Climate change in court today

Climate change features in a court case starting in Wellington today. Hamilton law student Sarah Thomson is taking a judicial review against the Minister of Climate Change issues, saying they have failed in their ministerial duties by not setting adequate emission targets.

The case was announced in 2015 when Tim Groser was minister. Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett has now taken over the portfolio.

Thomson at The Spinoff:  Why I’m taking the NZ government to court

I realised that politicians can’t always be trusted to act in the best interests of the people or the planet, and felt compelled by an irresistible force to do somethingwrites Sarah Thomson, ahead of a date at the High Court in Wellington this month.

She has raised $10k at Givealittle: Stand with Sarah for the Climate

Sarah Thomson is courageously taking the government to court to review their inadequate climate change target. Please help with her costs.

Newshub in 2015:  Govt sued by law student over climate change

Sarah Thomson, 24, has filed judicial review proceedings against the Minister of Climate Change Issues, claiming Tim Groser has failed his ministerial duties by not setting adequate emission targets.

“All the world’s scientists agree that climate change is real, that humans are causing it, and that urgent action is needed, but I can’t see our government taking it seriously,” Ms Thomson said.

“The science shows that New Zealand’s emissions targets just aren’t good enough to avoid dangerous climate change. Scientists agree that the reductions are too small and will take too long.”

She says the High Court will be asked to review the legality and reasonableness of New Zealand’s emissions targets under the Climate Change Response Act 2002.

Prime Minister John Key has dismissed the legal action as “a joke”.

“If we’re getting sued, I hate to think what’s going to happen to the United States and Australia and other countries because their climate change targets are lower than ours,” he said.

This has to be a publicity stunt.

It would not be good for our democracy if an individual could effectively dictate Government policy on major issues through the court.

28 Comments

  1. sorethumb

     /  June 26, 2017

    let’s see her passport?

  2. Gezza

     /  June 26, 2017

    Court possibly looking to make a ruling that says we don’t get involved in this – we leave it to the government & the scientific experts, to create the precedent. Is that possible?

    • Brown

       /  June 26, 2017

      This deluded, money wasting twit thinks that she is an expert.

      • Gezza

         /  June 26, 2017

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  June 27, 2017

          Well, Brown, you’d have to admit that she’s an expert.

          An expert attention-seeker who knows how to get it.

          I agree with you on the rest :D.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  June 27, 2017

            Oh, and an expert time-waster !

  3. David

     /  June 26, 2017

    Its the reason why Trump pulled out of Paris, all targets were individual to each country and voluntary and not for one moment would Iran, Venezeula, Fiji etc etc. care if they miss their targets but in the US it would be endless lawsuits against the federal government on anything a lawyer could link to climate change.

  4. See http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1176369/pg1

    There is no scientific consensus. Carbon Dioxide does not cause global warming. There are global weather changes occurring as has occurred since before mankind established itself on Earth. The most recent scientific papers all 44 peer reviewed and published established the IPCC claims to be untrue. The climate fear-mongers have a clear plan of deception and are looking to monetise the feat they are selling. Don’t buy it for one moment. The reference material substantiates all of the claims here. Global warming does not exist as a threat.

    • Gezza

       /  June 26, 2017

      Are the Clintons involved in this?
      What’s the latest on the Clinton Crime syndicate? I’m not seeing anything in the msm about numerous arrests & names of people helping the FBI & Security Agencies with their enquiries.

      • The Congressional Committees are slowly plodding their way through multitudes of witnesses. The discovery of the cache on the Clinton Ranch with the missing Blackberry phones and the server laptop (plus barrels containing the remains of 3 young teenage girls and a horde of unworn expensive women’s shoes further complicates matters. The evidence is in the hands of the FBI. Hillary is back under investigation for the Emails. The extent of the Awan brothers spy net for Pakistan is slowly being unravelled. The former Attorney General and Comey ex FBI are both subject to criminal investigation. Special prosecutor Mueller has started work amongst questions of whether he should be recused . Trump is being told to back off his questioning of Mueller’s biases as he has made his point. Bernie Saunders and wife are under FBI investigation for fraudulent misappropriation of election funds and another Senator whose name I forget has been indicted for corruption. We still await the answer to who killed Seth Rich!. In summary, still a work in progress. Okay?

        • Gezza

           /  June 26, 2017


          • The story about the barrels containing the 3 bodies is almost certainly fake news and you should disregard it. The girls disappeared from a hotel in Little Rock when Bill was at Yale. The Clintons did not have land in New York at the time. Sorry, I got suckered in. The rest of the summary stands but Iwillcontinue to watch and wait.

  5. Zedd

     /  June 26, 2017

    “Nice one.. good onya Sarah”.. 🙂
    give ’em (c-c deniers) hell !!!

  6. Gezza

     /  June 26, 2017

    I only had sort of half an eye and half an ear on 1ewes tonite. I don’t think these two scandals of English’s & Little’s even came up. Anything on TV3 News?

  7. Chris

     /  June 26, 2017

    I hope that young woman taking the government to court over climate change didn’t arrive in a motor car, or have a cell phone, or wear clothes that were not made of natural fibers. If she did any of these she is an out and out hypocrite.

    • Gezza

       /  June 26, 2017

      She was on 1ewes. All silly smiles, giggles, & waves, just loving the attention.

    • Mefrostate

       /  June 27, 2017

      There is no hypocrisy in pushing for action on climate change while also using products that rely on fossil fuels to be produced.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  June 27, 2017

        Ditto +HR=E , Gezza ( I went back to 3 because they have much less sport and better weather, and I thought that Prick Gower was gone)

        How nice if attention-seeking was made illegal.

        Chris, you might also have mentioned not flying to the court case (yeah, right) and not being seen to support television which must use a massive amount of oil for its equipment.

        There is hypocrisy in demanding change and using the things that you claim prevent this, Mefro. It’s like condemning a company for being unethical but still buying its products.

  8. Colossal waste of other peoples money – forcing the Government to defend decisions they have made after being elected to make decisions….

    Greens need to grow up and move on from stupid university quad bs politics and be adults.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  June 26, 2017

      A stupid person taking stupid legal action under the auspices of a stupid law serving a stupid purpose. What’s not to like?

      • Gezza

         /  June 26, 2017

        It’s foolish. I really do think the Court might be just intending to rule that it’s not a matter for Courts, but the Court has to go through the evidence first. Haven’t heard how long it’s been set down for.

  1. Climate change in court today — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition