Climate change in the courts: An assessment of non-U.S. climate litigation

Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 131-179

  Wilensky, Meredith ^a  

^a The Earth Institute at Columbia University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT; CLIMATE CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE; ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; LEGAL SYSTEM; MITIGATION; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK;

AUSTRALIA; NEW ZEALAND; SPAIN; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84959365039     PISSN: 10643958     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (150)

1. See generally Michael Nachmany et al., GLOBE Int'l The Globe Climate Legislations Study (4th ed. 2014), http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Globe2014.pdf [hereinafter Globe Climate Legislations].
2. See generally David Markell & J.B. Ruhl, An Empirical Assessment of Climate Change In The Courts: A New Jurisprudence Or Business As Usual?, 64 FLA. L. REV. 15 (2012).
3. [W]e did not include any matter that had not actually been filed as active administrative or judicial litigation in a tribunal, thus excluding non-adjudicatory events, such as the filing of a petition for rulemaking, or pre-litigation events, such as issuance of a notice of intent to file suit.
4. Given time and resource constraints, we focused on reviewing complaints where we could obtain them, and on intermediate and final judicial decisions, to detect whether our criteria were met.
5. See SABIN CENTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE LAW, Non U.S. Climate Litigation Chart, 2-18 (2015), http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/climate-change/non-u.s._litigation_chart_7.23.15.pdf.
6. Markell & Ruhl, supra note 6, at 28.
7. See, e.g., Coral Davenport, E.P.A. Says Pipeline Could Spur Emissions, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 3, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/04/us/politics/epa-review-of-keystone-pipeline-notes-potential-rise-in-greenhouse-gases.html (discussing the potential effects of "planet-warming greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions").
8. See, e.g., NAT'L OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMIN., Planning for Sea Level Rise in the Northeast: Considerations for the Implementation of Tidal Wetland Habitat Restoration Projects 9 (2011) (outlining the "[c]hallenges associated with tidal wetland restoration projects in the face of sea level rise").
9. See, e.g., GLOBAL ENERGY FACILITY, Example GEF Renewable Energy Projects, https://www.thegef.org/gef/node/10555 (last visited Oct. 28, 2015) (providing examples of energy projects aiming to increase use of renewable energy resources).
10. The data referenced in this table is available at Meredith Wilensky, Non-U.S. Litigation Comparative Research Spreadsheet (Sep. 30, 2015) (unpublished database) (on file with author).
11. Wilensky, supra note 18.
12. Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company [2005] AHRLR 151 (Nigeria).
13. See Daniel Magnowski, Nigeria Employs Satellite to Chase $1 Billion Gas Flaring Fines, Bloomberg News (Nov. 27, 2014), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-27/nigeria-employs-satellite-to-chase-1-billion-gas-flaring-fines (describing new satellite system in Nigeria intended to detect illegal gas flaring).
14. Urgenda Found. v. The Netherlands (2015), available at http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7196.
15. Ashgar Leghari v. Fed'n of Pakistan, (2015) ELAW Digest, http://edigest.elaw.org/pk_Leghari (last visited Oct. 28, 2015).
16. De Rechtszaak, Klimaatzaak (Dec. 1, 2014), http://klimaatzaak.eu/nl/rechtzaak/.
17. See Friends of the Earth v. Canada, [2008] F.C. 1183 (Can., Fed. Ct.); Violation of the Legislation on the Right to Information and Public Participation in Climate Change Issues by the Ministry of Environmental Protection in Ukraine, Env't People Law, http://epl.org.ua/en/law-en/cases/climate-change/708-violation-of-the-legislation-on-the-right-to-information-and-public-participation-in-climate-change-issues-by-the-ministry-of-environmental-protection-in-ukraine (last visited Oct. 28, 2015) [hereinafter Violation of the Legislation].
