In the Sharma decision the federal court says: we see the climate risk but cannot act | Kieran Pender
Whether in this or another case, Australia’s climate inaction could reach the high court – which can, and does, rewrite the law. It should do so
Get our free news app; get our morning email briefing
It has become a source of dark irony among climate activists globally that court decisions denying their search for climate action begin by recognising the existential risk posed by the climate crisis. And so it went on Tuesday, when the full federal court delivered its judgment in the landmark Sharma case. “The threat of climate change and global warming was and is not in dispute between the parties in this litigation,” began chief justice James Allsop.
What, then, does the judiciary – the third, independent and co-equal branch of government – propose to do about it? In the face of crippling climate inaction from the federal executive and legislative government that threatens to render Australia effectively uninhabitable in the centuries ahead, how will the courts react?
Law (Australia) | The Guardian
Recent Comments