3 Burst results for "Jacqueline Mcglade"

"jacqueline mcglade" Discussed on Future Tense

Future Tense

06:21 min | 1 year ago

"jacqueline mcglade" Discussed on Future Tense

"Taking on any john multinational conglomerates comes at a cost. And if you're an individual a group of individuals knowing where and how to begin is an issue in itself in australia. One of those providing assistance is a nonprofit non government legal service called the environmental defenders office. It c. show is david morris. The radio is the largest environmental public interest environmental law practice in australia pacific region and we really try and find legal solutions for people communities to protect nitrogen climate and we empower communities. We provide this powerful tool of law and mike By accessible and understandable to people who otherwise possibly have fairly limited engagement with legal system. It's it's in some ways. It's a redistribution of power than that's why so many of our cases many about particularly smaller community growth clients and individual clients Taking the legal fought to very powerful opponents they administer a representative of the government will beta large corporation and how they're very many of these kinds of cases from communities from individuals is lots. I'm in the environmental defenders office has run a huge number of types of community representative paces of litigation in all variety of forums. From tribunals throw to most recently or one of us in the quarterback australia that particular case on behalf of the action call alliance. That's a collective of local people who live in and around the town of excellent which is being affected by. I proposed major expansion of the new acland calm on that being affected by the the existing home on trying to prevent the additional impacts and i went to the hot cold a bunch of local people with limited litigation experience not sophisticated lead against in my eyes they local environmental defend selflessly decide to use litigation tool to protect niger to protect their communities in in my eyes there among the most courageous paper. We have community the privilege of mockery a representative. And i presume money would be a significant barrier. If you're an individual or is he say a small community group trying to match a very large corporation or indeed the government you never going to be able to match the resources. I would say of their pundits. So what is an organization like the environmental defenders office who enables them to have legal expertise and the corresponding scientific expertise that we sometimes need to run these cases really at no cost or low cost to the community. Because i simply couldn't afford to pay the kind of rights that private practice solicitous private barristers and experts would charge. Were they acting for the other side. And one of the. I think important role said our organization plies is enabling those community groups to bring these cases and win them against these very powerful maure better results. Opponents really goes to the integrity of a system. The idea that a small community group can stand up against the of the niger mining company or a government department and then weaning court and it really ensures the integrity of processes to insurance that when ministers making important decisions which might have consequences are many decades in climate change in dade well into the future that i follow proper process how much success and influence ken community groups have in bringing litigation against big companies and governments. What we've seen is a fairly high degree of success in what you might consider the first wave of climate litigation side litigation that involves pretty traditional planning considerations. I think the area where is being less success to dight. But he's a rapidly evolving landscape yassine these cases which looked to hold particular lodge amita profit corporations to account to make them pay for the consequences of the emissions that they companies have generated and benefited from in terms of profits. I think that we're starting to say far more. Success in respective human rights cases some of these areas that were noble a now increasingly mainstream. And so what. I would predict over. The next ten years is that you will start to say an evolution of the jurisprudence in spices and evolution of the judges thinking or the colts findings in respect of some of these cases which tonight have been novel but as we get better at understanding climate attribution sought so the idea that we can sai what influenced climate change have when tiki la event or particular change and we can then site and what was the damage of that particular event or change. We going to say far more success in these cases and what you'll say is a growing body of knowledge a growing body of reasoning that stops to play very real pressure i think on companies and governments who file to act more swiftly than they are already and how important is the argument of connection with country with place for local litigation. Paypal sense of place. This is the idea that landscapes a socially constructed as well they are imbued with meaning through paypal's engagement with their local environment and with call and gas projects we say local communities devastated by the prospect of physical destruction of lobbed environment. The idea that the positive bond with a plice who bay completely decimated by project i think becomes a very real motive of the papal local community. Groups are often motivated by date lava plice and it is odd to not say that price destroyed. Certainly we say it increasingly saw i think in the way with traditional honest with average tar strategy to people in australia and the date connections that those people have to country and the impacts that i say from particular projects but also that i say from the growing impacts of climate touch. There's even a specific legal tradition focusing on this connection to land. It's the oldest. We have cathodic law. Jacqueline mcglade in kenya believes it will be.