18. Friends of the Earth v. Canada, [2008] F.C. 1183 (Can., Fed. Ct.); Violation of the Legislation, supra note 26.
19. Violation of the Legislation, supra note 26.
20. See Société Arcelor v. Premier Minister, 2008 E.C.R. I-09895 (dismissing challenge of central provisions of Directive 2003/87/EC, as applied to steel makers, under the principle of equality); Arcelor SA v. Parliament, 2010 E.C.R. II-00211 (dismissing a challenge of Directive 2003/87/EC on the basis that it violated several principles of common law); Poland v. Comm'n, 2009 E.C.R. II-03395 (dismissing challenge of Directive 2003/87/EC as it pertained to Poland); Air Transp. Ass'n of America v. Sec'y of State for Energy & Climate Change, 2011 E.C.R. I-13755 (challenging U.S. airlines' inclusion in EU's Emission Trading Scheme). The tactical nature of non-U.S. litigation contrasts with the U.S. where there has been significant litigation intended to shape climate change regulation by both pro- and anti-climate-change litigants. The most notable suit is Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that GHGs fell within the definition of "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act. Massachusetts v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 549 US 497, 532 (2007). Subsequent rulemakings by the EPA under the Clean Air Act have resulted in numerous challenges, mostly by industry groups and states, but also by environmental groups seeking stricter regulations. See, e.g., Coal. for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 684 F.3d 102, 115 (D.C. Cir. 2012) affd in part, rev'd in part sub nom, Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) (denying the petitions that asked EPA to reconsider its 2009 endangerment finding); Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. E.P.A., 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014).
21. Wilensky, supra note 18.
22. infra Figure 2.
23. Wilensky, supra note 18.
24. Letter from Andrew Yatilman on behalf of The Federated States of Micr. to the Ministry of the Env't of the Czech (Dec. 3, 2009).
25. Climate EIA Precedent, Frank Bold (Mar. 29, 2012), http://en.frankbold.org/our-work/campaign/climate-eia-precedent. For further discussion
26. see Maketo Robert et al., Transboundary Climate Change to Coal: One Small Step against Dirty Energy, One Giant Leap for Climate Justice, in Threatened Island Nations: Legal Implications of Rising Seas and a Changing Climate 589, 604-11 (Eds. Michael Gerrard & Greg Wannier, 2013) (discussing the FSM's legal basis for requesting an EIA and the development of the case) [hereinafter Climate EIA Precedent].
27. Climate EIA Precedent, supra note 40.
28. Wilensky, supra note 18.
29. Comm'n v. Finland, [2006] E.C.R. I-00010; Comm'n v. Italy, [2006] E.C.R. I-00065; Non-Compliance Procedure of Greece under The Kyoto Protocol, CC-2007-1/Greece/EB[2008].
30. Clean Energy Regulator v. MT Solar Pty, [2013] FCA 205 (Austl.) (imposing penalties for providing false information regarding the installation of solar panels and Renewable Energy Certificates); Billerud Karlsborg AB v. Naturvardsverket, C-203/12 (denying challenge to penalties imposed for failure to surrender emissions allowances under the EU ETS).
31. Regina v. Dosanjh, [2013] EWCA 2366 (Eng.).
32. Markell & Ruhl, supra note 6, at 41.
33. Bard Campaign v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWHC 308 (Eng.) (challenging the designation of "Ecotowns," exemplar green developments to serve as models of best practices in urban sustainability and climate change resilience).
34. Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, 585 F.3d 855, 859-60 (5th Cir. 2009); California v. Gen. Motors Corp., No. C06-05755 MJJ, 2007 WL 2726871, (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2007); Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 663 F. Supp. 2d 863, 868 (N.D. Cal. 2009); Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co., 582 F.3d 309, 314-15 (2d Cir. 2009).
35. Wilensky, supra note 18.
36. The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm (last visited Nov. 1, 2015) [hereinafter European Commission].
37. Wilensky, supra note 18.
38. European Commission, supra note 63.
39. U.S. numbers are based on Markell & Ruhl, supra note 6, at 72, fig. 4.
40. Wilensky, supra note 18.
41. See Nachmany, supra note 1.
42. See Virginia Tice, From Vermont's Maples to Wybong's Olives: Cross-Cultural Lessons from Climate Change Litigation in the United States and Australia, 10 Asian-Pac. L. & Pol'y J. 292, 316 (2008) (noting a larger increase in litigation in the United States than Australia).
