02/08/2018

States Combine To Pressure Turnbull On Climate Target

Fairfax - David Crowe | Cole Latimer

The Turnbull government is facing new demands to give ground on the climate change target that underpins its National Energy Guarantee, as Labor states negotiate a joint position to force changes to the scheme at a crucial meeting next week.
Labor governments in Victoria, Queensland and the ACT are brokering a new list of demands to be unveiled next week to ensure a future federal government has more scope to make deeper cuts to greenhouse gas emissions over the decade ahead.
With the federal policy hanging in the balance, the united stance is aimed at maximising pressure on Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg to go much further than his latest proposal for a review of the target in 2024.
Minister for Environment and Energy Josh Frydenberg and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen


The state negotiations are influenced by calls from environmental and business groups for greater flexibility in the way the federal government adjusts the target, including a hotly contested proposal to increase it without needing legislation.
Mr Frydenberg revealed the 2024 review as a concession to the states last week but critics have rejected it as meaningless because the terms of reference are not clear and the states have no input into its conduct.
A key sticking point is that there is no stated mechanism in the federal plan to act on the review and increase the government’s commitment to reduce emissions by 26 per cent by 2030 – a target federal Labor wants to increase to 45 per cent.
“The target-setting process is where all the action will be,” said one source.
Fairfax Media has been told Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews and Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio are preparing to formalise their negotiating position early next week at cabinet level, while also discussing the joint position with Queensland and the ACT.
The moves come after the government released a final report from the Energy Security Board, the group of Australia’s peak energy regulators, on the case for the new scheme including some of the modelling behind claims of a cut to household bills.
“Stakeholders have been clear with the Energy Security Board that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” said Kerry Schott, the chair of the board, in a message to the states and territories.
“Any delay, or worse a failure to reach agreement, will simply prolong the current investment uncertainty and deny customers more affordable energy."
Dr Schott reiterated the key finding that the average household bill is expected to be $550 lower each year during the 2020s than it is now - $150 of those savings coming from the NEG.
But the report triggered a furious response from some jurisdictions over the modelling, with officials complaining that the document did not contain all the key assumptions behind the claims of a cut to household bills.
Queensland Energy Minister Anthony Lynham has joined Ms D’Ambrosio in expressing concern that the states and territories are being asked to endorse the NEG on August 10, before its support among federal Coalition MPs is tested at a party room meeting in Canberra on August 14.
While the timing dispute focuses on the process to agree on the NEG, the states are still canvassing the matters of substance to demand at the meeting next week, including the rules around the emission targets.
In an influential submission, the Australian Industry Group has called for federal law to set out the terms for the emissions review and allow a future government to amend the 26 per cent target using subordinate legislation.
The business group calls for the law to state explicitly that the review should have regard to Australia’s international commitments at the United Nations, such as the Paris climate change targets.
Ai Group also calls for the review to consider the economy-wide task of reducing emissions – the key problem of whether the NEG should do more to reduce emissions in electricity to spare the burden on farming and other sectors.
Fairfax Media revealed last week that Mr Frydenberg was holding out against calls to use regulation or subordinate legislation to amend the 26 per cent target, given the risk of a revolt from former prime minister Tony Abbott and others over the idea of delegating the change to a minister rather than the parliament.Environment Victoria senior energy adviser Erwin Jackson said the “rules of the game” should be defined up-front by the Turnbull government so all sides knew how the target could be changed.
“Governments must have the ability to change the targets in a timely way. The 2024 review of emissions targets is in the never-never, and would stall clean energy investment,” he said.
“The rules that need to be defined in the federal legislation to change the target include explicitly stating that the minister must consider Australia has committed to ensuring national targets are stronger through time, changes in technology, and the impact of the target on other sectors and vulnerable households and communities.”
Mr Frydenberg reiterated that the Commonwealth was responsible for the emissions reduction target and would conduct the review to make sure the target remained “appropriate” over the period from 2025 to 2030.
“The review will include public consultation and a report of the review will be published by 30 June 2024,” he said.
While the government remains confident of securing support from a majority of Coalition MPs for the NEG, former prime minister Tony Abbott rubbished the latest report and the modelling that claimed a cut to household bills.
“Well, frankly pigs might fly. This is just wrong,” Mr Abbott told radio station 2GB, adding that renewable energy was not reliable enough.
Grattan Institute energy director Tony Wood said the modelling confirmed earlier advice from the Energy Security Board with some clarity around the assumptions.
“The NEG doesn’t really reduce emissions much by 2030, and if you add the effect of the Victorian Renewable Energy Target and Queensland Renewable Energy Target, it would be even less,” Mr Wood told Fairfax Media.
“For example, without the NEG, renewables will be 34 per cent of the energy mix by 2030 and with the NEG only 36 per cent.
“The real point is that the NEG provides a consistent platform for what will be serious emissions targets later while ensuring that reliability is not adversely affected.”
Ed McManus, the head of generator Meridian Energy and retailer Powershop, said industry was behind the NEG as there was little alternative.
“We’re in the camp of something is better than nothing, and that’s what this policy is,” Mr McManus told Fairfax Media.
“As long as the targets can be increased relatively easily if a later government decides it wants to, we support it, as we think the energy sector should have higher emissions reduction targets.
“The policy itself will work, as long as it is in a form that allows these targets to be increased.”

