Aussie Environment Minister Sussan Ley. By Smblock - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Both Sides Declare Victory in Aussie Children’s Climate Litigation Coal Case

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

An anti-coal case court judgement so deliciously ambiguous everyone feels like a winner.

Australian court finds government has duty to protect young people from climate crisis

Eight teenagers, along with 86-year-old nun, launched case to prevent the approval of a massive coalmine

Adam Morton Environment editor @adamlmorton
Thu 27 May 2021 14.35 AEST

The federal court of Australia has found the environment minister, Sussan Ley, has a duty of care to protect young people from the climate crisis in a judgment hailed by lawyers and teenagers who brought the case as a world first.

Justice Mordecai Bromberg found the minister had a duty of care to not act in a way that would cause future harm to younger people. But he did not grant the injunction as he was not satisfied the minister would breach her duty of care.

David Barnden, a lawyer representing the children, said it was a historic and “amazing decision” with potentially significant consequences.

“The court has found that the minister owes a duty of care to younger children, to vulnerable people, and that duty says that the minister must not act in a way that causes harm – future harm – from climate change to younger people,” he said outside court. “It is the first time in the world that such a duty of care has been recognised, especially in a common law country.”

Whitehaven Coal had a different interpretation of the judgment. In a statement to the stock exchange, it did not mention the duty of care finding, and said it welcomed the court dismissing the teenagers’ attempt to block Ley from approving the mine extension.

“Our consistent position has been that this legal claim was without merit,” it said. “Whitehaven looks forward to receiving the … approval for the Vickery extension project and will keep the market updated as appropriate.”

Read more:

Environment minister Sussan Ley is no friend of the green movement, WUWT reported her hilarious visit to the Great Barrier Reef in 2019, where she asked scientists to show her all the dead coral. What she found, of course, was lots of healthy coral.

So it is possible Ley will approve the coal mine – ensuring well paid coal mining jobs could be seen as part of her duty of care towards future generations.

But in these crazy times, who knows what will actually happen.

5 12 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 27, 2021 2:22 pm

Today the courts believe they help the people by siding with environmentalists. That will change when the environmental movement starts eating the people and the mood swings.

High Treason
Reply to  markl
May 27, 2021 2:37 pm

Given how insanely far the pendulum has swung in favour of the crybullies and petty totalitarians, when the pendulum swings the other way, it could well leave the McCarthy era looking like an office slap on the wrist. When you combine the history of lies-climate and COVID, the result could well be a violent revolution.
I did not follow this trial, nor did I see anything about it until it was all over the news. Did the manipulated non-scientist children present hard evidence that coal mining causes dangerous “climate change.” Was a proper qualification to the term “climate change” even given? Without qualification, “climate change” is either totally meaningless or can mean anything you want it to. Given that climate changes, just what can a politician do to stop nature? especially when the term “climate change” has not even been defined. It is clearly a recipe for a with hunt.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  High Treason
May 27, 2021 8:24 pm

Was a proper qualification to the term “climate change” even given? Without qualification, “climate change” is either totally meaningless or can mean anything you want

I have been stressing this fact for years, but few people bother to take it seriously. It’s the crux of the entire controversy. As intended, “climate change” is a perfect example of equivocation … an appeal to ambiguity. They can pivot on the real meaning at will (whatever it is) and never be wrong. Change is, in fact, the default condition of our planet’s atmospheric systems. How much of that is caused by human use of fossil fuels still remains to be seen.

Most of the AGW true believer’s most repeated “arguments” are not arguments at all. They’re logical fallacies. There isn’t a fallacy they don’t like.

George Tetley
Reply to  High Treason
May 28, 2021 1:43 am

Try to remember when you were 5-8 years old, was the weather as it is today? My recollection of that time was no different than today and I am 81 years old weather like most things in nature never changes but cycles what the weather does today has happened before, explain Greenland,!

