Tim fills the room with his knowledge

Tim Baxter at the Carlton Connect Initiative
yesterday - imposing knowledge.

Tim Baxter is not an imposing man, but his knowledge fills the room.

And just yesterday that room was the LAB-14 lecture theatre at the University of Melbourne’s Carlton Connect Initiative.

The researcher and teacher from university’s Melbourne Law School (MLS) discussed the topic “Are Commonwealth climate targets legally negligent? An Australian Urgenda”.

Tim's research interests are diverse but centre around climate change law, broadly construed to include corporate social responsibility, torts, planning law and administrative law, as well as the more traditional concern with United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change-led processes and domestic climate politics.

He is currently undertaking a thesis at the Melbourne Law School entitled “Justiciability and the environment – Challenging current conceptions of separation of powers in light of existential environmental threats” which is being supervised by Professor Lee Godden and Associate Professor Jason Varuhas.

Yesterday, he said that those eager to know more about the ideas behind his thesis should follow him on Twitter - @climatecaseAU.

Tim’s thesis seeks to unpack the legal hurdles which might prevent the Commonwealth being found liable in negligence for their insufficient efforts to mitigate climate change.

The thesis was inspired by the judgement of The Hague District Court in Urgenda Foundation v Netherlands.

As well as teaching into Corporate Law at MLS, Tim also teaches Planning and Urban Sustainability through the university’s Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning.

Considering climate change and government negligence

-      Robert McLean

Negligence leading to inaction in responding to climate change is a threat to humanity’s wellbeing.

Tim Baxter - he's discussing
the idea of negligence of
governments in their
response to climate change.
 

Governments guilty of such negligence appear, at least simplistically, vulnerable to a charge of crimes against humanity, but the idea is so extreme and counter populist thinking that it is rarely given serious thought.

However, the idea has made it to the top drawer in the Netherlands when in 2015 The Hague District Court found the Dutch government’s climate targets negligent in the case of Urgenda v The Netherlands.

The court ordered the government to increase its mitigation ambition in light of the pervasive threat of climate change and since then, there has been considerable interest in running a similar case in Australia.

Any suggestion that an individual, or group, might take action against the Australian Government for its inaction on climate change would in the first instance need assent from Australia’s Attorney-General, George Brandis.

The idea that action could be taken against the Turnbull Government will be discussed in Melbourne on Monday, August 22, at a session entitled: “Are Commonwealth climate targets legally negligent? An Australian Urgenda.”

Tim Baxter from Australian-German Climate and Energy College and the Melbourne Law School, will lead the discussion outlining the major hurdles to the legal claim’s success before contending that each may be surmountable. Promotion material for the hour-long seminar says: “Despite considerable barriers, a claim in negligence against the Commonwealth government for insufficient action on climate change has a prospect of success.

“The central claim, that the Commonwealth’s climate mitigation targets might form the basis of legally recognisable negligence, would be difficult to establish in Australian law,” it says.

Monday’s seminar at the Carlton Connect Initiative’s Swanston St, LAB-14, starts at one o’clock.

The idea of taking some action against the Australian Government was given some air on this blog in 2015 and resulted in the story “Failure to take action on climate change is not a criminal offence - Julian Burnside”.

What does Dutch climate change legal action mean for Australia?

I

n a landmark ruling, The Hague District Court has ordered the Netherlands government to take more action to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

The verdict is a victory for Urgenda, the non-profit that brought the case against the government. The decision will see Dutch emissions fall by at least 25% by 2020 relative to 1990 levels, rather than the previous 14-17% target.

This is the first successful climate change action founded in tort law and the first time a court has determined the appropriate emissions-reduction target for a state, based on the duty of care owed to its people.

Read The Conversation story by Research Associate at the Centre for Resources, Energy and Environmental Law at University of Melbourne, Katherine Lake - “What does the Dutch court ruling on climate targets mean for Australia?”

People power, good sense and the courts change the game in Holland

P

eople power bound by sheer good sense and backed by the authority of the court system has had a landmark success for Dutch climate activists.

But it hasn’t been just for the people of Holland, the success for the Urgenda NGO is reverberating around the world.

Together with 900 citizens the Urgenda Foundation filed the Climate Case against the Dutch Government just last month the NGO won a lawsuit against the Dutch State, forcing it to take more measures against climate change.

In what was something of a break with tradition, bought about by the shorter than expected Test being played in England, John Cleary, who normally host a religious show on the ABC “Sunday Nights”, turned his attention to climate change and interviewed a representative of Urgenda.

Listen to the ABC interview here.

People more conscious of global warming difficulties than their governments

M

any people, it seems, are more conscious of the impending difficulties arise from global warming than their respective governments.

Climate disruption weighs so heavily on the minds of those same people that they should be following the example set by the Dutch group, Urgenda.

It has acted successfully against the Dutch Government to have it reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Energy Post reports about a unique decision in which the district court of The Hague ordered the Dutch government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% in 2020 compared to 1990.

It reported: “Current ambitions of the Dutch government amount to a reduction of around 17%. The case was brought by Dutch NGO Urgenda and nine hundred co-plaintiffs.

“This is the first time that a judge has ordered a State to take measures against climate change, says Urgenda. “This decision will provide support to all other climates case around the world.” In Norway and Belgium similar cases have been brought.”

Read the story - “Unique: Dutch court orders government to do more against climate change”.