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , , ,

Scientists Warn Intensity Of Australian Storms Has More Than Doubled And Could Get Worse

NEWS.com.au - Stephanie Bedo

SHORT but intense thunderstorms are increasing at a rate much higher than expected — now experts warn we should brace for even worse rain extremes.
A light show over Gordonvale as thunderstorms strike the region. Picture: Steph Worrall
SCIENTISTS have been “severely underestimating” our short thunderstorms which are actually set to get worse.
The latest rainfall research on Australia reveals how heavy and quick rain storms are intensifying more rapidly than expected.
This means more flash floods, severe water surges in urban areas and bigger dry and wet extremes in general.
A team of international scientists, led by Newcastle University in the UK and involving the University of Adelaide, studied intense rain storms in Australia over the past 50 years and discovered they were substantially larger than anticipated under climate change.
They found the amount of water falling in thunderstorms is increasing at a rate two to three times higher than expected, with the most extreme events showing the biggest increases.
An impressive lightning storm passes over the Sydney CBD. Picture: Rohan Kelly

Thunderstorms over the Barkley region of the NT. Picture: Amos Aikman
Associate Professor Seth Westra, of the University of Adelaide, warned this meant we were poised for worse problems.
“This large increase has implications for the frequency and severity of flash floods, particularly if the rate stays the same into the future,” Associate Professor Westra said.
“It seems counter intuitive when large parts of Australia are now in drought, but we need to remember Australian droughts are often broken by severe floods.
“We have always been a country of weather extremes, and it seems that climate change is causing both the dry and wet extremes to intensify.”
A devastating dry spell is affecting 99 per cent of New South Wales.
Below average rainfall since April 2017 has been exacerbated by warm, dry weather, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.
September 2017 was the driest September on record, compared with the previous year, which was the wettest September.
Two-thirds of Queensland and farmers in parts of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia are also suffering.
Experts have warned shoppers could soon feel the pinch at the checkout as our drought crisis deepens.
While daily extremes can cause river flooding, hourly and multi-hourly extremes often cause urban flooding in small, steep rivers, and landslides.
The study in Nature Climate Change showed that the situation was worse in the tropical north where researchers expected an increase in severity of seven per cent but returned a “highly concerning” 20 per cent.
A weather system over Queensland showing rainfall and thunderstorms. Picture: Higgins Storm Chasing
A car passes through a flooded road in Elwood, Melbourne, which scientists warn could happen more often in the future. Picture: James Ross
Lead author Dr Selma Guerreiro, of the UK, said scientists believed there was a limit on how much more rain could fall during extreme events because of rising temperatures but now that upper limit had been broken.
“The important thing now is to understand why rainfall is becoming so much more intense in Australia and to look at changes in other places around the world,” Dr Guerreiro said.
“How these rainfall events will change in the future will vary from place to place and depend on local conditions besides temperature increases.”
Associate Professor Westra said the changes were well above what engineers currently took into account when determining Australia’s flood planning levels or designing stormwater management and flood defence infrastructure.
“If we keep seeing this rate of change, we risk committing future generations to levels of flood risk that are unacceptable by today’s standards,” he said.
The analysis was based on looking at rainfall extremes between 1990-2013 and 1966-1989, from 107 weather stations from all over Australia.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,