Rud Istvan
May 27, 2021 2:22 pm

No expert in Aussie law. But in the US:
1 The 86 year old nun would have no standing, because she is too old to claim future harm.
2 Injunctive relief would not be granted, because no imminent harm can be shown. Issue applies in all 15 ‘children’s law suits in the US under public nuisance doctrine.
3 The minister’s duty of care would be limited to things within her jurisdiction. While this mine expansion may be, the world’s CO2 emissions clearly aren’t. Dunno how big this mine extension is, but I would bet a lot that it is a drop in the bucket compared to India and China coal mining, even probably concerning just planned expansion in those two countries. Her care duty is therefore de minimus.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 27, 2021 6:43 pm

Having it approved might also prove useful as coal is required to manufacture steel and Solar PV cells both of which are required in mass quantities for Grid Scale Solar and Wind Farms

Last edited 1 year ago by Bryan A
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 27, 2021 8:30 pm

I agree that approaching it from a purely legal basis should have excluded it from any court following British Common Law. It lacks any manner of a Cause of Action. The judge is either a raving activist willing to overlook his own duty or just as bad … pandering to children. As you have pointed out the case should not have been heard on any basis.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 28, 2021 1:29 am
George Tetley
Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 28, 2021 1:55 am

The result should have been ******
The ” teenagers” should go back to school and study History, as for the nun I am sure she could give a definition of a screwdriver. God help us as seems like his servants won’t

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 28, 2021 1:28 am

The Nun, of the Brigidine order, is merely the childrens advocate, who because of their age…. conveniently….legally can’t speak for themselves.
It’s Greta 2.0

May 27, 2021 2:22 pm

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
– C.S. Lewis

The government trying to keep everybody “safe” NEVER ends well… as I sit here in regional Victoria under effective house arrest because everyone has to be kept “safe”.

Reply to  MarkH
May 27, 2021 3:01 pm

Any government measures billed as “SAFE” or “FAIR” are always a scam.

High Treason
Reply to  MarkH
May 27, 2021 3:01 pm

Victorians must be getting sick of these snap lockdowns. In the lay period between lockdowns (COVID interglacial) letterbox drops to let people know that next time there is some COVID “crisis” (this one is likely a complete fabrication-the timeline of places visited has some impossibilities) that there will be a HUGE rally at some designated place at certain time before lockdown. Melbourne will soon find out how many people are getting sick of these “cry wolf” alerts. If media ignore the numbers or downplay the numbers, denigrate the protesters, questions will have to be asked. If a million Victorians see that their rally was not front page news or they were denigrated, it will be a million Victorians that will become awakened LIONS. The massive flood of awakened people that suddenly recognize that mainstream media are owned will cause an avalanche of awakening.

Reply to  High Treason
May 28, 2021 3:33 am

test 50k people to find just 30
one of whom is 70 and very ill
the rest?
didnt even know they had it it appears
and HOW convenient this happened right before emergency power laws were due to expire

Ian W
Reply to  ozspeaksup
May 30, 2021 12:48 pm

The entire reason that the PCR ‘test’ was used was to obtain false positives. It is run at several orders of magnitude higher amplification than is sensible (40+)
It looks for bits of SARS-CoV-2 not live virus – parts of virus. If it finds some virus particles – the person is positive and therefore a ‘case’ asymptomatic or not. In normal medical procedure this is done in the reverse sequence a patient with symptoms of COVID-19 reports for testing and the PCR test is used to identify or confirm what the cause of the disease is. The current system is like finding pollen in someone’s nasal passages and concluding that despite them having no symptoms, they have ‘hay fever’.

The juxtaposition was not accidental, the entire point was to provide alarming figures to the trusting innumerate politicians and population. Look at the Y axes of all the presented graphs – like Climate Change graphs the Y axis shown is really short. If you were to make the Y axis the actual population of the State/Country etc. The number of ‘cases’ even the inflated number from the over amplified testing – becomes invisible.

The political panic over small numbers of deaths is hard to square with the previous lack of political interest in tens of thousands of excess winter deaths but now 6 deaths from SARS-CoV-2 is sufficient to close down the country?

Last edited 1 year ago by Ian W
Reply to  MarkH
May 27, 2021 3:27 pm

Feel sorry for you mate. Come up to QLD, no lockdowns up here 🙂 Just enjoying the winter sunshine and the cool air.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Voltron
May 27, 2021 8:51 pm

Yup, Queensland seems to be the place to be. I’d not want to have weathered this covid scaremongering anywhere else. Brisbane and Gold Coast excepted.

