Damian Carrington, Environment Editor, explored the role of courts as “a new front line of climate action” and covered the Climate Principles for Enterprises in March 2018 for The Guardian.
“an international panel of senior judges concluded in January that many companies around the world may well already be in breach of existing laws in relation to their impact on climate change. “Very, very few enterprises currently meet their obligations – if they did [climate change] would mostly be solved,” said Jaap Spier, who was advocate general in the Dutch supreme court until 2016 and part of the panel that published the assessment.
Spier says judges are influenced by growing concerns in society, such as worries over climate change, and are increasingly likely to look favourably on climate litigation in coming years. “If you assume companies don’t [change] at some stage, I have not the slightest doubt that courts will understand that they must step in.”
“The Climate Principles for Enterprises are a valuable initiative which can help in achieving the Paris Agreement’s objectives and ultimately tackling climate change. I sincerely hope that this project will enjoy broad support.” Laurent Fabius, President of the Constitutional Council of France, Former Prime-Minister of France, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development of France during COP-21
“Climate change may be the greatest challenge that currently faces mankind. If it is to be solved it requires collective action. That creates a problem, because if collective action is to be successful, each individual needs to understand what his or her contribution is to be. And if that contribution is to be made, it needs to be, and to be seen to be fair amongst all participants. Scientists agree that we need to keep the temperature rise to two degrees. But what does that mean for way we run those enterprises that are the engine of the global economy? If we leave it for every company to invent their own rules, it will take enormous effort, and it is unlikely that all will agree that each has contributed their fair share. That is why this document is of such importance. Here in less than 3,000 words, some of the world’s most eminent lawyers have laid out a simple set of rules.” David Pitt-Watson, Former Chair UN Environment Program Finance Initiative
“The Climate Principles for Enterprises provide a very explicit and easy to follow mandate for corporates to incorporate the imperatives of reducing carbon emissions into their planning, management and reporting. The simplicity of the document serves only to highlight the sophistication of its drafting and the power of its message.” Ashok Khosla, Chairman, Development Alternatives; Past Chairman, UN’s International Resource Panel; Past President, IUCN and the Club of Rome
The Climate Principles for Enterprises “provide a solid framework for identifying the obligations of all businesses to reduce their greenhouse emissions in line with national targets that are sufficient to meet the two degree goal. Businesses that reduce their total emissions in line with these principles are likely to avoid the risk of future litigation and liability for contributing to the loss and damage from climate change.” James Thornton, CEO of Client Earth
“The Principles on Climate Obligations of Enterprises are impressive, well-conceived, and well-constructed. I am glad to endorse them.” Parvez Hassan, Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan; President of the Pakistan Environmental Law Association; former Chairman, IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law
“Finally, the Oslo Principles, although not endorsed by the UN or binding on any states, contain a useful framework for conceptualizing state obligations in this context [domestic mitigation obligations]. The principles explicitly reference the need to protect human rights and clarify the obligations that states have to reduce GHG emissions, taking into account cost and other factors” “[I]t is worth noting that non-state obligations with respect to human rights are also outlined in the Oslo Principles (which deal specifically with climate change)” UN Environment in cooperation with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, Climate Change and Human Rights, 2015, p.24-29
by Ganesh Sahathevam The Hon Justice Anthony Besanko Media reports about the Ben Robert-Smith defamation matter have at least given the impression, if not asserted, that Justice Anthony Besanko of the Federal Court found that Robert-Smith had committed murder. Most if not all reports have been at pains to stress that the finding was based on a balance of probabilities, and not beyond a reasonable doubt, for the matter was a civil and not criminal matter. However, reading his summary one can immediately see that Justice Besanko found not that Roberts-Smith had committed murder but that the " respondents had, (on a balance of probabilities) established the substantial truth" that Roberts-Smith had committed murder. However, murder is a crime and a finding of murder in a criminal court (which is the court in which crimes like murder can be determined!) inv
by Ganesh Sahathevan Premier Gladys Berejiklian with NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller and Brigadier Mick Garraway Who authorised former NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller to say anything about the Berejiklian era quarantine fee and why? Fuller's issuance of his COVID quarantine notice, and subsequent silence, would seem to confirm suspicions raised on this blog that NSW's Berejiklian government had no basis to impose its quarantine fee. Fuller's conduct also adds to suspicion that the Berejiklian government did not have the authority, even under its COVID emergency powers, to quarantine persons who were COVID negative. International arrivals had to test negative for COVID before boarding their flights to Sydney, and tests had to be administered within 72 hours of departure. Quarantine on arrival of those who exhibited no COVID symptoms was quite likely unnecessary. It did, of course help bolster Gladys Berejiklian's approval ratings. TO BE RE
By Ganesh Sahathevan Anyone who has received a Revenue NSW Quarantine Fee demand for payment notice will be familiar with these words that are contained in the notice: What is the quarantine service fee? A mandatory quarantine service fee applies to all travellers arriving in New South Wales (NSW) who are required to quarantine as part of the public health order. Mandatory quarantine is needed to stop the spread. of COVID-19 in NSW The qurantine fee has been charged pursuant to Section 70 of the NSW Health Act. However, as previously reported, that section does not permit any imposition of mandatory fees. However, in apparent defiance of Section 70 of the Health Act, Fuller issued a notice in which he said that Revenue NSW " will be charging a mandatory quarantine fee". TOE BE READ WITH Former NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller said in his notice that Revenue NSW " will be charging a mandatory quarantine fee" - Former NSW Ministers Hazzard, Tudehope insis
Comments
Post a Comment