Latest News

New Zealand changes law to prevent private climate litigation

New Zealand's Government announced?on?Tuesday that it would amend climate legislation so that courts cannot hold companies responsible for harms caused by greenhouse gases in climate-related cases.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced that the government will amend the Climate Change Response Act of 2002 so it applies to current and future court cases, including a High Court lawsuit brought against six major polluters.

The governments of the world are dealing with an 'upsurge in litigation' aimed at holding corporations liable for damage caused by emissions. Cases in Europe, the United States, and Australia test the limits to corporate responsibility.

Next year, the New Zealand case brought by climate activist Michael 'Smith against six companies, including Fonterra Co-Operative Group and dairy giant Fonterra, will be tried.

The novel case alleges that the emissions of these companies have contributed to climate changes and have harmed Smith’s land, cultural rights and interests.

The government says climate litigation undermines business

Goldsmith, however, said that the litigation undermined business confidence and investments, and that New Zealand’s response to climate changes should be managed by parliament, its Emissions Trading Scheme, and existing climate legislation.

Goldsmith stated that the courts were not the best place to settle claims of climate change harm, and that tort law wasn't suited for the complex issues involved in environmental, economic, and social matters.

The government stated that the change "would not affect" its responsibilities under climate law or the obligations of businesses under the ETS.

ClientEarth, an international campaign group that has sued companies and countries over their contributions to global warming said this move was "deeply worrying" and pointed to a U.N. ruling issued in July on the obligations of countries:

The International Court of Justice affirmed that states have a legal duty to address climate harm. People must be able to test these obligations in court. Restriction of access to courts is bad not only for democracy, but also for justice and rule of law. Reporting by Lucy Craymer, Editing by Lincoln Feast & Kevin Liffey

(source: Reuters)