environmental defenders office australia action call alliance david morris niger mike john dade colts Paypal la Jacqueline mcglade kenya
"jacqueline mcglade" Discussed on Future Tense

Future Tense

07:54 min | 1 year ago

"jacqueline mcglade" 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.

anthony fennell Professor jacqueline mcglade strathmore university business colombia inter american court of human pakistan university college jacqueline mcglade Jackie peel kenya supreme court australia India London government university of melbourne lewis brazil peru philippines
"jacqueline mcglade" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

09:19 min | 3 years ago

"jacqueline mcglade" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"The BBC NewsHour on WNYC in New York. Stay tuned later this morning at ten. It's the Brian Lehrer show today a look at the twenty twenty presidential race through the policy rich campaign of Senator Elizabeth Warren who has called for universal childcare and the end of the electoral college, plus New Jersey is approaching social Justice issues like record expunge moment as lawmakers get ready to vote on marijuana legislation. That's the Brian Lehrer show that. Begins at ten o'clock right here on WNYC. You're listening to the BBC World Service. This is news hour coming to you live from our studios in central London was James kumarisami time now for our regular look at climate change. And this week we're going to consider the risks and potential rewards of man-made responses to the problem from sending reflective mirrors into space to seeding, the oceans, for example, but at last week's UN environment assembly countries fail to reach a consensus on how to scrutinize these technological solutions to climate change, come under the umbrella term of solar geo engineering in some quarters have been promoted as an alternative to for example, cutting carbon emissions with critics warning that that could actually encourage the use of fossil fuels. Well, join me in the studio is David Keith. Professor of applied physics at Harvard a leading authority on geo engineering will also joined on the line by Jacqueline mcglade as professor of sustainable development at University College London, and a former executive director of the European Environment Agency, welcome both of you to the. The program. Let's let's start if we can with what the UN failed to agree on last week, this idea of scrutinizing geo engineering. Do we need more scrutiny and coordination? David, David, Keith. Absolutely humans. Don't make good decisions when they hide things. And I think whatever you think about this. We'll do a better job. If we talk about it openly, we studied openly, and if we debate openly how on earth we're going to govern government and just what we talking about. I gave a couple of examples, but I'm sure you have a long list of them. But what are the main examples that you would single out that would have the most impact on climate change? So I think we're talking about solar geo engineering, which is the idea that humanity might be able to alter the reflectively earth directly to reduce some of the impacts of accumulated carbon dioxide so that it's possible. But certainly not a known thing that a combination of emissions two zero and solar might have less climate risk than just emissions cuts might. Yeah. What what what's your perspective? Well, I think in a sense I want to combine the conversation around to these areas, which is the carbon aspect, which is I think come remove was still represents a very very good avenue to explore as well as the center radiation management, and I think at the union meeting the United Nations Environment assembly in Nairobi, the challenge was that the actual resolution, which was tabled by Switzerland. In a sense had very I won't say news language, but it was language that wasn't really based on a very hard technical definition. And in a sense that got in the way because many people know that within the UN system and amongst many conventions, in fact, geo engineering has already been discussed. So I think it was more the setting of where should we discussed you engineering rather than saying, oh, we're never going to discuss. This resolution will never come back is already on the table has been discussed. And in fact, there are definitive and de facto moratorium. In place that really say we need to tread, very carefully. Well, what are the what are the risks than? Well, for me, I think the risk area that really jumps up is when you talk about radiation management in a sense. Let me just pick out one of the stratospheric aerosol injection. There is definitely downside from the ecosystems which would be you may potentially create acidification of the sales. If you use sulfate aerosols, and so there are lots of consequential downstream effects, if you intervene in in the system such as such as the atmosphere on the other side, the common nouveau there. We're on in the sense much firmer ground because we do understand the planting of trees weathering of enhanced weathering, I think the challenge though is whether these things will ever work fast enough. David Keith those scientific risks. There's also the political dimension