15 ms·

Young Australians just won a human rights case against an enormous coal mine

crooked-v 4y ago
Note that despite being a legal case, the final result here is only a recommendation, not a requirement. > The Land Court of Queensland has a unique jurisdiction in these matters, because it makes a recommendation, rather than a final judgment. This recommendation must be taken into account by the final decision-makers – in this case, the Queensland resources minister, and the state Department of Environment and Science.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  How is it a court if they can only issue 'recommendations'? Sounds like an advisory panel.
  - ghiculescu 4y ago
    More about the land court: https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/land-court https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/land-court Seems like the main power it has is to compensate people, and recommend the state government do stuff. Bashing Clive Palmer is a national sport in Australia and particularly in QLD so I imagine the government will take this advice relatively serious despite the quality of the legal argument.
    - defrost 4y ago
      > Bashing Clive Palmer is a national sport in Australia and particularly in QLD Arguably more so in Western Australia: [1] https://thewest.com.au/politics/clive-palmer https://thewest.com.au/politics/clive-palmer [2] https://www.perthnow.com.au/politics/clive-palmer https://www.perthnow.com.au/politics/clive-palmer Perhaps rightly so: Clive Palmer purchases Adolf Hitler’s Mercedes Benz for Gold Coast museum [3] https://www.perthnow.com.au/politics/clive-palmer/clive-palmer-purchases-adolf-hitlers-mercedes-benz-for-gold-coast-museum--c-5859570 https://www.perthnow.com.au/politics/clive-palmer/clive-palm...
    - rswail 4y ago
      Bashing Clive Palmer isn't a national sport, he's demonstrably deserving of it. He has manipulated the Liberal/National Party coalition in Queensland to his own benefit, deliberately bankrupted Queensland Nickel to escape liabilities, including to the employees that were bailed out by the Federal Government. He has spent millions in quixotic political activities primarily to harvest preferences to the Liberal/National Party coalition to his own benefit. He, and Gina Rinehart, are both exploiters of workers and of Australia's natural resources without compensation to either First Nations or the people of Australia for the rights to those resources.
YeBanKo 4y ago
What is the alternative and the end game here? China buys Australian coal and lithium and uses it to make batteries. What they can’t import from AU, they will import from Indonesia or Russia, which is probably partially stolen from Ukraine’s Donbas. At least in Australia there are more chances to levy a fair carbon tax and dependency is mutual. Everyone wants to have batteries and solars for renewables, but no one wants to make them.
- defrost 4y ago
  > What they can’t import from AU, they will import from Indonesia or Russia ... This particular court rejected the “market substitution assumption” From the article: [Quote] From a legal perspective, I believe there are four reasons in particular this case is so significant. 1. Rejecting an entrenched assumption A major barrier to climate change litigation in Queensland has been the “market substitution assumption”, also known as the “perfect substitution argument”. This is the assertion that a particular mine’s contribution to climate change is net zero, because if that mine doesn’t supply coal, then another will. Kingham rejected this argument. She noted that the economic benefits of the proposed project are uncertain with long-term global demand for thermal coal set to decline. She observed that there’s a real prospect the mine might not be viable for its projected life, rebutting the market substitution assumption. [/Quote]
  - ghiculescu 4y ago
    It sounds like she understands the commercial prospects and risks of the project better than its investors. Perhaps she should become a VC!
    - xyzzy123 4y ago
      I don't get the argument since when it's no longer economic it will presumably be shut down. Personally I don't think the "perfect substitution" argument is that great in the first place (since it fails to take into account what it means for more supply to be on the market). "if that mine doesn’t supply coal, then another will." smells of assuming that demand is fixed, use is insensitive to price and that substitution can't happen. ... BUT I also don't follow the logic behind this ruling.
brutusborn 4y ago
After a quick scan of the judgement, it doesn't seem to consider the impact of stopping the mine on the rights of workers, energy consumers or the economy. I'm not suggesting the result is bad, but I'd prefer balance in these decisions. Of course we don't want to see coal being burnt, but if these mechanisms to stop fossil fuels are used indiscriminantly, the transition to renewables will cause needless suffering. We need to at least consider the downsides. I think of the famines exacerbated by biofuel policies that did almost nothing to improve global warming. Or how Victoria de facto banned gas production without a good plan to replace consumption. Now we have a gas crisis in a country with massive gas reserves.
