3 Burst results for "Jackie Peel"
"jackie peel" Discussed on Future Tense
"To meet the most ambitious goals of the paris agreement. Change needs to happen faster but activists say change isn't happening fast enough. At the oil giant one called order in particular that stands out as potentially transitional was brought down in light my in a district court in the netherlands and it involves the giant gas and oil companies. Show on one side. And on the other the group friends of the earth and over seventeen thousand co-plaintiffs what it was about was shells accountability for the emissions that it releases into the atmosphere history the products that it produces and making show that it was making appropriate reductions in is emissions. Iva time so it was really trying to hold shell accountable for its emissions. And make sure that it's implementing really clear emissions reduction targets in its corporate policy and was that significant because it was a company. We've seen international courts tribunals dealing with governments in the past was. This is the first time that accompany has been ordered to comply with these types of emission targets. That's exactly what it was significant. So as he said wave saying these kinds of actions against governments to hold them accountable for their emissions reduction targets. This the first case in the world where you're saying these kind of action being brought against the company and accompanied being held to a can't say actually you're a major contributor to emissions. You need to be reducing those emissions and very clearly setting out in your corporate policy. How that's going to occur. And is it likely to be influential internationally. This particular case the outcome of it. Yes it is going to be influential internationally. Might not be influential in the fence of fame. Argument being taken in other courts around the world but it certainly influential in bordering as pointing in the direction of liability for companies. If they don't take action to reduce their emissions will definitely saying in the financial press a lot of coverage of the decision a lot of interest from companies who are oil and gas producers that er is making reference to this decision and it being a potential turning point in thinking about the responsibilities of companies in the oil and gas dicta producing fossil fuels to take into account climate considerations. So it's often said in relation to litigation that you probably only need one successful. Cased to change the atmosphere in a boardroom puts companies on notice that they could be sued on similar grounds and could be liable for the damages associated with climate homs caused by their missions. So there's a concern about potential financial liability. That might be driving a lot of the attention and the influence of a case. Like this professor. Jackie peel which brings us to the international bar association and a legal tool. They've developed called the climate change models. Statute he's canadian. Environmental law specialist david estrin co-chair of the associations climate change justice and human rights task force the basic purposes of the model statute are to lower the procedural hurdles that are too often in the way of citizens successfully getting through the courthouse door so as to then be able to argue a claim that their governments are failing to act on climate change and climate change affects their rights and arguing that the court has authority and should make an order to government requiring government to take appropriate measures. Professor estrin describes the statute as a menu of options. But you could also think of it as a manual for best practice. So i mean we're asking judge to do something that in these kinds of cases that for many of them would seem very unusual entering uncharted waters. So the other basic purpose of this model statute is it not only provides procedural guidance as to how they could deal with objections like well. The climate change is really matter policy and shouldn't be law but also provides guidance and precedents from other jurisdictions around the world in analogous situations where courts have favorably dealt with that type of objections in a way that allows the court actually deal with the merits and not get hung up on unfamiliar arguments. The government's may make as to why court should not get involved but was called a statute. Because i guess in many ways it was thought of originally as a series of reforms that could be enacted all at once by particular level of government. They wanted to facilitate better access to the court and climate justice but there may be reluctance on governments to go the distance and do it as a whole statute so we thought it would be more realistic to propose these things. not necessarily. it's not necessarily a complete co kindia code but it could be a menu of options and lawyers in a particular jurisdiction or judges in a particular jurisdiction. Could look at these issues and say well you know. This reform in article three makes a lot of sense. Why don't we do that in our jurisdiction and judges could adopt these things as part of the rules of court. To some extent bar associations could promote it if they wanted to allow citizens to have a better chance of getting into the courts and being listened to and the courts understanding what they could do and what they would be doing isn't necessarily radical that it's to some extent already done in some other jurisdictions they could look at the model statute and see how the wording could be changed and what these precedents are and they could choose to recognize. Well maybe an section. We don't have x. problem but we have why problem. Why don't we bring in a change in our