1 September 2015, Urgenda, The Hague – The Dutch government today announced its intention to appeal against the verdict of the district court in The Hague in the Dutch Climate Case last June. “We have full confidence in the outcome of the appeal” Marjan Minnesma, director of Urgenda reacted. In its letter to parliament the government also announced it will start taking measures to reach the target that was ordered by to court, pending the appeal. In its verdict the District court of The Hague ordered the Dutch government to reduce its emissions by a minimum of 25% by 2020 compared to 1990. The Netherlands are currently on a path towards 17% in 2020. Marjan Minnesma :“The government knows 25% is not nearly enough if you consider the enormity of the dangers that climate change poses to us. Much more is needed, so we hope that politicians in the Netherlands will take their responsibility and make a true effort to speed up the transition towards a 100% sustainable economy. We have been waiting for political leadership on this topic for a very long time.” In its letter announcing the appeal the government mentions a number of legal questions as the reason for appealing the judgement. Read More here
Tag Archives: Community
August 2015, The Australia Institute, Key administration statistics – 3rd Party Appeals and the EPBC Act. Details from a forthcoming Australia Institute Report
- Since the EPBC Act commenced in July 2000, there have been approximately 5500 projects referred to the Minister under the environmental impact assessment provisions.
- Of the 5500 referred, around 1500 have been assessed as requiring formal assessment and approval.
- 12 projects have been refused approval.
- 9 projects have been deemed to be ‘clearly unacceptable’ (i.e. rejected prior to proceeding to formal assessment and approval).
Key 3rd party litigation statistics. Read More here
25 August 2015, The Conversation, Time for the ‘green tape’ debate to mature: jobs and the environment are not implacable foes. The highly charged debate over the proposed Carmichael coal mine, which culminated in Attorney-General George Brandis’s decision last week to propose winding back environmental legal protections, has exposed the simmering tension between “jobs” and “the environment” on Australia’s political landscape. On one hand, those seeking to invest in the development of Australia’s natural resources and jobs growth have been making a clear case that Australia’s system of assessment and approval for major projects is riddled with procedural uncertainty. On the other, environmental advocates and local communities feel that the current system does not adequately protect the environment – correctly pointing out Australia’s less than stellar record in preventing species from going extinct. As a nation, however, we need to lift our game on both fronts. Investors in the Australian economy and those seeking jobs and growth need certainty with regard to where and how they invest. Equally, to avoid warfare (or “lawfare”) on a project-by-project basis, Australia’s environmental advocates and local communities need certainty too. They need clarity about where and how economic development can occur without harming our environmental heritage. Read More here
20 August 2015, SMH, Adani mine a $20b project creating 10,000 jobs? The Abbott government’s myths busted. When it comes to Australia’s largest coal mine, the Abbott government has a difficult relationship with the truth. If you haven’t heard, Australia is under siege from a new kind of eco-warrior, one with a manual and money for legal challenges designed to endlessly frustrate economic development. At the centre of this battle is the proposed Carmichael coal mine in Queensland. The mega mine, led by Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, has had its federal environmental approval set aside. Why? Because a Queensland environment group – the Mackay Conservation Group – exercised its legal rights and used a federal court challenge to expose a flaw in the government’s assessment of that project. The government now wants to remove those legal rights and hinder the ability of green groups to access the courts. The Parliament is clearly entitled to debate whether Australia’s environment laws are working as they were intended. But it should not be too much to expect that the government defend its position with arguments that have some semblance to the truth. To make its case to protect growth and jobs and stop “vigilante litigation”, ministers have repeatedly relied on inflated numbers, distortions and blatant inaccuracies about the Adani project to make their case. Here are some: Read More here