- joxel 4y ago
  Sorry, the time for a pain-free decarbonization came and went, you can blame the oil and coal companies for that. They deserve this, and the pain of the people on the margins now is on their hands. Humanity will not survive 4 C of warming, it must be stopped.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    I disagree, some decarbonization pain is unnecessary and unhelpful, like the biofuels example I gave. What makes you think we won't survive 4C? I'm not saying you're wrong but the last IPCC report I read suggested global collapse was more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees.
    - froggychairs 4y ago
      Re: 4C It is true that technically a 4C world is survivable, but it will be an immensely hot world (land warms faster than oceans. So that 4C is the average of the two) and we won’t be able to sustain our current population. Vast swathes of the planet will be not fit for farming. Especially already arid regions today. So entertaining this world means entertaining the death and suffering of billions. We are long past the need for “balance”. We need to decarbonize yesterday and it is unfortunate that workers in fossil fuel industries might lose their job along the way. We could do what most climate policy think tanks suggest and provide compensated job training & a guaranteed position for fossil fuel workers transitioning to a cleaner energy field.
olivermarks 4y ago
'The link between human rights and climate change is being increasingly recognised overseas. In September this year, for example, a United Nations committee decided that by failing to adequately address the climate crisis, Australia’s Coalition government violated the human rights of Torres Strait Islanders.' Whose 'human rights' are we talking about here? In virtually all of these emotion driven decisions there is little thought for the enormous numbers of people who depend on the energy created by the coal internationally. It would be far more useful to focus on effective alternatives, such as small modular nuclear reactors, rather than creating devastating energy austerity in the name of what is essentially virtue signaling posturing based on very sketchy scientific claims. (Bracing for immediate down votes from the climate insecure...)
- joxel 4y ago
  Shame on you for kicking and screaming while we drag you to the path that saves your own grandchildren.
  - olivermarks 4y ago
    Who is 'we'?
    - joxel 4y ago
      The responsible majority.
      - olivermarks 4y ago
        You shouldn't be allowing grandchildren if you are being 'responsible'. Overpopulation is out of control and a major reason for the pollution that causes such anxieties. https://populationmatters.org/the-facts/ https://populationmatters.org/the-facts/
        joxel 4y ago
        That's why I said "your" grandchildren. Because youre the irresponsible one that doesn't care about future generations.
somishere 4y ago
My wife was involved with this, and was on country for some of the testimony to the land court. It's massive news in conservation circles here. She said the cases presented by traditional owners were both compelling and heartbreaking, showing first-hand the visible and culturally significant effects of climate change to e.g. the land (including sea level rises in the Torres Strait causing, among other things, grave sites to be lost to the ocean), and endemic and totemic species such as the flying fox / fruit bat around Cairns. The Environmental Defenders Office, who litigated the case, deserve serious kudos for their work, as do Youth Verdict and the first nations representatives who stepped up to tell their stories. Yes the court's decision comes in the form of a recommendation, but it is a significant one and will be difficult to ignore. At the very least it should remove any question of a social license for these kind of activities in Australia (i.e. thermal coal extraction!) - which are often presented as beneficial to first nations groups, yet are environmentally and culturally blasé through and through.
- taneq 4y ago
  I'm curious how they balanced the rights of potential future humans vs. the rights of currently existing humans whose lives would be improved by the coal potentially mined here. I'm assuming the coal miner's side tried this sort of argument?
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    They don't, the judgement only considers harms to human rights from the project going ahead, it ignores any downside from cancelling it.
  - somishere 4y ago
    I would suggest this is a false dichotomy and so am not sure there would be much to balance in this regard (even if it were up for consideration)
chairmanwow1 4y ago
Seems like a massive waste of time.
- akudha 4y ago
  How so?
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
In related recent news, Greta Thunburg and some other youngsters just filed a suit against Sweden: https://mastodon.nu/@gretathunberg https://mastodon.nu/@gretathunberg https://www.dn.se/sverige/greta-thunberg-joins-over-600-other-young-people-in-a-lawsuit-against-the-swedish-state/ https://www.dn.se/sverige/greta-thunberg-joins-over-600-othe...