Adapt Or Perish: UK Leads The Way In Protecting Citizens Against Climate Change

ABC - Dr David Shearman*

To the World Health Organisation, climate change is the greatest health threat of this century. (Reuters: Liu Chang)
Despite the distraction and political chaos of Brexit negotiations, the United Kingdom has just published a far-reaching and thoroughly impressive plan to manage risks from climate change.
This follows on from their broader 25-year Environment Plan, released in January. It aims to "help the natural world regain and retain good health", to enable it to better cope with climate change.
The recently released climate plan is a strategy to save lives from heat, flood and fire — yes, fire, even in the UK!
It should be compulsory reading for the Australian Government, because we have no such plan. Considering the lives that will be lost, this is negligence in medical terms.
And as a doctor, it concerns me greatly: all doctors recognise the vital need for adaptation to manage the growing health risks of climate change.

Be prepared for the heat
Heatwaves kill far more people than other natural disasters. ABC Emergency has a checklist of things you can do to be ready.
'We've stood still for 20 years'
Global efforts to mitigate climate change are tokenistic given the size of the problem. Fossil fuels continue to burn our future; in Australia, over 80 per cent of electricity comes from fossil fuel.
"Despite the extraordinary growth in renewables in recent years," writes BP's chief economist Spencer Dale, "there has been almost no improvement in the power sector fuel mix over the past 20 years.
"The share of coal in 1998 was 38 per cent — exactly the same as in 2017. We have stood still for 20 years."
The UK has got the message that current emission reduction efforts are inadequate to prevent coming disasters and priority must be given to protecting the public. They recognise that human health depends on environmental health.

What's the UK doing?
The UK's 2008 Climate Change Act obliges the government to have policies to adapt to climate change.
The Government must publish a climate change risk assessment every five years, based on scientific information from the Climate Change Committee. This assesses the risks for flooding, heat, drought, food, pests and natural capital risks. For example, 7,000 heat-related deaths are expected every year in the UK by 2050 — triple the current rate.
The climate change adaptation plan anticipates water shortages for agriculture, energy generation and industry. In response, it plans to increase water supply and drive greater water efficiency.
The climate adaptation plan also highlights strategies already underway in public services.
The NHS, for example, plans to embed adaptation into daily practice by 2023.
The forgotten islands
The Takuu group of atolls is home to a rich and historic culture, but the resilient people and their idyllic islands face an increasingly dire threat from climate change.
The Australian plan?
There is no Australian Government adaptation plan to address the health impacts of climate change.
Instead, there are different responses by state and territories public health authorities, which are mostly inadequate.
Non-Government organisations such as the Climate and Health Alliance have detailed what federal and other governments must consider when they decide to act.
There is no national leadership on this issue. Leaders must be able to explain vital policy and carry people with them. This means explaining to Australians the threats to their life-support systems —stable climate, water, biodiversity and productive land.
Were any of these words mentioned by our leaders in the five recent by-elections?
Climate change threatens our existence — the best thing politicians can do now is to listen to those with science, technology and health expertise. 
'Science can't provide moral energy'
Hear on Science Friction why Mike Hulme thinks only the human imagination will help us now when it comes to the climate.
Why we need new laws
A "new generation" of environmental laws is needed to protect the Australian public. The Australian Panel of Experts on Environmental Law has drafted eight sets of recommendations to reform Australia's environmental laws.
These reforms would establish two independent bodies:
  • A National Sustainability Commission to set national environmental standards, undertake strategic regional planning and report on national environmental performance
  • A National Environmental Protection Authority to conduct transparent environmental assessments and inquiries, plus monitoring, compliance and enforcement activities
The new laws would replace the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act which is inadequate to protect biodiversity and ecological communities.
These reformed laws would inform effective policy on climate adaptation that protects human health. They could also support many other complex problems subject to political paralysis, such as the Murray Darling Basin water-plan and the national regulation of tree clearing.
New environmental laws and a climate change adaptation plan are vital to this nation's security, health, economy and environment, and so to our future.

