The environment law in Australia doesn’t protect it

The Federal Court recently A duty of care was nullifiedThe environment minister owes Australian children the right to protect them against the dangers of climate change.

The duty was attached Australia’s federal environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC). The decision was reversed This had established the dutyThe new judgment shined a spotlight upon the EPBC Act’s shortcomings. Or, at least it should.

Many commentators focused on the court’s inaction and unwillingness to enter into so-called political territory.

An important take-home message that was less well covered was the EPBC Act, which gives the minister power of approval to coal projects, even if they have adverse consequences.

It doesn’t in general protect the environment from such effects. It doesn’t protect people from the consequences of harm, even if they are fatal. It doesn’t even tackle climate change.

Alarmed? You should be.

Why was the duty canceled?

Three judges heard the appeal and each had a different opinion as to why there shouldn’t have been a duty.

One of the problems was that the victims class doesn’t only include the children in the case. The affected children include unborn children. Judges also raised concerns about the minister’s relationship to the children, given the intervening steps that will cause climate change, extreme weather events, future harm, and others.

Courts often look back at previous cases in order to resolve new disputes. One case that was prominently featured was the protection of the public from contaminated oysters. In That is the case, a council wasn’tHepatitis infection caused by water pollution. In Another caseIt was discovered that anyone who increased the danger of mesothelioma by materially increasing the risk was responsible for the mesothelioma-causing asbestos fibers’ source. couldYou are responsible for it.

These cases were chosen because they are the most relevant. This is a testament to how unique the problem of climate change. There was no case on point that could help explain the complex and cumulative cause-and effect.

The problem with ‘incoherence’

The EPBC Act was another problem that two of the judges had to contend with. The EPBC Act does not directly address climate change or human safety. However, the duty applies to both of these things.

For decades, it’s RecognizedHuman survival depends on the environment, and a stable climate is essential. Essential for our daily lives.

The third judge believed that the minister’s obligations, which were embedded in an environment protection framework could be paired with a duty to care. He stated that our environment was not there to be admired or objectified.

The EPBC Act does not protect the environment in general, however, the other two were dissuaded. It does not explicitly address climate change. It works in a fragmented way and does not consider ecosystems as a whole or our dependence on them.

This is how the EPBC Act actually works in practice. Well, yes.

This message was also heard by the independent, ten-yearly review of the legislation. It concluded that EPBC Act is It is no longer relevant for the protection of the environment..

What is the EPBC Act?

The EPBC Act is a law that regulates impact assessments. It is activated when certain environmental issues, such as endangered species, are likely be harmed due to a proposed project (such a coal mine). It triggers a procedural process which requires the minister to review the project’s impacts and approve it.

Nearly every single project that is proposed is rejected year after year. Approved. The appeal was not filed until the coal mine was actually approved. This explains the reason so many, Include the independent reviewAccording to them, the EPBC Act is not sufficient to protect against environmental loss.

The review recommended that science-backed recommendations be made environmental standards. This would make it easier for courts judge ministerial decision with a legal reference for what’s politically acceptable. It also Recommendation decision-making incorporate climate scenarios.

BREAKING NEWS: The federal court has overturned the kids’ climate case that imposed a duty on the federal environment minister for protecting young people from climate change.

Michael Slezak (@MikeySlezak) March 14, 2022

A call to action

In 2020, I wrote that no matter what the outcome of the case, it would make a difference.

Although it isn’t over yet (they have another two weeks to file an application to appeal the High Court), it has. It has brought attention to the fact Australia doesn’t have any climate laws to protect its children. It does not have a law to protect against floods or fires that have already occurred since the case began. It forced the Federal Court acknowledge the undisputed risks of climate change.

Let’s take this case as a call for action. The Federal Court has stated that it cannot act. The judgment is ambiguous. There are indications that the High Court may be able to. Laws will eventually have to evolve to handle complex causation.

However, the decision doesn’t mean that the government cannot act. This is exactly what the judges said must be done.

This article is republished by The Conversationunder Creative Commons license Read the Original article.