Associate Professor at Melbourne University Jacqueline Peel has just set up a blog outlining various environmental case law, including issues concerning climate change. It can be found here and is well worth keeping an eye on it.
What is interesting is what she notes about climate change case law. Peel suggests that no cases have so far stopped a major project based on the emission it produces, though has begun to define some of the basic concepts of climate change litigation.
Note the lack of a greenhouse trigger in the EPBC Act earlier mentioned on this blog and the potential it could be recommended by an independent review of the act. Other case law such as this shows that there have been some tests of the Act in state courts which can stop or amend large projects even if a government decides not to act. If a greenhouse trigger is implemented could it create a legal precedent for other such litigation, or stop projects based on emissions through the courts, even if the Minsiter decides not to act?
What is also interesting is how climate law could develop with an implementation of an emissions trading scheme, and the potential new litigation avenues that opens. Questions certainly to be thought about when the draft text of the ETS legislation is released in Febuary.
Questions indeed. Watch this space.