*Dr David Shearman is the honorary secretary of Doctors for the Environment Australia and Emeritus Professor of Medicine at Adelaide University.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , ,

Scorched Earth: Counting The Costs Of Extreme Weather

AFR - Leslie Hook | Kerin Hope

Girogos Handrinos stands outside his burned house in Mati, east of Athens. The impact of Greece's fires was worsened because its emergency services have faced severe budget cuts during the country's financial crisis. Thanassis Stavrakis
London/Athens: Thanasis Kontidis was hosing down the veranda of his family's summer home in Mati last Monday afternoon when he caught a whiff of acrid smoke. "I looked up and saw the sky was a beige colour so I knew there was a fire somewhere. But I didn't realise it was getting close."
Half an hour later the 22-year-old university student was fleeing for his life.
"The wind was gusting in different directions and there was an orange glow in the distance," he says. "I soaked one of my mother's scarves, tied it over my nose and mouth and grabbed my phone. Then I got in the car and tried to get away."
But the narrow streets of the Greek seaside resort surrounded by pine forests were already jammed with vehicles rushing to escape the fire. Mr Kontidis abandoned his car and started running towards the sea.
While fires are common in some parts of the world such as California and Australia, what is unusual about this year is that these disasters are happening in different places, catching people unawares.
While he survived, 87 people were killed in the blazes in and around Athens, with 100 still missing. The blaze was unprecedented for Greece, officials say. But it is one of several freak fire and extreme heat events from Canada to Portugal and Japan over the past year that have raised alarm about the impact of changing weather patterns on people's lives.
Climate change is an "accelerant" for these fires, according to the scientists who study them, although it is not the only reason. Urbanisation, changing land use patterns, the arrival of invasive species and even austerity are contributory factors. There have been more than 450 fires covering land of more than 30 hectares in Europe so far this year, according to EU data, which is 40 per cent higher than the average over the past decade.
While fires are common in some parts of the world such as California and Australia, what is unusual about this year is that these disasters are happening in different places, catching people unawares. Fires burning inside the Arctic Circle are the result of drought and heat that have made forests there unusually combustible. Peat lands in the UK, traditionally protected from blazes by moisture, have also been burning amid a heatwave. In the US, the annual average number of large fires has doubled since the 1970s, and this week Yosemite Valley, a national park in California, was evacuated due to a nearby fire.
"There are a lot of extreme fire events occurring," says David Bowman, a professor of fire ecology at the University of Tasmania. He points to the Thomas fire that ravaged Los Angeles' suburbs and freak fires in central Chile last year. "It's not normal — I shouldn't be overwhelmed with opportunities to study extreme fire events."
There is also a growing understanding of their cost. The recent fires have highlighted some of these, both economic and human: 87 people dead in Athens, $US100m worth of forests burnt in Sweden and more than $US2b spent on fire fighting in the US last year. "With each extreme weather event, we get new information for our actuarial models for how likely these events are and their cost," says Trevor Houser, co-director of Climate Impact Lab.
Smoke billows from a fire outside Ljusdal, Sweden. The country is fighting its most serious wildfires in decades. Maja Suslin
In Sweden, authorities have struggled to respond because their firefighting force is not sufficient to handle blazes of such size — the burnt area is 40 times greater than the annual average in the country over the past decade, and the fires are still burning out of control. Other European countries have sent in assistance.
In Greece, which had not suffered a prolonged heatwave before the blaze, the dense illegal housing, high winds and slow response from authorities were key reasons why the fires became so devastating, says Efthymios Lekkas, an Athens university tectonics and geology professor. The impact was worsened because its emergency services have faced severe budget cuts during the country's financial crisis. Local government officials in Mati also failed this year to complete an annual clearing of undergrowth required by law, leaving a thick layer of combustible pine needles and dead branches on pavements and in public spaces around the resort.