43. Herbert M. Kritzer, Lawyer Fees and Lawyer Behavior in Litigation: What Does the Empirical Literature Really Say?, 80 Tex. L. Rev. 1943, 1946 (2002).
44. See, e.g., Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(d) (2012).
45. Wilensky, supra note 18.
46. Kritzer, supra note 81.
47. In Terminals Pty Ltd. v. Greater Geelong City Council, [2005] VCAT 1988 (Austl.), local residents challenged the permitting of a chemical storage facility. All other cases within the category were challenges to proposed coal mines or coal-fired power plants.
48. See, e.g., Re Austl Conservation Found [2004] VCAT 2029 (Austl.) (holding that the assessment panel must consider the impacts of GHG emissions on the environment).
49. E.g., Greenpeace v. Redbank Power, [1994] 86 LGERA 143, 153-55 (Austl.) (finding that the project should be approved despite climate change impacts).
50. See Gray and Anor v. Macquarie Generation, [2010] NSWLEC 34 (Austl.).
51. Macquarie Generation v. Hodgson, [2011] NSWCA 424 at para. 18 (Austl.).
52. Hunter Env't Lobby Inc v. Minister for Planning, [2011] NSWLEC 221 (Austl.).
53. these conditions were developed in prior discussions between the mining company and the Department of Planning
54. See Hunter Env't Lobby Inc v. Minister for Planning (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 40 (Austl.)
55. Gray v Minister for Planning [2006] 152 LGERA 258 (Austl.).
56. See generally Gray, supra note 101.
57. Xstrata Coal Queensland v. Friends of the Earth [2012] QLC 013, 146-48 (Austl.).
58. See generally Lee Godden & Jacqueline Peel, The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (CTH): Dark Sides of Virtue, 31 MeLB. U. L. REV. 106 (2007).
59. See generally Wildlife Preservation Soc'y of Queensland Proserpine v. Minister for the Env't & Heritage [2006] FCA 736 (Austl.); Ironstone Cmty Action Group v. NSW Minister for Planning [2011] NSWLEC 195 (Austl.).
60. Bulga Milbrodale Progress Ass'n v. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure [2013] NSWLEC 48, 31-32 (Austl.).
61. Jacqueline Peel, Climate Change Law: The Emergence of a New Legal Discipline, 32 MELB. U. L. REV. 922, 952 (2008).
62. Charles & Howard Pty Ltd. v. Redland Shire Council [2007] 159 LGERA 349, 358-59 (Austl.).
63. Northcape Prop v. Dist. Council of Yorke Peninsula [2008] SASC 57 (Austl.).
64. For construction on coastal properties, the State Planning Policy Framework requires planning for an increase of 0.2 meters over current 1 in 100 year flood levels by 2040. Department of Planning and Community Development of Victoria, General Practice Note Managing Coastal Hazards and the Coastal Impacts of Climate Change, Practice Note 53 (July 2012).
65. See generally West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority v. East Gippsland SC [2010] VCAT 1334 (Austl.); Myers v. South Gippsland SC [2009] VCAT 2414 (Austl.).
66. Wade v. Warrnambool [2009] VCAT 2177, para. 15 (Austl.) (citing Owen v Casey CC [2009] VCAT 1946;Myers v. South Gippsland SC [2009] VCAT 1022; Ronchi & Anor v. Wellington SC [2009] VCAT 1206 as case law supporting CHVA prior to planning permit approval). The only B9 Victoria case regarding coastal vulnerability where the Victoria court did not require a CHVA was one in which the proposal did not present any unreasonable coastal vulnerability issues. Campbell v. Mornington Peninsula SC [2010] VCAT 1457 (Austl.).
67. West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority [2010] VCAT 1334, 1334 [Austl.]; Myers [2009] VCAT 2414, 2414 (Austl.).
68. Minister for Planning v. Walker [2008] 161 LGERA 423, rev'd [2008] NSWCA 224 (Austl.).
69. Minister for Planning, supra note 116.
70. See Brian J. Preston, The Influence of Climate Change Litigation on Governments and the Private Sector, 4 CLIMATE L. 485, 498-99 (2011).
71. See Non U.S. Climate Litigation Chart, SABIN CENTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE LAW, 44-45, available at http://web.law.columbia.edu/climate-change/non-us-climate-change-litigation-chart.
