My wife was involved with this, and was on country for some of the testimony to the land court. It's massive news in conservation circles here. She said the cases presented by traditional owners were both compelling and heartbreaking, showing first-hand the visible and culturally significant effects of climate change to e.g. the land (including sea level rises in the Torres Strait causing, among other things, grave sites to be lost to the ocean), and endemic and totemic species such as the flying fox / fruit bat around Cairns. The Environmental Defenders Office, who litigated the case, deserve serious kudos for their work, as do Youth Verdict and the first nations representatives who stepped up to tell their stories.<p>Yes the court's decision comes in the form of a recommendation, but it is a significant one and will be difficult to ignore. At the very least it should remove any question of a social license for these kind of activities in Australia (i.e. thermal coal extraction!) - which are often presented as beneficial to first nations groups, yet are environmentally and culturally blasé through and through.
Note that despite being a legal case, the final result here is only a recommendation, not a requirement.<p>> The Land Court of Queensland has a unique jurisdiction in these matters, because it makes a recommendation, rather than a final judgment. This recommendation must be taken into account by the final decision-makers – in this case, the Queensland resources minister, and the state Department of Environment and Science.
After a quick scan of the judgement, it doesn't seem to consider the impact of stopping the mine on the rights of workers, energy consumers or the economy.<p>I'm not suggesting the result is bad, but I'd prefer balance in these decisions. Of course we don't want to see coal being burnt, but if these mechanisms to stop fossil fuels are used indiscriminantly, the transition to renewables will cause needless suffering. We need to at least consider the downsides.<p>I think of the famines exacerbated by biofuel policies that did almost nothing to improve global warming. Or how Victoria de facto banned gas production without a good plan to replace consumption. Now we have a gas crisis in a country with massive gas reserves.
What is the alternative and the end game here? China buys Australian coal and lithium and uses it to make batteries. What they can’t import from AU, they will import from Indonesia or Russia, which is probably partially stolen from Ukraine’s Donbas. At least in Australia there are more chances to levy a fair carbon tax and dependency is mutual. Everyone wants to have batteries and solars for renewables, but no one wants to make them.
In related recent news, Greta Thunburg and some other youngsters just filed a suit against Sweden:<p><a href="https://mastodon.nu/@gretathunberg" rel="nofollow">https://mastodon.nu/@gretathunberg</a><p><a href="https://www.dn.se/sverige/greta-thunberg-joins-over-600-other-young-people-in-a-lawsuit-against-the-swedish-state/" rel="nofollow">https://www.dn.se/sverige/greta-thunberg-joins-over-600-othe...</a>
'The link between human rights and climate change is being increasingly recognised overseas. In September this year, for example, a United Nations committee decided that by failing to adequately address the climate crisis, Australia’s Coalition government violated the human rights of Torres Strait Islanders.'<p>Whose 'human rights' are we talking about here? In virtually all of these emotion driven decisions there is little thought for the enormous numbers of people who depend on the energy created by the coal internationally. It would be far more useful to focus on effective alternatives, such as small modular nuclear reactors, rather than creating devastating energy austerity in the name of what is essentially virtue signaling posturing based on very sketchy scientific claims.
(Bracing for immediate down votes from the climate insecure...)