"You need a number of ingredients, for wildfires in particular. Climate change is only one factor, but it is a very important factor," says Rowan Sutton, director of climate research for the UK National Centre for Atmospheric Research. "If it is hotter and drier, the risk is greater."
Climate change is central to scientists' understanding of which areas are likely to face greater fire risks in the future. Areas such as the forests in the UK are expected to see an increase in fires as conditions become hotter.
There have been more than 450 fires covering land of more than 30 hectares in Europe so far this year, according to EU data, which is 40 per cent higher than the average over the past decade.
This summer's fires come at a time of growing concern about extreme weather events that have lashed the planet, from hurricanes, to heatwaves, to floods. While specific weather events cannot be directly attributed to the rising levels of carbon in the atmosphere, there is a correlation between climate change and the increasing frequency of these natural disasters.
However, calculating the economic impact of climate change remains a field that is part art, part science, because of the great uncertainties about how much, and how rapidly, global temperatures and weather patterns will change.
Lloyds, the London-based insurance market, estimates that as much as $123bn in global gross domestic product in cities could be at risk from the impact of a warming planet, including windstorms and floods.
Meanwhile, a 2015 study by the journal Nature found that due to climate change, global incomes were likely to be one-fifth lower in 2100 than they would be with a stable climate. And later this year the UN will issue a landmark report that quantifies the impact of 1.5C of warming, compared with 2C. Leaked copies suggest that the world will pass the 1.5-degree warming target by about 2040.
A wildfire approaches Dichato, central Chile, in January last year. Freak fires devastated huge swaths of the country. AP
The Paris climate agreement signed in 2016 commits more than 170 countries to limit global warming to well below 2C. However, many of the signatories have not made commensurate commitments to reach that goal. A growing number of scientists believe warming is likely to exceed 2C.
The biggest concern, according to Sam Fankhauser, director of the UK's Grantham Research Institute, is what happens if the planet exceeds that 2C warming target on which many economic analyses are based.
"If you just say it costs 3 per cent, 4 per cent or 5 per cent of GDP . . . that misses the whole story of, what happens if it goes really, really bad." Mass relocations of populations, water shortages and increased conflict caused by displacement are among the worst-case scenarios.
"People are starting to have the feeling that it might be a lot worse than some of the estimates suggest," says Mr Fankhauser, referring to the economic modelling. "Now that you experience it, [it] feels a bit more unpleasant than what the models would have said".
A firefighter waters down a back burn near the town of Igo, California, where scorching winds and dry conditions are fueling a number of fatal wildfires. AP
On average, richer countries in the northern hemisphere will see less negative impacts than poorer countries closer to the equator, according to the study in Nature. Some countries could even benefit. For example in Sweden, global warming could mean more sunshine and faster-growing forests, providing a boost to its timber industry.
Stephane Hallegatte, a senior economist in the World Bank's climate change group, says one of the things that will determine the cost of climate change is how quickly people adapt and prepare for a warmer world.
"If you assume that nobody acts until there is a disaster, then with the same change in physical conditions you can have a very high cost," he says.
"The key thing is to see this fire in Sweden not as a Swedish event. People in different parts of the world, say Canada or Russia, should look at this and think this is exactly what they have to expect."
Like other aspects of climate change, adapting to fire risk is difficult: the cost can be hard for societies to accept, when there is a perception that the risks are uncertain. Prof Bowman, the fire scientist, says building codes and urban design need to take fire risks into account. Better land management and landscape features such as fire breaks, parks and golf courses can help reduce fire risk in some areas.
"We haven't got time to debate things, we really need to move into the adaptive mode. But there are . . . always reasons to kick the can down the road," he says, adding that countries are moving far too slowly to address growing fire risks.
"So our adaptive process will be a zigzag reacting to fire disasters. It is heartbreaking, but unfortunately that seems to be the trajectory we are on, we will just have to deal with more death and destruction."

