3 January 2016, Client Earth, End of business as usual for carbon intensive industry. Scrutiny of carbon intensive companies’ reporting could mean an unprecedented number of complaints to financial regulators from environmental lawyers ClientEarth in 2016. ClientEarth will be poring over annual reports of carbon intensive UK and EU companies and reporting them to the Financial Reporting Council if they are failing to disclose to investors how the post COP21 business outlook could affect their operations. The agreement aims to limit the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, with an ambition for 1.5 degrees. It will have a huge effect on companies in carbon intensive sectors such as energy, mining and utilities. Dave Cooke, Company and Financial lawyer for ClientEarth, said: “The Paris agreement represents a huge change for the world. We are now in a transition to a low carbon economy. Business as usual is no longer an option for carbon intensive companies. “We will be looking at how those carbon intensive companies disclose the risks that they face and where they’re not disclosing them effectively and appropriately we will submit complaints to the regulator to take action.” The move comes amid growing consensus in the business community that climate change is changing the landscape beyond recognition. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, made a major intervention in September, when he identified climate change as one of the biggest risks to economic stability. Read more here
Tag Archives: Legal Action
19 November 2015, The Conversation, We quibble over ‘lawfare’, but the law is not protecting species properly anyway. The federal government is set to go ahead with its crackdown on environmental “lawfare”, which would restrict green groups’ legal standing to challenge mining approvals and other developments. The Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications yesterday endorsed the proposed changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, citing the “costs to proponents and consequences for economic activity when major development projects are delayed by judicial review”. The move was first announced in August, in the wake of a successful Federal Court challenge to the approval of the planned Adani mine in Queensland (since reapproved). At the time, Attorney General George Brandis described such litigationas “vigilante” action by “radical green activists”, while agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce added in an ABC radio interview that the only people who should have standing to challenge mine proposals are those nearby who might be affected by dust, noise or water contamination. But by seeking to limit who has the right to appeal its decisions, the government misunderstands the purpose of environmental legislation. The amendments not only go against the progressive development of environmental law worldwide, which has helped to make approvals more open to public scrutiny, but they are also a grave injustice to nature itself. Read More here
24 September 2015, Hot Air, Dutch government to re-open Urgenda climate change case, The Dutch government has said it wants to re-open the groundbreaking climate change case in which a judge ruled it must cut emissions by at least 25% compared to 1990 levels by 2020. The case was brought by campaign group the Urgenda Foundation and judges ruled in their favour on 24 June 2015, saying the government must do more to protect people from climate change. The government said it would appeal the ruling, but has today raised the stakes by saying it wants to re-open the case entirely. This would give the government and Urgenda the chance to present new arguments, and could take up to three years to complete. In the meantime, the government is legally obliged to comply with the original ruling (to cut emissions by 25% by 2020). Read More here
9 September 2015, Energy Post, The Urgenda judgment: a “victory” for the climate that is likely to backfire. The Dutch government has decided to appeal the widely publicised “Urgenda” ruling from the district court in The Hague, ordering the Netherlands to step up its climate change actions. According to Lucas Bergkamp, Partner at Hunton & Williams and Emeritus Professor of International Environmental Liability Law at Erasmus University Rotterdam, there are good reasons why we should hope that the court of appeals will overturn the ruling. According to Bergkamp, it sets a dangerous precedent for judicial activism, is inconsistent with European law and will even undermine international climate negotiations. Read More here