Note that despite being a legal case, the final result here is only a recommendation, not a requirement. > The Land Court of Queensland has a unique jurisdiction in these matters, because it makes a recommendation, rather than a final judgment. This recommendation must be taken into account by the final decision-makers – in this case, the Queensland resources minister, and the state Department of Environment and Science.

MichaelZuo 4y ago
How is it a court if they can only issue 'recommendations'? Sounds like an advisory panel.
- ghiculescu 4y ago
  More about the land court: https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/land-court https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/land-court Seems like the main power it has is to compensate people, and recommend the state government do stuff. Bashing Clive Palmer is a national sport in Australia and particularly in QLD so I imagine the government will take this advice relatively serious despite the quality of the legal argument.
  - defrost 4y ago
    > Bashing Clive Palmer is a national sport in Australia and particularly in QLD Arguably more so in Western Australia: [1] https://thewest.com.au/politics/clive-palmer https://thewest.com.au/politics/clive-palmer [2] https://www.perthnow.com.au/politics/clive-palmer https://www.perthnow.com.au/politics/clive-palmer Perhaps rightly so: Clive Palmer purchases Adolf Hitler’s Mercedes Benz for Gold Coast museum [3] https://www.perthnow.com.au/politics/clive-palmer/clive-palmer-purchases-adolf-hitlers-mercedes-benz-for-gold-coast-museum--c-5859570 https://www.perthnow.com.au/politics/clive-palmer/clive-palm...
  - rswail 4y ago
    Bashing Clive Palmer isn't a national sport, he's demonstrably deserving of it. He has manipulated the Liberal/National Party coalition in Queensland to his own benefit, deliberately bankrupted Queensland Nickel to escape liabilities, including to the employees that were bailed out by the Federal Government. He has spent millions in quixotic political activities primarily to harvest preferences to the Liberal/National Party coalition to his own benefit. He, and Gina Rinehart, are both exploiters of workers and of Australia's natural resources without compensation to either First Nations or the people of Australia for the rights to those resources.

YeBanKo 4y ago

What is the alternative and the end game here? China buys Australian coal and lithium and uses it to make batteries. What they can’t import from AU, they will import from Indonesia or Russia, which is probably partially stolen from Ukraine’s Donbas. At least in Australia there are more chances to levy a fair carbon tax and dependency is mutual. Everyone wants to have batteries and solars for renewables, but no one wants to make them.

defrost 4y ago
> What they can’t import from AU, they will import from Indonesia or Russia ... This particular court rejected the “market substitution assumption” From the article: [Quote] From a legal perspective, I believe there are four reasons in particular this case is so significant. 1. Rejecting an entrenched assumption A major barrier to climate change litigation in Queensland has been the “market substitution assumption”, also known as the “perfect substitution argument”. This is the assertion that a particular mine’s contribution to climate change is net zero, because if that mine doesn’t supply coal, then another will. Kingham rejected this argument. She noted that the economic benefits of the proposed project are uncertain with long-term global demand for thermal coal set to decline. She observed that there’s a real prospect the mine might not be viable for its projected life, rebutting the market substitution assumption. [/Quote]
- ghiculescu 4y ago
  It sounds like she understands the commercial prospects and risks of the project better than its investors. Perhaps she should become a VC!
  - xyzzy123 4y ago
    I don't get the argument since when it's no longer economic it will presumably be shut down. Personally I don't think the "perfect substitution" argument is that great in the first place (since it fails to take into account what it means for more supply to be on the market). "if that mine doesn’t supply coal, then another will." smells of assuming that demand is fixed, use is insensitive to price and that substitution can't happen. ... BUT I also don't follow the logic behind this ruling.

brutusborn 4y ago

After a quick scan of the judgement, it doesn't seem to consider the impact of stopping the mine on the rights of workers, energy consumers or the economy. I'm not suggesting the result is bad, but I'd prefer balance in these decisions. Of course we don't want to see coal being burnt, but if these mechanisms to stop fossil fuels are used indiscriminantly, the transition to renewables will cause needless suffering. We need to at least consider the downsides. I think of the famines exacerbated by biofuel policies that did almost nothing to improve global warming. Or how Victoria de facto banned gas production without a good plan to replace consumption. Now we have a gas crisis in a country with massive gas reserves.