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , ,

01/08/2018

'Something Missing': Final National Energy Paper Omits Modelling Data

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

The final report from the Energy Security Board on the Turnbull government's signature energy policy does not contain detailed modelling the states were awaiting, an absence that could further complicate approval on the plan.
The states and territories, which must provide unanimous support for the National Energy Guarantee for it to proceed on Wednesday were sent an extended version of the board's final detailed design paper.
Australia's energy policy debate is heading to a climax. Photo: Nick Moir
The 61-page document does contain more detail on the guarantee's workings, including the role of different sources of energy if the plan were to be implemented after 2020.
Coal-powered generation is expected to continue to account for more than 60 per cent of all generation in 2029-30. There is no futher closure of coal-fired power stations, except for AGL's Liddell plant in NSW, up until 2029.
Some Queensland black coal generation is projected to withdraw "in line with key contracting and technical milestones" around 2029-30.
The chapter of modelling - not made public before today - does not, however, detail the assumptions that underpinned the work done for the board by ACIL Allen, the consultants.
Dylan McConnell, an energy expert at the University of Melbourne, said many analysts had hoped to see the precise assumptions used to support the board's arguments, including that the guarantee would save households an average of $550 per year over the first decade.
"Definitely, there's something missing," Mr McConnell said. "[The report] is not the actual modelling."
He contrasted the partial disclosure with the Gillard government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, or carbon tax, when the full modelling from two separate consultancies was made public before the policy was voted on.
"The Climate Change Authority always released its modelling," he said, adding that the same was true for the Warburton review into the Renewable Energy Target.
Federal Labor is among those that has called for the full release of the modelling.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , , ,

Australia Faces Surge In Heatwave Deaths, Major Study Warns

SBS - AAP

Australian governments are being urged to do more to help cities adapt to warmer temperatures amid warnings about a future rise in heatwave-related deaths.
File photo Source: AAP
Australia could face a dramatic surge in heatwave-related deaths if governments don't do more to help communities adapt to climate change, a major international study warns.
Tropical and subtropical areas across South East Asia and South America are likely to face the steepest rise in heat-related deaths if measures aren't put in place to help people live with warmer temperatures in the coming decades.
A team of international researchers based their findings on various scientific models, which predicted that under the most extreme scenarios there would be a 471 per cent rise in deaths as a result of heatwaves in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne between 2031 and 2080 compared with the four decades to 2010.
Lead author Yuming Guo, an associate professor of environmental epidemiology and biostatistics at Monash University, says the findings are a warning to governments to introduce adaptation strategies such as better urban planning and public education campaigns.
"If the Australian government cannot put effort into reducing the impacts of heatwaves, more people will die because of heatwaves in the future," Assoc Prof Guo said as the study was published in the journal PLOS Medicine on Wednesday.
"The current heatwave in the northern hemisphere is serious and many people are concerned about their health.
"That highlights how important our study is in providing evidence for governments to do something, particularly in Australia where the government has cut off a lot of funding for climate change research."
Firefighters and volunteers try to extinguish flames during a wildfire at the village of Kineta, near Athens, on July 24, 2018. Source: Getty
Much of Europe, parts of Asia and North America have spent the past few weeks sweltering through heatwave conditions.
Canada and Japan have each recorded at least 30 heat-related deaths as temperatures soared during July.
Previous studies have warned of a future increase in the number and severity of heatwaves as a result of climate change, but the research by Assoc Prof Guo and his team is the first to look at the potential impact heatwaves may have on death rates around the world.
How record heat wreaked havoc on four continents
The researchers describe heatwaves as a critical public health problem because they can cause heatstroke and cramps, as well as induce the onset of conditions including cardiovascular disease, respiratory diseases and diabetes.
The models used to estimate future heatwave-related deaths included data on future greenhouse gas emissions, population growth, and hypothetical changes governments could introduce to help communities cope with warmer temperatures.
They then applied that data to estimate links between heatwaves and deaths in 412 communities across 20 countries.
They found that if governments don't introduce any measures to help communities adapt, heatwave-related deaths are expected to rise most in tropical and sub-tropical countries, with Colombia, the Philippines and Brazil facing the biggest increases.
If adaptations are made, mortality rates are still expected to rise in most countries but at a smaller rate.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , ,