Just carry a coffee with you in airports and you don’t even need to mask up.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  MarkH
May 27, 2021 9:01 pm


Victoria under effective house arrest because everyone has to be kept “safe”.”

Yes, it is utterly insane. 47,600+ PCR tests were conducted yesterday.30 cases tested positive over the last few days with the new, highly contagious, fast spreading Indian variant. No-one of any age has died from COVID-19. So the entire state is in it’s fourth stage fourth lock down for 7 days, borders between states have been closed.

Totally insane!

Ian W
Reply to  Patrick MJD
May 30, 2021 12:53 pm

You’ll all be rooned

Reply to  MarkH
May 28, 2021 3:30 am

bloody wunnerful aint it?
same shit here out in the boonies
locked down 450k from the morons in melb

Ron Long
May 27, 2021 2:37 pm

Looks like the nun/children/lawyers don’t think about the big picture. Australia produces some of the highest grade and cleanest coal around, and when it doesn’t go to China they mine and use their own lower grade dirtier coal. So, if the CO2 level, and the associated ideas about CAGW, and the children’s future are what is important, how can forcing China to use dirtier coal be a positive? More blathering nonsense from greenies. By the way, I am sure the lawyers thought about the big picture, like show me the money.

Gordon A. Dressler
May 27, 2021 2:47 pm

From the above article: “The court has found that the minister owes a duty of care . . . and that duty says that the minister must not act in a way that causes harm – future harm – from climate change to younger people”.

So, first order of business following this ruling: trying to define, objectively, exactly what “climate change” means.

This will be a problem since no scientist—let alone a bureaucrat or politician—has yet attempted to write down in words what exactly defines “climate change”.

Is “climate change” defined as equivalent to global warming? If so, we’ll have to prosecute Gaia (as well as fundamental physics) for enabling Earth to go through tens to hundreds of interglacial warming cycles prior to the current one, the Holocene.

This bears repeating:
“If you can’t define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity.” — Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 27, 2021 3:21 pm

Pirsig’s book was IMO a masterpiece. Not just a motorcycle journey, a motorcycle journey back to his sanity. BTW, I used to own 3 (dirt, street, cruiser) and still ride 2 since just sold the dirt bike with the Wisconsin farm. Although thinking of giving it all up now, having reached my 70’s when life looks different than at 60.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 27, 2021 4:57 pm

By all means ride
But please protect the melon

Reply to  Pat from kerbob
May 27, 2021 10:58 pm

And the plums

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 27, 2021 8:55 pm

Every decade gives a new perspective.

My golden rule is to ask myself if me a decade ago would approve of where I am now. Every decade since adulthood (and way more of these than I expected) has produced an affirmative answer.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 28, 2021 2:53 pm

Move to Az. Lots of senior bikers here. Nobody wears a helmet, but the wife has a pistol on her hip, So refreshing to see.

May 27, 2021 2:51 pm

The federal court of Australia has found the … minister,…has a duty of care to protect young people

In those immortal words, popularly appropriated by Mythbusters’ host Adam Savage: “There’s your problem!

Government agencies, even their lead ministers, are not “responsible” for failure to protect anyone. Otherwise, any (in this case) child who comes to harm for any reason should result in administration of some punishment to the minister or to the agency. People can only assume responsibility for themselves. Assigning responsibility is also known as blame. The court cannot pre-blame the minister for a harm that has not occurred.

“…A duty of care…”, a statement assigning responsibility, to a class of beneficiaries, is also full of holes.

The quote is a null statement.

Last edited 1 year ago by dk_
Rory Forbes
Reply to  dk_
May 27, 2021 8:43 pm

Yet again another WUWT regular acing the question based on logic and law. The “duty of care” concept is so over used today by the globalists and the Left in general. They love legislating from the bench and making a mockery of legal concepts which don’t apply. Hate crimes come under that heading, for one … a concept that requires knowing the workings of the human mind. Your best point was; “The court cannot pre-blame the minister for a harm that has not occurred.” I would add … nor is there any evidence that it will occur or to what extent and when.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 27, 2021 9:45 pm

I make no claims to knowledge of logic or law, just grumpy curmudgeonly behavior, everything else is gravy, or maalox. Thanks, again.