to this isn't there and the question of whether climate change skeptics us might use solar geo engineering as a way to say, well, we don't need to reduce carbon emissions or indeed summa suggesting it could actually lead to more use of fossil fuels because people will say, well, we have human ways of mitigating it talking about climate change skeptic is avoiding the central issue that the issue is that big fossil big oil who have immediate near term self interest in blocking emissions cuts to the disadvantage of humanity as a whole will exploit anything they can to argue for for for not having laws to prevent us. Using the atmosphere is a waste up for carbon, and they will certainly exploit research or development of solar technologies as a way to argue that they don't need emissions cuts. That's false. If you want a stable climate, you must cut emissions to zero in the law. Homerun? But it is an argument people will make in practice almost no one is making that now. And there's a lot of falsehoods going around about the idea that the solar research community, which I'm a part is somehow funded by fossil fuel interest, which is nonsense. So for you. It's a combination you need you'd like the geo engineering to work in tandem with cats to emissions. I wouldn't even say that. I don't think we know for sure that it would make sense to ever do Sergey measuring what I think we know is that from all major climate models that there is evidence that it could substantially reduce risks. And so we should study it a lot more and try and begin deliberations about how we will government is it possible to to explain in layman's terms, briefly, how solar geo engineering works as a concept. Sure. So one method is referred to is to put aerosols like south uric acid into the stratosphere and the evidence from from as I say it really all climate models is that could reduce changes to water availability for reduce extreme store. Terms like tropical cyclones, reduced extreme temperatures and extreme precipitation do that in a pretty uniform way around the world. The big question is are those models in some way, systematically wrong. They're a bunch of risks ozone depletion, the acid rain risk actually turns out to be pretty much a non issue. There's been a bunch of papers on that. But, but we have to ask all these questions and ask them in an open way internationally with a much broader group looking at them before we should believe any of this Jacqueline mcglade. What do you think? What what is? What is the correct forum than all the most effective forum for discussing all these issues? Well, I mean, I I totally agree. I think that the risks need to be tethered out really attached to all the different technologies, but there is genuine risk, which is when you think about sustainable development, and why aren't going to say the answer is within the UN setting within a macho multi-lateral setting, and that is that you inadvertently take a risk that you can disproportionate effect. People who are very poor have limited access to resources and land. And if something were to go wrong, then essentially they would be penalized much more heavily. So I think the governance issue really is the thing that we should keep firmly in our minds because the human race is population is inevitably very creative and can always come up with new technologies and new ideas. But it's how we govern it. So my fundamental belief is that within the UN setting it is absolutely essential. So essentially now, you an environment. Could potentially bring forward what I think would be a balanced assessment looking at both the engineering and looking at the risks. But ultimately, I think it needs to be looked at within the context of sustainable development, which means then goes back to the level of the secretary general and the whole of the United Nations and all of the nation states themselves, David Keith you'd like to come back. We need to look at risks on both sides. There's no question that the rest of solar Jewish, but there are also enormous risks of having CO two in the atmosphere and people often imagine cutting emissions solves the problem. Cutting mission stops us putting CO two in the atmosphere does not stop climate risk. And in fact, the evidence while we should absolutely worry about the disenfranchise the poor getting affected. The overwhelming evidence is that they are more affected by extreme climate risks and the evidence or data's they would benefit more from solar Jewish nearing, and it's really important to be clear eyed about the underlying evidence that these technologies could substantially risk to the most. Vulnerable people and ecosystems on the planet that which is the reason many of us are interesting, David Keith we have to leave it there. Professor of applied physics at Harvard and Jacqueline mcglade, professor of sustainable development at University College London. Thank you both. Joining us here on news hour do stay with us here on the program. Plenty.

David Keith United Nations geo engineering Jacqueline mcglade WNYC Brian Lehrer Professor of applied physics Harvard University College London BBC World Service professor London Senator Elizabeth Warren BBC New Jersey marijuana James kumarisami