3 ms·
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 cas
by 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 agoI'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 agoThey don't, the judgement only considers harms to human rights from the project going ahead, it ignores any downside from cancelling it.
- somishere 4y agoI 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)