Endnotes

  1. [2019] NSWLEC 7.
  2. Gray v Minister for Planning (2006) 152 LGERA 258.
  3. Australian Conservation Foundation v Latrobe City Council (2004) 140 LGERA 100.
  4. Wildlife of the Central Highlands Inc v VicForests [2020] VSC 10.
  5. Wildlife of the Central Highlands Inc v VicForests [2020] VSC 10, [22].
  6. Juliana v United States No. 18-36082 D.C. No. 6:15-cv-01517- AA.
  7. On 2 March 2020 the plaintiffs filed a petition for a rehearing of the Ninth Circuit's determination on standing: http://climatecasechart.com/case/juliana-v-united-states/.
  8. [2015] HAZA C/09/00456689.
  9. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-13/climate-change-legal-action-solve-global-warming/11943146.
  10. See eg Kierra Parker, 'Litigating at the Source: Attributing Climate Change Impacts to Coal Mines' (2020) 37 EPLJ 67; Jacqueline Peel, Hari Osofsky and Anita Foerster, ‘Shaping the “Next Generation” of Climate Change Litigation in Australia’ (2017) 41(2) Melbourne University Law Review 793, 803.
  11. Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Incorporated v Environment Protection Authority (New South Wales Land and Environment Court).
  12. 549 US 497 (2007).
  13. Friends of Leadbeater's Possum Inc v VicForests (No 4) [2020] FCA 704.
  14. ASIC, Climate risk disclosure by Australia’s listed companies (Report 593, September 2018) <https://download.asic.gov.au/media/4871341/rep593-published-20-september-2018.pdf>.
  15. Regulatory Guide 228 Prospectuses: Effective disclosure for retail investors and Regulatory Guide 247 Effective disclosure in an operating and financial review, both available on ASIC's website.
  16. See ASIC, '19-208MR ASIC updates guidance on climate change related disclosure' (Media Release, 12 August 2019) <https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2019-releases/19-208mr-asic-updates-guidance-on-climate-change-related-disclosure/> ('ASIC 19-208MR').
  17. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-10/asic-launches-climate-surveillance-of-big-companies/11786070.
  18. https://www.apra.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-02/Understanding%20and%20managing%20the%20financial%20risks%20of%20climate%20change.pdf.
  19. http://climatecasechart.com/case/in-re-peabody-energy-corp/.
  20. John Schwartz, 'New York Loses Climate Change Fraud Case Against Exxon Mobil', The New York Times (online, 10 December 2019) <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/climate/exxon-climate-lawsuit-new-york.html>.
  21. https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/VID879/2017/actions.
  22. https://rest.com.au/why-rest/about-rest/news/rest-reaches-settlement-with-mark-mcveigh.
  23. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/20/dutch-supreme-court-upholds-landmark-ruling-demanding-climate-action.
  24. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-13/climate-change-legal-action-solve-global-warming/11943146.
  25. http://www.foeeurope.org/shell-court-case-refuses-stop-destroying-climate-131119.
  26. See Pieter Gillaerts, 'Multinational Royal Dutch Shell summoned for insufficient efforts in combatting climate change' (11 July 2019) at https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/multinational-royal-dutch-shell-summoned-for-insufficient-efforts-in-combatting-climate-change/.
  27. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
  28. Youth for Climate Justice v Austria, et al.
  29. http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/youth-for-climate-justice-v-austria-et-al/.
  30. Sharma v Minister for the Environment.
  31. County of San Mateo v Chevron Corp., No. 18-15499 (9th Cir. May 26, 2020).
  32. City of Oakland v BP p.l.c., No. 18-16663 (9th Cir. May 26, 2020). See also County of San Mateo v Chevron Corp., No. 18-15499 (9th Cir. May 26, 2020).
  33. http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2019/20190102_docket-318-cv-07477_stipulation.pdf. The PCFAA is alleging that it has suffered losses arising from the defendants' contributions to climate change and, in particular, the impact that rising ocean temperatures have had on commercial crab fisheries.
  34. Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd [2020] NZHC 419.
  35. https://germanwatch.org/en/huaraz.
  36. 'Climate change damage' is defined broadly to mean 'any damage arising in Australia from climate change'.