Supreme Court Says Kids Can Sue Trump Over Climate Change

Mother Jones - Rowan Walrath

The high court called the breadth of the lawsuit “striking.”

Youth plaintiffs, attorneys, and staff from Our Children's Trust at the federal courthouse in Eugene after a hearing in the Juliana v. United States climate change lawsuit in June. Robin Loznak via ZUMA Wire
The Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration’s effort to stop a climate change lawsuit spearheaded by 21 youth plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, all between 11 and 22 years old, argue that the United States government has violated their constitutional rights by allowing fossil fuel production to continue—despite knowing its effects on the planet.
In a brief order, the high court denied the federal government’s application for a stay, calling it “premature.” The order comes on the heels of a July 20 decision by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that also refused to throw out the lawsuit.
According to a press release from Our Children’s Trust and Earth Guardians, two organizations behind the lawsuit, Juliana v. the United States accuses the federal government of “creating a national energy system that causes climate change, is depriving them of their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property and [failing] to protect essential public trust resources.”
Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel of Our Children’s Trust, praised the Supreme Court’s order, saying, “We look forward to presenting the scientific evidence of the harms and dangers these children face as a result of the actions their government has taken to cause the climate crisis.”
The Supreme Court also took note of the sheer ambition of the young plaintiffs’ case. “The breadth of respondents’ claims is striking, however, and the justiciability of those claims presents substantial grounds for difference of opinion,” the court noted in the unsigned order.
In April, Mother Jones spoke to Phil Gregory, lead co-counsel for the plaintiffs and some of the youthful climate activists who brought the case. “That the plaintiffs are young is a big part of their legal argument,” my colleague Amy Thomson wrote at the time. “As the government continues to neglect the consequences of climate change, they say, their future selves—and their future children—will suffer.”
The case’s origins date back to the Obama administration, when Julia Olson, an attorney from Eugene, Ore., gathered a group of young climate advocates and additional attorneys to file the suit against the government in 2015. Trump’s team inherited this case and made an attempt to stop it last year.
Over the summer, the US legal team asked the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to review a 2016 decision that allowed the case to move forward, known as “a petition for writ of mandamus.” The Trump administration argued that preparation for trial—which could uncover scores of documents and communications related to fossil fuel companies—would be an unreasonable burden for the government.
In response, the courts agreed to hear the oral arguments. In March, they denied the petition, which paved the way for a trial date. Gregory told Mother Jones that he expected the Trump administration to make another attempt to stop the case, saying, “The federal government is scared to put climate science before a federal court.”
Juliana v. the United States is scheduled to be tried in the US District Court in Oregon on October 29.
Read the Supreme Court’s order here:


Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative