‘We are already in trouble. The stability we depend on is already breaking.’ Sir David Attenborough posed a challenge to the COP26 delegates, ‘the generation to come will look at this conference and consider one thing, did that number [carbon particles in the atmosphere] stop rising and start to drop as a result of commitments made here?… If working apart, we are a force powerful enough to destabilize our planet; together, we are powerful enough to save it.’

Targeting 1.5°C

The Pact provides that states will ‘pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This is significant because many experts voiced the concern that the 1.5°C target would be forgotten and the original 2°C target would take its place. However, the language used regarding the 1.5°C target was non-committal.

Key takeaway: states remain reasonably ambitious by pursuing the 1.5°C targets, but the watered-down language lacks real commitment.

Climate Finance

The Pact urges developed countries to ‘mobilize climate finance’ over US$100 billion annually for developing nations to mitigate and adapt to climate change. States agreed to US$100 billion annually from 2020 in the Paris Agreement. However, this obligation was not complied with. Consequently, the Pact requires that states will make good on these obligations retrospectively.

For the first time, States also committed to continuing discussions on making reparations for ‘loss and damage’ to developing countries. Importantly, these obligations align with the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, which requires that states support developing countries with mitigation and adaptation by providing financial resources, technology transfers, and capacity-building.

Key Takeaway: States have committed to fulfilling retrospective climate finance obligations and to increase the amount of climate finance beyond US$100 billion moving forward. However, we need to remain skeptical and hold developed countries to account because they did not uphold their previous commitments to provide climate finance.

Closing the Gap in 2022

States have committed to meet again next year, rather than every five years, to close the gap on the 1.5°C targets. This is HUGE. Hosting COP27 in Egypt next year will mean that climate change is on the media’s lips again in 2022, and there will be consistent pressure on governments to take climate action. It will be interesting to see how COP27 influences elections held in 2022 in countries like Australia and Brazil, which remain climate laggards.

Key Takeaway: Meeting, negotiating, and ratcheting up climate ambition more regularly will ensure that climate policies are more up to date with the most recent science and ensure that climate policy is always at the forefront of voters’ and politicians’ minds.

China, India, and the Coal Controversy

The Climate Pact included commitments to reduce fossil fuel subsidies and states’ reliance on coal for the first time. In dramatic eleventh-hour negotiations, India requested that Article 36 require that states’ phase down’ coal rather than ‘phase out.’ This watered-down commitment was highly disappointing, but delegates assured the public that such a concession was necessary to save the agreement.

Further, China and India committed to net-zero by 2060 and 2070, respectively. Ostensibly, these commitments lacked the urgency and ambition necessary to achieve net-zero by the mid-century. However, the wonderful Christina Figueres persuasively argued that net-zero by 2060 and 2070 might really mean net-zero by 2050 because India and China have a history of under-promising and over-delivering.

We must remember that the Paris Agreement provided for common but differentiated responsibility. Developing countries should not be expected to cease coal production when developed countries like Australia and the US do not. Developing countries must lead with ambition and urgency while providing support to developing countries to decarbonize.

Key takeaway: India’s negotiations watered down the Paris Agreement, and China failed to show up at all. However, developed countries must support developing countries through climate finance and technology transfers while transitioning away from coal with ambition and urgency. We cannot put all the blame on India and China for not ceasing coal production.

Side Deals

The US and EU led negotiations to reach an agreement in which about 100 countries committed to reducing methane by 30% on 2020 levels by 2030. Methane reductions are essential because they have must more acute short-term effects on climate change.

The US and China committed to cooperate on climate change action. The agreement somewhat relieved concerns that China’s absence from COP26 symbolized a relaxation of the state’s intention to reduce emissions.

Further, 100 countries are also committed to halting and reversing deforestation by 2030. This agreement was backed by stakeholders who will shift capital and agricultural commodity companies who intend to change their supply chain.

Key Takeaway: Incredibly, Dr Fatih Birol from the International Energy Agency estimates that the warming could be kept to 1.8°C if the commitments under the Glasgow Climate Pact and the side deals are complied with.

Closing Remarks

Wiping away tears, Alok Sharma said in the closing ceremony that “today we can say with credibility that we’ve kept 1.5 (degrees Celsius) within reach… But its pulse is weak, and we will only survive if we keep our promises.”

We should applaud the ambitious efforts of the COP26 delegates. However, we must remain skeptical and hold states accountable for the commitments made at COP26 because many governments have a history of greenwashing, and ‘we will only survive if we keep our promises.

The post Five Key Takeaways from COP26 appeared first on eco-nnect.

“The physical environment will be harsher, far more extreme and devastatingly brutal when angry. [Our] quality of life, opportunities to partake in nature’s treasures, the capacity to grow and prosper… will be greatly diminished… None of this will be the fault of nature itself. It will largely be inflicted by the inaction of this generation of adults… [This may be] the greatest inter-generational injustice ever.” – Justice Bromberg in Sharma v Minister for the Environment (2021) (’Sharma’).

It is surprising to hear such an emotive statement from the normally stoic and reserved voice of a Judge in the Federal Court of Australia. Justice Bromberg’s harrowing articulation of the climate crisis evinces emotions of immense anger, frustration, and sadness.

However, the decision handed down by Justice Bromberg should inspire a sense of optimism, not outrage. Sharma is a landmark decision that found the Australian Government owes a duty of care to the young people of Australia to prevent climate change related harm. This article discusses Sharma and its significance in the transition to net zero.

 

 

Sharma v Minister for the Environment (2021)

In September 2020, eight school children with the assistance of 86-year-old Sister Marie Brigid Arthur brought a class action lawsuit against the Australian Federal Minister for Environment on behalf of all young people. The case concerned the approval of a coal mine extension known as the Vickery Extension Project.

If approved, the Vickery Extension Project would cause an increase in emissions by 100 mega-tonnes over the next 25 years. The students alleged that the Minister had a duty to avoid causing future harm arising from the approval of the Vickery Extension Project and the emissions it would create.

 “Duty to avoid causing injury or death”

Although the Court refused to make an injunction to prevent the Minister from approving the Vickery extension project, Justice Bromberg held that the Minister has a “duty to avoid causing injury or death” to all Australians under eighteen “arising from emissions of carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere”.

This means that the Minister has a legal obligation to avoid exercising her Ministerial powers in a manner that could cause reasonably foreseeable harm to young people. If the Minister behaves contrary to this duty, an affected person, or group of persons, could seek an injunction from the Court to prevent this conduct. An injunction is an order from the court prohibiting a party from taking a certain action.

This is a massive breakthrough for Australian and global climate litigation because Sharma was the first case in which a common law court acknowledged that the government owes a duty of care to avoid climate change related harm. Sharma established an important precedent that will allow citizens and the courts to hold Ministers accountable for using their powers in a manner that contributes to climate change.

What does the future hold?

We won’t have to wait long to find out if the Sharma decision will be effective. In a move denounced as a “betrayal of young people”, the Minister has approved the Vickery Extension Project despite the outcome in Sharma. Equity Generation Lawyers, who represented the students in Sharma, have said that the legal team is considering taking further court action. The Minister has also filed an appeal in the High Court to challenge Justice Bromberg’s decision.

Sources:

Sharma & Others v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560.

Sharma & Others v Minister for the Environment (No 2) [2021] FCA 774.

Notice Of Appeal From Court Or Judge (climatecasechart.com)

vickery-extension-project–media-release.pdf (nsw.gov.au)

The post Court Finds Australian Government has a Legal Duty to Avoid Climate Harm appeared first on eco-nnect.