Australia is coming under more and more pressure for being the world’s largest fossil fuel exporter. This follows a recent ICJ advisory opinion on the climate change responsibilities of states. Globally, the nation’s emissions now represent approximately 1.1 percent of emissions from domestic sources. When we include fossil fuel exports, its influence on global emissions increases substantially. The court’s extensive findings of fact strongly support the need for Australia to regulate fossil fuel corporations. In the case that it fails to meet its commitments, Australia may face legal responsibility for reparations.
The ICJ’s opinion has triggered alarm bells in a country known for its energy exports. This is particularly the case for its coal and gas industries. Australia is the world’s largest exporter of coal and among the top exporters of gas. A new study from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Australia paints an even more alarming picture. If we include fossil fuel exports, Australia’s share of global emissions increases to over 4.5 percent. This difference illustrates the chasm between Australia’s domestic climate commitments and its international trade of fossil fuels.
Independent experts say the consequences for global climate change from Australia’s fossil fuel industry are incalculable. At the same time, the federal government loves to tout that it has cut greenhouse gasses domestically. It’s still raking in the profits by mining and drilling the coal, oil, and gas it sells to other countries, with zero accountability for the pollution those exports create.
ICJ Opinion on Climate Responsibility
The ICJ’s opinion underlines the obligation of all states to take responsibility over their own fossil fuel industries. Failure by Australia to take such measures may leave it vulnerable to legal liabilities, possibly including liability for penalties for climate damage. The court has underscored that a state’s lack of regulatory action could breach its duty to exercise due diligence in addressing climate change.
“The ICJ observed that a state’s failure to regulate the activities of private actors may amount to a breach of that state’s duty to exercise regulatory due diligence,” – Dr. Vines
Legal experts read this as a ringing endorsement, forcing Australia to shift its trajectory on fossil fuel projects. The country has just allowed the life of its biggest oil and gas development, the North West Shelf in Western Australia, to be extended. This ruling raises some serious sustainability concerns and is at odds with the U.S.’s obligations under international law.
Retta Berryman, a prominent climate scientist, stated, “The judges of the ICJ, after hearing all of that evidence and reading all of the submissions, have confirmed that it is scientifically possible to determine a country’s contribution to climate change.”
This feeling is indicative of increasing frustration that Australia’s conduct is inconsistent with its climate commitments under international law.
The Financial Implications Ahead
A climate disaster, Australia’s fossil fuel industry is booming. Look, Australian taxpayers are already left holding the extremely expensive bag for environmental rehabilitation once these multinational companies run out of resources. The cleanup costs are part of the reason why the industry needs aggressive regulatory changes.
Liz Hicks, environmental policy expert for the Center for American Progress, warns that if Australia continues on its current path, it could face significant, sweeping financial impacts. “Under international law, it’s huge for Australia. It’s going to open us up to a lot more liability,” she stated, highlighting the potential for claims against the government related to climate damage.
Hicks grimly cautions that reparations have never been taken seriously by Australian authorities up to this point. As real reparations grow ever nearer to reality, this concern requires immediate attention. “There could be claims for reparations brought against Australia,” she added.
The Australian government now finds itself at such a crossroads. It can’t navigate this new reality while pandering to the chorus of its internationally profitable fossil fuel industry.
A Call for Ambitious Climate Targets
In light of the ICJ’s findings, experts advocate for Australia to set more ambitious climate targets as part of its commitment to combating climate change. The Federal Court has ruled that Australia’s 2035 emissions targets should embody Australia’s “highest possible ambition.”
“I think starting with setting a really ambitious target and then working towards a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels is really the only way to achieve compliance with the standards that the ICJ has set for the countries,” – Retta Berryman
Advocates state that not only will taking proactive steps ameliorate Australia’s potential liabilities, but it will strengthen Australia’s credibility as an actor on the global stage. Dr. Hicks emphasizes that the court’s opinion serves as a wake-up call for Australia: “I think it puts the Australian government on notice that the actions that it’s taking — particularly connected with exports and downstream emissions — are opening it and future Australian publics and taxpayers up to liability.”
Overall, the ICJ’s opinion marks a pivotal moment in Australia’s climate narrative. Calls are increasing to reconsider justified fossil fuel projects and the regulatory environment for them. The country is now under extra scrutiny to weigh its new economic favors against its legacy environmental obligations.