72. Australian Competition & Consumer Comm'n v. GM Holden [2008] FCA 1428, 1-2 (Austl.).
73. See, e.g., (General Motors agreed to plant 12,500 native trees to offset all the carbon emissions from by Saab vehicles sold during the marketing campaign).
74. See generally Spencer v. Commonwealth [2008] FCA 1256 (Austl.); Phosphate Res. v. Commonwealth [2004] FCA 211 (Austl.).
75. Repeal of the Carbon Tax—How the Carbon Tax Works, AUSTRALIA GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, at 1, available at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/59388d77-a9b5-4e4c-87b7-d732baf7c45b/files/factsheet-how-carbon-tax-works_1.pdf.
76. Australia Votes to Repeal Carbon Tax, BBC NEWS (July 17, 2014), http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28339663.
77. See Non U.S. Climate Litigation Chart, supra note 121, at 21-24.
78. See, e.g., Outstanding Landscape Prot. Soc'y v. Hastings DC, [2007] NSWEC 87 (N.Z.).
79. Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Act 2004 § 5 (N.Z.).
80. See Genesis Power Ltd. & the Energy Efficiency Conservation Auth. v. Franklin Dist. Council [2005] NRRMA 541 (N.Z.) (finding that national benefits of a wind farm proposal outweighed negative effects in the surrounding area and granting approval); Meridian Energy Ltd. v. Wellington City Council [2007] W031/07 NZEnvC 128 (N.Z.) (finding relevant the fact that energy production from a wind farm produced no greenhouse gases).
81. Genesis Power, supra note 135
82. Meridian Energy, supra note 135.
83. See, e.g., Unison Networks Ltd. v. Hastings Dist. Council [2007] NZHC 1435 (N.Z.) (denying a wind farm permit because of significant adverse effects on an outstanding natural landscape).
84. Greenpeace New Zealand v. Northland Reg'l Council, [2007] NZRMA 87, 87-88 (N.Z.).
85. West Coast v. Buller Coal [2013] NZSC 87 (N.Z.).
86. Ioane Teitiota v. Ministry of Bus., Innovation & Emp't [2014] NZCA 173 (N.Z.).
87. See, e.g., Judgment No. 5347/2008 of Oct. 6, 2008, Supreme Court of Spain, Administrative Litigation Division (Section 5) Appeal No. 100/2005.
88. Non U.S. Climate Litigation Chart, supra note 121, at 154-58, 160, 166.
89. Armstrong v. Winnington, [2012] EWHC 10 (Ch), [52] (Eng.) (finding that European Union Allowances (EUAs) are intangible property under English law); Deutsche Bank v. Total Global Steel, [2012] EWHC 1201 (Comm), [1] (Eng.) (breach of contract case for the sale of previously surrendered Certified Emissions Reductions).
90. Heathrow Airport v. Joss Garman, [2007] EWHC 1957 (QB), [116] (Eng.) (granting injunctive relief to control a probable protest in the vicinity of a UK airport); The Kingsnorth Six Trial, Maidstone Crown Court [2008] (Eng.); Regina v. Dosanjh, [2013] EWCA 2366 (Crim), [1] (Eng) (finding defendants guilty of committing VAT fraud related to publicly traded carbon credits).
91. See supra Figure 9.
92. Wilensky, supra note 18.
93. Compare supra Figure 6, with supra Figure 10.
94. See Barbone & Ross v. Sec'y of State for Transp., [2009] EWHC 463 (Admin), [94] (Eng.) (dismissing a citizen challenge to proposed airport expansion finding the government's consideration of the proposal's impact on climate change to be sufficient); R (on the application of thee London Borough of Hillingdon & Others) v. Sec'y of State for Transp., [2010] EWHC 626 (Admin), [96]-[97] (holding that the government had failed to adequately consider implications of climate change in deciding to expand Heathrow Airport); Hertfordshire CC v. Sec'y of State for Cmtys. & Local Gov't, [2011] EWHC 1572 (Admin), [104]-[108] (Eng.) (upholding challenge planning permissions for urban expansion project).
