Trapped by floods and fearing death in the heat: the Australians taking legal action over the climate crisis | Climate crisis

Ten Australians have filed an exploratory complaint with the UN human rights committee, alleging the Australian government violates human rights by continuing to support coal and gas developments for export. The claimants argue this support fuels climate extremes that have caused them direct physical and emotional harm, according to the legal filing.

What is the “hard truths case”?

The “hard truths case” is an exploratory legal claim backed by the Human Rights Law Centre, Environmental Justice Australia, and the US-based Earthjustice. It marks the first legal claim against a state for climate harm in an international body since the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion stating states have a legal obligation to prevent such harm.

Claimants include Brendon Donohue, who was trapped for 10 days in his Brisbane apartment during February 2022 floods due to his legal blindness and Peters plus syndrome. Jack Egan reported losing his Batemans Bay home to bushfires on New Year’s Eve 2019, while Mel Fisher stated an Adelaide heatwave exacerbated a painful auto-inflammatory skin condition.

Latisha Francis, a Ngarrindjeri, Kaurna, and Narungga woman, reported that a spike in sea temperatures caused a toxic algal bloom in South Australia. She stated the event killed wildlife and deterred her family from using a coastline that has been their home for millennia.

Why does this legal complaint matter for business and policy?

The case highlights what Independent MP Zali Steggall calls a “glaring inconsistency” in national policy. Steggall noted that while Australia takes steps to reduce domestic emissions, it continues to expand support for fossil fuel exports.

David Karoly, an emeritus professor at the University of Melbourne and member of the Climate Council, stated that emissions from coal, oil, and gas significantly increase the risk of floods, bushfires, and heatwaves. Karoly argued the federal government must take responsibility for emissions whether they are domestic or generated overseas after export.

Harj Narulla, a barrister with Doughty Street Chambers and Oxford University, said Australia has a “huge amount of liability and exposure” because of the scale of its fossil fuel exports. Narulla described the government’s position as having a “very, very challenging case to answer.”

What happens next in the UN process?

If the UN committee finds in favor of the claimants, it could recommend specific actions for the Australian government to take. Because Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the government would be bound to consider these findings in good faith, though the recommendations would not be legally enforceable.

The government is expected to argue it is already backing renewable energy and cutting domestic emissions to develop clean export industries. It may also argue that cutting off coal and gas exports while global demand remains would unnecessarily damage trade relationships.

This UN claim faces a different legal test than a previous Federal Court case regarding the Torres Strait Islands. In that instance, the court found the government did not have a legal responsibility to protect the islands from climate change, a decision that is currently being appealed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is supporting the legal complaint?
The claimants are organized and backed by the Human Rights Law Centre, Environmental Justice Australia, and the US-based Earthjustice.

What is the primary argument of the claimants?
They argue the Australian government is violating their human rights by supporting coal and gas developments for export, which they link to the climate extremes that harmed them.

Will the UN’s decision be legally binding?
The recommendations would not be enforceable, but as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the government would be bound to consider the findings in good faith.

Do you believe international human rights bodies are the appropriate venue for addressing national export policies?