M Courtney
Reply to  dk_
May 28, 2021 2:15 am

I see no problem with a Minister having a Duty of Care towards the vulnerable. Why else do Minster’s have power except to defend the people?

Of course, the ruling wasn’t that the Minster did not care for the vulnerable (the children). Nor was the ruling that the Minister was not going to care for the vulnerable (the children).
Just that a Minister should care for the vulnerable (the children).

How to care for the vulnerable (the children) is still to be determined. And the Judge has, quite rightly, recognised that the choice of policy is for the elected officials.

So all this lawfare activity has actually achieved is the ruling that Minsters can’t go full Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang and hire child-catchers.

But I think the laws against child abuse covered that already. And the institutional aspects would be covered by the ‘United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’ which Austrlaia ratified in 1990.

Reply to  M Courtney
May 28, 2021 5:59 pm

M Courtney,

I never mentioned child abuse, I don’t find it in the language of the report or the other material I’ve read on the subject, and your Introduction of the subject, conflation of ideas, and reference to anything like that in this conversation is deliberate and disgusting.

We obviously disagree on what “duty of care” means. The phrase seems to have drifted a little from the voluntary assumption of individual responsibility by a caregiver for an individual patient or client. An arbitrary group of people or a non-volunteer individual can’t be responsible for another arbitrary group. This is archaic nonsense left over from monarchy and feudalism, stretching a nobless oblige definition of responsibility and duty into some kind of entitlement for an idealized and anonymous subgroup of the population.

I do not understand your allusion to Ian Fleming’s children’s story and conflation with kidnapping and frivolous law suits. I do not believe that the minister had proposed putting children to work in mines as you seem to intimate. I would also assume that Australia didn’t let the UN establish their criminal law, nor wait until 1990 to do so.

Timo, not that one
May 27, 2021 2:53 pm

Is it in the interest of the “child” that they have unreliable access to electricity, home heating, food, freedom of movement, etc.?
I don’t hold much hope for freedom in the world, outside of Florida and Texas.

May 27, 2021 2:58 pm

As soon as the defendants saw that the judge was going to be activist-lefty-socialist-fabian Mordy Bromberg, they should have moved for a change of court.

(Mordy once stood for election as a left-wing Labor party candidate)

Mordy beclowned himself when he ruled against Newscorp columnist Andrew Bolt when he was accused of WRITING a blog post that was claimed to be defamatory of some aboriginal artists & academics. (charging that they were scamming government grants at the expense of more worthy aboriginal candidates)

Such was Mordy’s pre-determined intent to rule against Bolt, that in his judgement reasoning, he wrote that he arrived at his conclusions by “READING BETWEEN THE LINES” of what Bolt had written.

So faced with the black and white evidence of what Bolt has actually WRITTEN, Mordy decided to base his considerations instead on what he FELT Bolt was getting at.

Welcome to judicial activism Aussie style.

Reply to  Mr.
May 27, 2021 4:09 pm

The attorneys should have made him recuse himself as a Judge for this case.

Does anyone care anyway? This crap will be forgotten by tomorrow.

The real litigation has yet to begin.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  philincalifornia
May 27, 2021 5:01 pm

When does the litigation over “climate deaths” in Texas begin?
I look forward to Griffs testimony that the $80 billion spent there on renewables in the last 15 years had no impact on the situation whatsoever

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Mr.
May 27, 2021 8:49 pm

Bingo … I suspected the judge was an imbecile who 1. doesn’t understand basic law and 2. is utterly biased and unfit to preside. The case should never have come to trial in the first place since it lacks a cause of action and a cause of action cannot be “assigned” to a respondent, especially where the action hasn’t taken place. It’s not the court’s place to speculate on future events.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 27, 2021 10:15 pm

There was no case it was simply a request for an injunction which was denied, you can argue whatever you like of the statement given but the ruling was clear.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  LdB
May 27, 2021 10:53 pm

What the hell are you talking about? What do you think constitutes “a case”? If it was in a court of law before a judge, applying either common or statute law to compel some action, sought by a plaintiff of a respondent, it’s “a case”. The ruling was utter nonsense and biased as hell. Have you not read any of the other responses? We’re all saying roughly the same thing.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 28, 2021 12:27 am

I can’t help that most of you don’t know what an injunction is in Australia. They are not of themselves a matter being tried but a short term remedy.