95. In re Application of Littlewood, [2008] EWHC 1812 (Admin), [67] (Eng.)(upholding the planning permission, finding that the omission of the effect of concrete production on climate change had not been raised in time, and in any case, did not render the Environmental Statement deficient).
96. Wilensky, supra note 18.
97. Veolia v. Shropshire Council, [2012] P.A.D. [16] (Eng.).
98. See, e.g.. Allerdale Borough Council v. Cumbria Wind Farms, [2000] 15 P.A.D. 833 (Eng.); Bradford v. West Devon Borough Council [2007] P.A.D. 45 (Eng.).
99. Wilensky, supra note 18.
100. In Re an Application by Brian Quinn and Michael Quinn, [2013] NIQB 24 (N. Ir.).
101. Jarrett v. Sec'y of State for Cmtys. & Local Gov't, [2012] EWHC 3642 (Admin), (Eng.).
102. Grainger v. Nicholson, [2010] I.R.L.R. 4 (EAT), (Eng.).
103. Wilensky, supra note 18.
104. The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), EUROPEAN COMMISSION, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm (last visited Sept. 27, 2015).
105. Wilensky, supra note 18.
106. Case C-127/07, Société Arcelor v. Premier Minister, 2008 E.C.R. I-09895 (dismissing challenge of Directive 2003/87/EC under the principle of equality); Case T-16/04, Arcelor S.A. v. Parliament, 2010 E.C.R. II-00211, (dismissing a challenge of Directive 2003/87/EC on the basis that it violated several principles of common law); Case T-183/07, Poland v. Comm'n, 2009 E.C.R. II-03395 (dismissing challenge of Directive 2003/87/EC).
107. Case C-366/10, Air Transp. Ass'n of America v. Sec'y of State for Energy & Climate Change, 2011 E.C.R. I-13755 (challenging U.S. airlines' inclusion in EU's Emission Trading Scheme).
108. Reducing emissions from aviation, EUROPEAN COMMISSION, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation/index_en.htm (last visited Sept. 27, 2015).
109. National Allocation Plans, EUROPEAN COMMISSION, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/pre2013/nap/index_en.htm (last visited Sept. 27, 2015).
110. E.g. Case T-387/04, ENBW Energie, Buzzi Unicem SpA v. Comm'n of the European Cmtys., 2007 E.C.R. II-01195 at para. 127-128; Case T-130/06, Drax Power v. Comm'n, 2007 E.C.R. II-00067.
111. Case C-267/11, Comm'n v. Latvia, 2013 ECLI:EU:C:2013:624; Case T-374/04, Germany v. Comm'n, 2007 E.C.R. II-04431; Case T-178/05, Re Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance, 2005 E.C.R. II-04807; Case T-263/07, Estonia v. Comm'n 2009 E.C.R. II-03463; Case T-183/07, Poland v. Comm'n, 2009 E.C.R. II-03395.
112. Wilensky, supra note 18.
113. See Case C-204/09, Flachglas Torgau GmbH v. Fed. Republic of Germany, 2012 ECLI:EU:C:2012:71.
114. Case C-524/09, Ville de Lyon v. Caisse des Dépôts & Consignations, 2010 E.C.R. I-14115.
115. Case C-204/09, Flachglas Torgau GmbH v. Fed'l Republic of Germany, 2012 ECLI:EU:C:2012:71.
116. Case C-107/05, Comm'n v. Finald, 2006 E.C.R. I-00010; Case C-122/05, Comm'n v. Italy, 2006 E.C.R. I-00065; Case C-203/12, Billerud Karlsborg AB v. Naturvardsverket, 2013 ECLI:EU:C:2013:664.
117. Finald, 2006 E.C.R. I-00010; Italy, 2006 E.C.R.I-00065.
118. Billerud, 2013 ECLI:EU:C:2013:664.
119. See, e.g., Case C-545/11, Agrargenossenschaft Neuelle v. Landrat des Landkreises Oder-Spree, 2013 ECLI:EU:C:2013:169; Case C-343/09, Afton Chem. Ltd. v. Sec'y of State for Transp., 2010 E.C.R. I-07027.