rules that allows us and the citizens to better and the courts to better deal with the. Why problem some people listening to that would say that. That's an instance of judicial activism. You'll response to them in the argument that you know it is for government not the courts to set policy for a well. I mean that's a really relevant question. And that is a typical defense that governments before to the court when they're sued in these kinds of cases and i can't do better than to quote come the netherlands supreme court in its twenty nineteen decision in your case because the dutch government made that argument to the court at the lower level at the appeal level and finally in the supreme court in effect. They said a political or policy issue. If that's what you want to call it is not immune from judicial review. So this is the words of the court. The state has asserted that it's not for the courts to undertake the political considerations necessary per decision on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the dutch system of government the decision making on greenhouse gas emissions longs to the government and parliament. They have a large degree of discretion to make the political considerations that are necessary in this regard but this is the point that they emphasized it is up to the courts to decide whether in taking these decisions the government and parliament have remained within the limits of the law by which they are bound this mandate to the courts to offer legal protection even against the government is an essential component of a democratic state under the rule of law. The response is often quite defensive. To a lot of the successful cases that are litigated particularly way against government defendants but equally with their brought against company defendants. So we've often seen quite adverse reaction from politicians to a lot of the climate litigation. An example is the ram. The donnie coleman where there was discussion in the parliament of the litigation that was being by the australian conservation foundation as being vexatious and frivolous law fair more warfare effectively so quite an negative adverse reaction to the litigation partly because it does reflect badly on the progress that politicians on nike. Oh not making in dealing with the challenge of climate change. Is there also some pushback from members of the judiciary.
"jackie peel" Discussed on Future Tense
"Let's play a little sound association. Game anthony fennell here. Welcome to future taints. Okay these these the sound of the environment unless you live in this kind of environment which is probably most of us to be honest and this this is. The very familiar sounded ponticelli particularly in australia. A sound that still haunts many communities and then days not familiar perhaps will this is yet another sound associated with how increasingly fragile environment the sound of litigation and according to our guest today. It's a sound we're going to be hearing morals incoming news. I think the landscape of court cases around climate change is really changing rapidly. I mean you can even see in the last two or three years. We've doubled the number of cases that are being brought forward and it's not just in the developed world it's in many many countries. I mean colombia. India pakistan so the the very nature of what we're seeing is very diverse but it has at its core the idea that climate change is really pushing governments and corporations to implement their climate commitments. Professor jacqueline mcglade from university college. London and the strathmore university business school in kenya. So there's kind of different categories of these cases. Some are putting forward. The idea of human rights others are saying the government promised to do something. And you're not doing it. There are other cases that are talking about keeping fossil fuels in the ground in other words. Don't even allow them to come out. There's a liability issue around corporations so we see a huge variety of cases coming forward and being successful the other aspect. Which i think is fascinating is that it's across generations and this actually brings a really serious issue so often you'll see a lawyer representing a particular group who have that articulation. They can go to court and they know how to say but we've recently seen a lot of young people putting themselves forward as the next generation and it's had mixed results we had some court cases saying actually we can't legislate. We can't come in your favor because we're not convinced that it will actually determine the fate of people in future so there is a question in terms. it's called justiciability of weird word but it really talks about the right to be in the court case represent the rights of many. You mentioned human rights as one of the categories full litigation. What are the arguments there. How do you use a human rights argument when you're looking at issues around climate change. I'm sure by now. Everybody knows that climate is going to impact everyone and to a different degree. It will affect the health of people their access to food and clean water and so it's that combination of saying that climate change will impact our fundamental human rights to life to water to food and so on and that's how it is connected. Which types of courts are being asked to hear this type of litigation. Are we talking about a variety of jurisdictions. Absolutely i think in the us which has been some of the showcase trial so to speak. We've seen a number of cases being put forward. I find the ones very interesting. Though ones for example from colombia where they actually went to the inter american court of human rights and the court concluded in the favor so to