A “Next Generation” of Climate Change Litigation?: an Australian Perspective

Abstract

Since conclusion of the Paris Agreement and the high-profile Urgenda case, potential new avenues for strategic climate litigation have received considerable attention in many countries, including Australia. Australia already has a substantial climate jurisprudence, primarily involving administrative challenges under environmental laws. This paper aims to examine the prospects for a “next generation” of cases focused on holding governments and corporations to account for the climate change implications of their actions. We draw on analysis of existing legal precedent and emerging cases to explore four key aspects: drivers for next generation lawsuits, potential legal avenues, and likely enablers and barriers. The paper uses the Australian experience as a case study but draws also on litigation trends globally. We find that the most fruitful strategy for future climate change litigation is likely to be one that advances lower risk cases building from the base of existing litigation, while simultaneously attempting novel approaches. Desde los Acuerdos de París y el caso Urgenda, varios países han prestado mayor atención a los litigios estratégicos sobre el clima. Australia ya tiene una notable jurisprudencia sobre el clima, especialmente en cuanto a los desafíos que para la administración suponen las leyes ambientales. Este artículo analiza las posibilidades de una “nueva generación” de casos basados en pedir responsabilidades gubernamentales y empresariales. Partimos de antecedentes jurídicos y de casos emergentes para explorar cuatro cuestiones claves: los motores para demandas judiciales, posibles vías legales, y capacitadores y obstáculos probables. Se usa la experiencia de Australia como estudio de caso, pero también se traen a colación tendencias judiciales globales. Hallamos que la estrategia más provechosa es propulsar casos de menor riesgo desde la base de los litigios existentes, a la vez que ensayar nuevos abordajes.

Climate Change and South Africa: A Critical Analysis of theEarthlife Africa Johannesburg and Another v Minister of Energy and Others 65662/16 (2017)Case and the Drive for Concrete Climate Practices

“…The contribution that climate litigation presents is to mitigate the impending risk of climate change seen in the universal context thereof. 18 The United Nations Report on the Status of Climate Change Litigation explains the imperious role of climate litigation in its regulatory context and further analyses the importance of climate litigation not only from a global context, but reflects on climate litigation as presented from different transnational jurisdictions. 32 Gradual increase of climate litigation is, however, more prevalent in the Global South; of which the same is suggestive of the 'steady proliferation of laws and financial resources focused on mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable development more generally'.…”

Climate‐related Risk and Financial Statements: Implications for Regulators, Preparers, Auditors and Users

“…1 Peel et al (2017: 793) explore the contours of next generation climate change litigation in Australia, including the drivers for these lawsuits and the potential legal avenues by which they might be brought. The first climate change case of Greenpeace Australia Ltd v Redbank Power Pty Ltd ('Redbank Power') was decided in 1994 by Pearlman CJ of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales (Peel et al 2017). 2 There are also other emerging risks such as data breaches and cyber-security risks and broader technological and regulatory risks that could be significant for entities.…”

“…The first climate change case of Greenpeace Australia Ltd v Redbank Power Pty Ltd (‘Redbank Power’) was decided in 1994 by Pearlman CJ of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales (Peel et al. ).…”

“…Even though the guidance is not mandatory, it represents the IASB's best practice interpretation of materiality, and entities in Australia could be subject to lawsuits regarding climate change. Australia already has a substantial body of decided climate change cases (Peel et al 2017). 1 One of the strategic objectives of the AASB and the AUASB is to use a robust and transparent evidenceinformed standard-setting framework (EISSF) for setting standards and guidance.…”

Contesting coal and climate change using scale: emergent topologies in the Adani mine controversy

“…An important component of strategic opposition to the mine has involved using litigation and subsequent media coverage to undermine Adani's social licence and that enjoyed by the coal industry more broadly (Konkes, 2018). While not as prevalent nor as transformative as in the United States and other jurisdictions, strategic climate change litigation to challenge government decisionmaking under planning and environmental law has been used in Australia with varying degrees of success since 1994 (Peel, 2007;Peel et al, 2017). In 2015, Commonwealth approvals were briefly overturned in the Federal Court after the Environment Minister conceded an administrative error in not properly considering the impact of the mine on two threatened species and remade his decision consistent with the law.…”