120. Agrargenossenschaft, 2013 ECLI:EU:C:2013:169.
121. Afton Chem., 2010 E.C.R. I-07027.
122. Case C-2/10, Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini sarl v. Regione Puglia, 2011 E.C.R. I-06561.
123. Wilensky, supra note 18.
124. Markell & Ruhl, supra note 6, at 74.
125. See Arnold & Porter, Climate Change Litigation in the U.S., “Statutory Claims: Industry Law Suits: Challenges to Federal Action” 15, available at http://www.arnoldporter.com/resources/documents/ClimateChangeLitigationChart.pdf.
126. Wilensky, supra note 18.
127. Markell & Ruhl, supra note 6 at 75.
128. Wilensky, supra note 18.
129. See, e.g., Case T-208/07, BOT Elektrownia Belchatów v. Comm'n, [2008] E.C.R. II-00225 (seeking annulment of Commission decision rejecting part of the Polish Phase II NAP).
130. See, e.g., Hertfordshire Cnty. Council v. Sec'y of State for Comtys & Local Gov't, [2011] EWHC 1572 (Eng.) (quashing planning permission for urban expansion project due to failure to consider climate change planning policy).
131. The remaining cases were excluded from categorization because they did not fall into either category.
132. Wilensky, supra note 18.
133. See Markell & Ruhl, supra note 6, at 67.
134. Wilensky, supra note 18.
135. Dir. of Pub. Prosecutions v. Fraser, [2008] CLR 244 (Austl.); Heathrow Airport v. Garman, [2007] Q.B. 1957 (Eng.); The Kingsnorth Six Trial, Maidstone Crown Court [2008] (Eng.).
136. Regina v. Dosanjh, [2013] W.L.R. 2366 (Eng).
137. Wilensky, supra note 18.
138. This figure includes only settlements that were approved by a court and thus resulted in a judgment by the court. Wilensky, supra note 18.
139. Markell & Ruhl, supra note 6, at 30. This percentage has likely decreased in recent years as challenges to agency regulations have increased.
140. Nachmany et al., supra note 1, at 26.
141. Lucas Merrill Brown, Alex Hanafi, & Annie Petsonk, The EU Emissions Trading System 5 (2012).
142. Cf. Peel, supra note 108.
143. See, e.g., Environment Defence Society, [2002] NZEnvC 492 at [63] (N.Z.) (accepting the scientific consensus on climate change); see Greenpeace Australia Ltd. v. Redbank Power Co. PTY Ltd., [1994] NSWLR 178 (Austl.) (applying the precautionary principle with respect to future climate change impacts on proposed development).
144. In Nucifora v. Valuer-General, the Queensland Land Court noted that climate change "is still a subject of considerable public debate." See Nucifora v. Valuer-General, [2013] CLR 19 (Austl.) (holding that applicant had failed to demonstrate devaluation of property due to climate change impacts).
145. See, e.g., Australia Conservation Found. v. Minister for Planning, [2004] CLR 100 (Austl.) (holding that the assessment panel must consider the impacts of GHG emissions on the environment).
146. See, e.g., Haughton v. Minister for Planning & Macquarie Generation [2011] CLR 217 (NSWLEC) (Austl.) (upholding the approval of two coal fired power plants emphasizing the Minister's discretion in weighing competing interests to determine what was in the public interest); Barbone & Ross v. Sec'y of State for Transp. [2009] QB 463 (Eng.) (upholding airport expansion where climate change impacts were giving consideration).
147. See, e.g., Goldfinch v. Nat'l Assembly for Whales [2002] QB1275 (Eng.) (holding that the inspector had given too little weight to flood risks due to climate change).
148. See, e.g., Jarrett v. Sec'y of State for Communities & Local Gov't [2012] QB 3642 (Eng.) (holding that harm to character and quality of the landscape outweighed benefits of renewable energy and mitigation of climate change). Markell & Ruhl, supra note 6, at 77.
149. See, e.g., Environment Defence Society [2002] NZEnvC492 at [92] (N.Z.) (declining to require a gas fired power station to offset emissions, pointing to the administrative difficulties of monitoring and enforcing such a condition).
150. Hunter Env't Lobby, Inc. v. Minister for Planning [2011] NSWLEC 221 (Austl.).