joxel 4y ago
Sorry, the time for a pain-free decarbonization came and went, you can blame the oil and coal companies for that. They deserve this, and the pain of the people on the margins now is on their hands. Humanity will not survive 4 C of warming, it must be stopped.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  I disagree, some decarbonization pain is unnecessary and unhelpful, like the biofuels example I gave. What makes you think we won't survive 4C? I'm not saying you're wrong but the last IPCC report I read suggested global collapse was more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees.
  - froggychairs 4y ago
    Re: 4C It is true that technically a 4C world is survivable, but it will be an immensely hot world (land warms faster than oceans. So that 4C is the average of the two) and we won’t be able to sustain our current population. Vast swathes of the planet will be not fit for farming. Especially already arid regions today. So entertaining this world means entertaining the death and suffering of billions. We are long past the need for “balance”. We need to decarbonize yesterday and it is unfortunate that workers in fossil fuel industries might lose their job along the way. We could do what most climate policy think tanks suggest and provide compensated job training & a guaranteed position for fossil fuel workers transitioning to a cleaner energy field.

olivermarks 4y ago

'The link between human rights and climate change is being increasingly recognised overseas. In September this year, for example, a United Nations committee decided that by failing to adequately address the climate crisis, Australia’s Coalition government violated the human rights of Torres Strait Islanders.' Whose 'human rights' are we talking about here? In virtually all of these emotion driven decisions there is little thought for the enormous numbers of people who depend on the energy created by the coal internationally. It would be far more useful to focus on effective alternatives, such as small modular nuclear reactors, rather than creating devastating energy austerity in the name of what is essentially virtue signaling posturing based on very sketchy scientific claims. (Bracing for immediate down votes from the climate insecure...)

joxel 4y ago
Shame on you for kicking and screaming while we drag you to the path that saves your own grandchildren.
- olivermarks 4y ago
  Who is 'we'?
  - joxel 4y ago
    The responsible majority.
    - olivermarks 4y ago
      You shouldn't be allowing grandchildren if you are being 'responsible'. Overpopulation is out of control and a major reason for the pollution that causes such anxieties. https://populationmatters.org/the-facts/ https://populationmatters.org/the-facts/
      - joxel 4y ago
        That's why I said "your" grandchildren. Because youre the irresponsible one that doesn't care about future generations.

somishere 4y ago

My wife was involved with this, and was on country for some of the testimony to the land court. It's massive news in conservation circles here. She said the cases presented by traditional owners were both compelling and heartbreaking, showing first-hand the visible and culturally significant effects of climate change to e.g. the land (including sea level rises in the Torres Strait causing, among other things, grave sites to be lost to the ocean), and endemic and totemic species such as the flying fox / fruit bat around Cairns. The Environmental Defenders Office, who litigated the case, deserve serious kudos for their work, as do Youth Verdict and the first nations representatives who stepped up to tell their stories. Yes the court's decision comes in the form of a recommendation, but it is a significant one and will be difficult to ignore. At the very least it should remove any question of a social license for these kind of activities in Australia (i.e. thermal coal extraction!) - which are often presented as beneficial to first nations groups, yet are environmentally and culturally blasé through and through.

taneq 4y ago
I'm curious how they balanced the rights of potential future humans vs. the rights of currently existing humans whose lives would be improved by the coal potentially mined here. I'm assuming the coal miner's side tried this sort of argument?
- brutusborn 4y ago
  They don't, the judgement only considers harms to human rights from the project going ahead, it ignores any downside from cancelling it.
- somishere 4y ago
  I would suggest this is a false dichotomy and so am not sure there would be much to balance in this regard (even if it were up for consideration)

chairmanwow1 4y ago

Seems like a massive waste of time.

akudha 4y ago
How so?

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

In related recent news, Greta Thunburg and some other youngsters just filed a suit against Sweden: https://mastodon.nu/@gretathunberg https://mastodon.nu/@gretathunberg https://www.dn.se/sverige/greta-thunberg-joins-over-600-other-young-people-in-a-lawsuit-against-the-swedish-state/ https://www.dn.se/sverige/greta-thunberg-joins-over-600-othe...