speak of the state by saying that the state had an obligation to take care of their peoples and it was a matter of national. Survival is what that court said so that goes for a whole raft of countries. That come under their jurisdiction. Canada has had cases brought by indigenous groups where to keep their constitutional commitment to peace order and good government. They were challenged by indigenous peoples to pass lewis mitigated greenhouse gas emissions and. They said that if that didn't happen there would be tremendous psychological trauma brought because of extreme events and so on so that was important another one included for example from brazil where the government was failing to properly administer the amazon fund the mechanism that was set up to combat deforestation and the supreme court accepted that lawsuit last year and directed the government to actually provide information on why wasn't managing the fund properly so a whole change and a whole different way of thinking from the philippines south africa peru pakistan many many different kinds of cases being heard at supreme court level at local levels and increasingly at regional and even at the global level jacqueline mcglade at the university of melbourne. Environmental law rexburg professor. Jackie peel explains that diversity by drawing a distinction between what she calls first and second generation litigation so this is a way of understanding how climate litigation is developing the time and the first generation of cases where the ones that were largely by stone projects challenging different kinds of fossil fuel projects. Call ones call five path. Stations though usually brought on grounds challenging government decision making on planning and environmental grounds and they often and only had sort of incremental change of it. Melissa project focused the next generation cases that way saying emerging particularly in the last five years cases that seeking more systemic change and they're doing sides through arguments based on rights or uh seeking accountability of governments businesses more broadly full climate So as seeing cases like the recent case before the federal court where children were suing the australian federal environment minister saying that she in her decision about a call mani proposal needed to take account of the interests of feature generations where also saying said of cases that Being brought against business actors saying they have a responsibility to make sure that they're releasing appropriate information to shareholders invest of the bat halley managing climate risk so. Those cases are quite different than not sort of localized to a particular project. They more about how these myths and policy making is meeting the goals of ensuring sufficient action on climate change. And what can you tell us about the types of people or organizations that are bringing this next generation litigation to the cords. How do they differ from the previous groups. There are some of the same actors involved in both generations if you lot of litigation so environmental groups and advocates of bain at the forefront of both waves of litigation. But we're beginning to say more people entering the spice who come from a ride. Spec ran for human rights background or from a corporate and business accountability background. Also saying you tops of litigants imaging particularly those who might be participating in a class action where they seeking neither decorations that somebody is causing them harm or actually potentially in the future financial damages the loss they suffered as result of climate related events. Shell says it supports the paris agreement on plans to reach net zero carbon emissions by twenty fifty.
"jackie peel" Discussed on Cattle Current Market Update with Wes Ishmael
"Higher. Monday regaining some the previous session steep sell off as reports indicated the US military action. Iran was unlikely to hamper oil production or trade flows. The Dow Out Jones Industrial Average closed sixty points higher the S. and P.. Five hundred closed eleven points higher and the Nasdaq was up. Fifty points in the beef supply situation is expected to be more supportive in the coming year with cyclical hurt expansion over and beef production in peaking says deal peel extension livestock marketing specialist at Oklahoma State University in his weekly market comments. He explains cavill. Numbers are expected to be down slightly year over year. When the January first cattle numbers come out and beef production is expected to peak fractionally higher in twenty twenty with heavier carcass weights offsetting a slight decline cow slaughter over all peel. Explains the anticipated increase in. US beef exports and the reduction in us. Beef imports should offset a significant portion of increased domestic production. The international market situation somewhat. What clearer now after. Trade disruptions and uncertainty strangled many agricultural markets for much of the past. Two years. Peel says he explains the the likely completion of the revised. NAFTA agreement in the coming weeks removes a significant source of uncertainty for agricultural markets a new bilateral trade trade agreement with Japan or restore more competitive position for beef and should stop the erosion of US market share and although details are currently lacking. Jackie Peel says the anticipated phase. Won- trade agreement with China is expected to significantly improve the trade situation for numerous agricultural markets and may allow beef to begin building a meaningful market position in that rapidly growing beef market as for challenges that could add market uncertainty in ball tilde peel sites ongoing geopolitical tensions. African swine fever energy.