Australia

Abbs, Ross; Cashman, Peter; Stephens, Tim

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139084383.008

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The 250 The case is important, following upon the aforementioned Thabametsi decision in which climate change was recognised as a relevant factor to be considered when decision-makers were called upon to approve developments that might detrimentally impact the environment.…”

Section: 43mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…249 Austrian judges, however, took a courageous step in a 2017 decision: Following an EIA review, they denied approval for the expansion of Vienna Airport. 250 The construction of a 3rd runway, they argued, would increase Austria's GHG emissions by about 2%, calling into question compliance with national and international GHG emission reduction commitments. This ruling of the Federal Administrative Court caused quite a stir in the media but was ultimately overturned by the Constitutional Court.…”

Section: Obligations For Enterprisesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While, for example, in Australia, anybody may file a claim concerning misleading or deceptive conduct in trade and commerce, in other countries, only certain associations do have the right to file general consumer protection claims. 250 In jurisdictions where a state agency has to pursue the claim, there is only limited potential from a strategic litigation perspective. In some constellations, civil actors may file a complaint to an agency, which could be accompanied by public campaigns.…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Climate Change, Responsibility and Liability

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent past has seen a rise in litigation seeking to hold specific private and public actors liable for their contribution to and impacts of climate change, with a relatively low success rate. This highlights the need for further research into the reasonable and just distribution of responsibility for mitigation and adaptation. This book unites renowned researchers from various disciplines to explore the challenges and opportunities of assigning responsibility and liability for climate change to specific actors. Thereby, the importance of interdisciplinary scientific dialogue on climate change is strengthened, and a new generation of jurists is to be provided with novel arguments for protecting our climate system. With contributions by Christoph Bezemek, Wei Cao, Marcelo de Araujo, Oliver Dörr, Mastawesha M. Engdaw, Daniel Ennöckl, Judith Fitz, Michael Hanemann, Monika Hinteregger, Birgit Hollaus, Gottfried Kirchengast, Verena Madner, Lukas Meyer, Lydia A. Omuko-Jung, Julia Pleiel, Mareike Rumpf, Oliver Ruppel, Kirsten Schmalenbach, Gerhard Schnedl, Eva Schulev-Steindl, Jaap Spier, Andrea K. Steiner, Karl Steininger, Erika Wagner, Julia Wallner and Ke Zhou.

show abstract

Section: 43mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Obligations For Enterprisesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Climate Change, Responsibility and Liability

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Uptake of Container Deposit Schemes: A Case Study in Perth, Western Australia

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The environmental impacts of single-use plastics are increasing worldwide due to the continual rise in consumption and a lack of appropriate collection and management systems in many countries. Various programs, known as container deposit schemes (CDS), have been implemented to improve the collection and recycling of single-use plastic containers. This research investigated the drivers and barriers of CDS uptake in Perth, Western Australia. The study surveyed over 400 individuals within Perth regarding their engagement with and usage of the local CDS, known as “Containers for Change”, which was implemented in October 2020. This research found that there is a high level of public awareness (98%) of the scheme, and it has been widely adopted across Perth within the first year of its implementation; however, logistical challenges and container eligibility were found to be key barriers to the uptake of the scheme. It was noted that there is some skepticism toward waste management practices in Australia, and knowledge of the benefits of CDS appears to be lacking. Recommendations for improving the functionality and uptake of the Containers for Change scheme are to increase the range of bottles accepted within the scheme, create more accessible and convenient drop-off locations for containers, and improve/increase education regarding the benefits of the scheme. This research is limited by a response rate that was dominated by individuals living in stand-alone houses; however, with the majority of Perth residents living in stand-alone houses, this research remains valuable. There is scope for further research into skepticism regarding waste management practices in Australia, as well as the logistical challenges of CDS uptake by apartment dwellers.

show abstract

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

Peel

Osofsky

Foerster

2019

OSLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Australia

Cited by 3 publications

References 6 publications

Climate Change, Responsibility and Liability

Climate Change, Responsibility and Liability

The Uptake of Container Deposit Schemes: A Case Study in Perth, Western Australia

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About