) sweeping powers to fast-track and override environmental laws in the NT 🤯 😠 According to ECNT's press release, "These regressive laws could apply to some of the most controversial and environmentally harmful projects in Australia, including fracking in the Beetaloo Basin, the Singleton Station development, carbon capture and storage and land clearing and water licence approvals for expansion of the cotton industry in the NT." This'll be a test for the federal govt. Minister Tanya Plibersek, what do you say of these NT govt plans that mock environmental laws? #NaturePositive? ECNT press release: https://lnkd.in/gsExfJ8E

The NT govt's authoritarian instincts & aspirations to exempt major projects from environmental assessments by fiat are dangerous, democratically harmful & totally antithetical to sound decision-making & governance https://lnkd.in/gF_nnjUa

MiningWatch joined Ecojustice and West Coast Environmental Law Canada in issuing this news release to support a letter signed by a broader group of environmental assessment (EA) experts. The role of the federal government is crucial in protecting the public interest. Beyond the uncertainty created by a patchwork of inconsistent provincial requirements, the provinces are simply not equipped, or not willing, to take environmental assessment seriously. It seems clear that the industry's complaints about "regulatory certainty" are shown to be in bad faith – and really just aimed at deregulation – by the fact that they are quite happy with at least 17 different EA regimes across the country (federal, provincial, territorial, and comprehensive claims settlement areas), and silliness like 6 separate EAs and one late-in-the-day regional assessment for the road into the "Ring of Fire." https://lnkd.in/gKbstCsX

New federal environmental legislation is pending through 2024. This may impact on any person/entity involved in anything that may be inferred to have a link to anything that may be perceived as 'environmental'. This is quietly been compiled under "EPBC Act reform". Anybody working with/on/impacting environment (land,sea,air, other) may already be familiar. If already aware then you will be on the case; if this is news to you then please start with the link below; https://lnkd.in/gQHfD39A My cynicism assumes that anything solar/wind/hydro could be excluded by definition; but anything to do with reality ought to know about what is to be proposed. Would not be surprised if the Albo-show tries to force this through before the federal election to justify a 'mandate' fantasy 😎