They are granted because

  • there is a serious question to be tried
  • there is a matter of urgency
  • damages will not adequately repair the harm

The injunction in itself is a temporary remedy until the larger legal issues can be heard by the Court.

So no it wasn’t and doesn’t constitute a case it’s just an application no matter how many of you claim otherwise … it simply isn’t the law says so.

Can I suggest you google “Australian Law granting an injuction”

Last edited 1 year ago by LdB
Reply to  LdB
May 28, 2021 1:25 am
Rory Forbes
Reply to  LdB
May 28, 2021 1:29 am

You’re talking bloody nonsense. An injunction is an application to the court for an order directing a person to stop or desist from some action. It is no different in Australia than anywhere else. It is conducted before a judge in a court. It has a complainant or plaintiff and a respondent. Common law is enforced uniformly across the states of Australia (subject to augmentation by local statutes). All cases require an application appealing to the court for a hearing before a judge. You’re arguing over nothing … a distinction without a difference.

Injunctions are often used by special interest groups as nuisance tactics because they require less preparation and evidence than a civil law suit for some form of damages damages. It’s still a legal case.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
May 28, 2021 4:24 am

Only to layman are the same it’s an “application” or a “matter”
Anyhow it’s the internet and it’s not important to you so believe whatever you want and what was said by the judge is equally meaningless the injunction was refused.

Last edited 1 year ago by LdB
Reply to  Mr.
May 28, 2021 1:16 am

Mordy does these sorts of judgements, but in defamation law in Australia the judge is the sole decider of imputations from someone’s exact words. It’s the imputations that form the defamation.

CD in Wisconsin
May 27, 2021 3:03 pm

The Green Movement, with its legal challenges to fossil fuel companies and projects, easily confuse their arrogance, egotism and hubris for self-righteousness and virtuosity. When your head gets so big with arrogance and ego it is in danger of exploding, the last thing you will listen to is anything that says there is a problem with your belief system.

When you are drunk on your perceived self-righteousness and virtuosity, your mind is closed to anything that threatens your crusade . You are the most dangerous kind of person in the world as you pursue your greed for money, power and control.

No wonder the climate alarmist narrative is so popular.

Ian W
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
May 30, 2021 1:03 pm

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 – 1968), Strength to Love, 1963

Ian McClintock
May 27, 2021 4:12 pm

There is a small underlying problem with this decision and the assumptions it is based on, (and the many others like it), it ignores the relevant science.

This is not surprising because the advocates of anthropogenic climate change / global warming simply refuse to discuss the science, possibly because to do would expose the undeniable underlying fallacy of their argument.

In a nutshell carbon dioxide only effectively acts as a greenhouse gas in the outgoing Infra-Red radiation emissions from Earth as a spike at the ~ 14.9 micron wavelength. This area is also partially covered by the dominating greenhouse gas water vapour, limiting or eliminating any additional warming effect arising from carbon dioxide as this frequency becomes saturated.

The overwhelming increase in the highly beneficial level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is a result of the warming of the oceans (Henry’s Law). 

As a result of these verifiable facts together with the many other factors contributing to our always varying climate, Man’s influence on global temperature is therefore clearly insignificant.

Justice Mordecai Bromberg is therefore well justified in refusing the well-intentioned but incorrectly founded injunction on the basis that he “was not satisfied the Minister would breach her duty of care”. 

May 27, 2021 4:43 pm

Here is a graphic illustration of your excellent description of the fatal flaw in the AGW Greenhouse effect hoax.

comment image

Rud Istvan
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
May 27, 2021 4:56 pm

Tews, with all due respect, whether you are right or not (in my opinion only partly right, for reasons explained in an essay in ebook Blowing Smoke) yoursk is not ever a winning argument in the climate wars. Believers are immune to ‘science’, because they already swallowed the climate science cool aid.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 27, 2021 5:38 pm

Thank you for that critique. I learned a long time ago that facts and evidence and sound logic are meaningless to the closed-minded AGW zealots. I will look for the ebook Blowing Smoke.

Ian McClintock
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 27, 2021 6:43 pm

Rud, the problem is they will not allow the pertinent science to be discussed at all.

Citing various forms of circumstantial evidence, as they are confined to do, provides no actual evidence at all.

Neither do the thousands of pages of IPCC Reports. This fundamental area is never addressed.

The actual operational greenhouse science, if discussed, is not too difficult at all to understand, but by not allowing any discussion of this area, the general public naturally come to believe the only interpretation and associated alarmist emotion, they repeatedly hear.

If this information became widely and readily available, many would quickly realise they have been played for fools. The general public are not dumb.

If you see any error in what I said I would be grateful for your explanation.

Ian W
Reply to  Ian McClintock
May 30, 2021 1:22 pm

Indeed, and Willis repeats the approach – “accept that greenhouse effect exists and warms the surface” – anyone saying differently will have their comment deleted without debate.

Yet there is no way that down welling IR can warm water. It is absorbed in the first few microns and raises the energy content of the surface layer of molecules leading to increased evaporation and loss of latent heat – which is greater than the down welling IR energy.

70% of the planet surface is water and much of the land is covered with transpiring plants which may as well be water.

Contrary to the simplistic diagrams showing up and down heating (in the wrong units) The GHE is actually a negative cooling feedback as it greatly increases convection and carriage of huge quantities of latent heat into the upper atmosphere by water vapor molecules that ‘release’ the latent heat energy on change of state when condensing or freezing.

The missing ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is probably actually there – it is just that everyone is expecting a hot spot so looking for a temperature change. It is more probable that the it is a ‘tropospheric heat spot’ and heat does not necessarily lead to a temperature change- it depends on enthalpy. Imagine an early morning with a layer of strato-cumulus and as the day goes on the Sun ‘burns off’ the cloud layer. What is actually happening is that the latent heat of vaporization has been absorbed by the droplets of the cloud. If anyone were to bother to do real experiment they would find that the cloud had been replaced by a close to 100% humidity layer of water vapor. Someone should look at the data from the hot spot hunting aircraft and see if they have found a similar humid layer where the ‘hot spot’ was expected.

Tony Taylor
May 27, 2021 4:58 pm

Justice Bromberg says Ley has a duty of care to Australians and then denies the injunction, which clearly says that coal mining does not harm Australian.

Reply to  Tony Taylor
May 27, 2021 10:17 pm

More correctly you would need to take that argument to court and win.

John in Oz
May 27, 2021 4:59 pm

All of these children should be forced into home detention, preferably in a cellar, to ensure that they are not struck by hail and/or lightning, do not fall down sink holes, are not caught in a cyclone, blizzard, hot weather, cold weather or any weather that they might find uncomfortable.

Having a duty of care does not specify the actions taken to provide that care. They may not like the results of their ‘win’.

May 27, 2021 5:10 pm

The actual ruling is somewhat different than being reported and speculated upon.

513    For the reasons given above, I have concluded that the applicants have established that the Minister has a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing personal injury to the Children when deciding, under s 130 and s 133 of the EPBC Act, to approve or not approve the Extension Project. I have also concluded that an injunction restraining the Minister from exercising her power under s 130 and s 133 of the EPBC Act in a manner that would permit the extraction of coal from the Extension Project should not be granted.”

Its a long read but an interesting one.

Reply to  Peter
May 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Yes I read it too.
Mainly to guffaw at Mordy’s inconsistences.
He takes many many pages to document and laud the “expert” evidence from climate catastrophe zealots like Will Steffen, then at the end he rejects the appeal for an injunction to kybosh the mine extension.

I reckon his judgement document is a grand showcase of his “progressive” credentials for all his far left Fabian mates.

Last edited 1 year ago by Mr.
May 27, 2021 5:38 pm

Protect them against the next ice age and in the mean time the Chinese navy.

May 27, 2021 6:11 pm

Antico, but, secretly, they’re in the closet with producers and environmentalists in a handmade tale of outsource and arbitrage.

May 27, 2021 6:44 pm

“The court has found that the minister owes a duty of care to younger children, to vulnerable people, and that duty says that the minister must not act in a way that causes harm – future harm – from climate change to younger people,”

Ok so now it will be up to the representatives (I assume) of the ”younger children” and the ”vulnerable” to come up with empirical proof that the minister is or will cause harm by his/her actions.
Good luck with that!

Craig from Oz
May 27, 2021 7:03 pm

That ‘Duty of Care’ might come back and bite people.

“you had a Duty of Care to ensure future job opportunities, but your ‘Green Jobs’ never arrived!!!”

All a bit vague and subjective.

May 27, 2021 7:59 pm

Also – ““Perhaps the most startling of the potential harms demonstrated by the evidence before the court, is that one million of today’s Australian children are expected to suffer at least one heat-stress episode serious enough to require acute care in a hospital,” he said.
“Many thousands will suffer premature death from heat stress or bushfire smoke. Substantial economic loss and property damage will be experienced. The Great Barrier Reef and most of Australia’s eastern eucalypt forests will no longer exist due to repeated, severe bushfires.” “

Rory Forbes
Reply to  lee
May 27, 2021 8:58 pm

And in response to this litany of ludicrous assessments of future harm is the long term study conducted for the Lancet on mortality from heat and cold. It was found, unequivocally that COLD is 20 times deadlier than heat. The study has an extremely large international sample.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  lee
May 27, 2021 8:59 pm

Barrier Reef is fine. But come and visit for a ‘last chance to see!’ Bring tourist dollars…

Reply to  lee
May 28, 2021 6:03 pm

Wow, I never knew the GBR was threatened by wildfires, too.

Rory Forbes
May 27, 2021 8:15 pm

The judge should have thrown out the case entirely as having ‘No Cause of Action’ since no one can possibly have a duty of care to prevent an act of God, a “climate crisis” whatever that might mean. The whole thing is absurd including the players who are making fools of themselves pandering to misdirected children.

This new fad of using indoctrinated children goes right back to witch trials. I’m reminded of Arthur Miller’s; The Crucible.

Patrick MJD
May 27, 2021 9:21 pm

There is more risk from injury or death, right now, from some of the animals, snakes, spiders, sharks and jellyfish that Australia is famous for than from climate change.

The case should never have gone to court and the judge is a fool.

May 27, 2021 9:35 pm

comment image?w=800&h=450

Chris Hanley
May 27, 2021 10:00 pm

Australian top exports 2020:
Rank Commodity(a) $ million % share % change
1 Iron ores & concentrates 77,189 16.4 25.7
2 Coal 69,592 14.8 15.3
3 Natural gas 49,731 10.6 60.9
Hey kids, no coal = no smartphones.

Last edited 1 year ago by Chris Hanley
Matthew Sykes
May 27, 2021 10:17 pm

Dear oh god, lawfare!

Matthew Sykes
May 27, 2021 10:23 pm

This is a massive mistake of course, because the judge is declaring CO2 and the temperature change it cause to be dangerous.

He has no basis on which to make such a decision.

Even if we accept the IPCC’s statement that is is likely that weather patterns will change because of this warming it does not mean harm will ensure from those changes and that best way to mitigate those changes is to halt CO2 production.

It is certain however that targeted spending in problem areas, paid by the expected increase in GDP warming will bring in other areas, and globally in terms of crop production, will be far more effective at preventing harm to anyone.

There are huge benefits to global warming and CO2. Huge benefits. Lets not forget that, and the IPCC is clear on this too.

Karim Ghantous
May 27, 2021 11:04 pm

Duty of care? Yes, I agree. Future generations need reliable and cheap electricity. It’s our job today to ensure that this happens.

May 28, 2021 12:31 am

Meanwhile no comment on the oil companies who have had pro renewable/CO2 reduction board members elected and on the Dutch case against Shell?

Reply to  griff
May 28, 2021 5:54 am

Meanwhile no evidence that it is illegal…….

Your hypocrisy is never ending when you ignore the opposite many times.

May 28, 2021 1:04 pm

There will be a children’s book reading by the minister and the coal execs on the scheduled day………. in 2030. Cookies and organic milk will be provided afterwards.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights