By Lucy Craymer and Simon Jessop
WELLINGTON, May 12 (Reuters) – New Zealand’s government said on Tuesday it would change climate legislation to prevent courts from finding companies liable in private cases for climate change-related harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the government would amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to apply to both current and future court proceedings, including a High Court case brought against six major emitters.
Governments around the world are grappling with a surge in litigation aimed at holding companies liable for the damage done by emissions, with cases in Europe, the United States and Australia testing the limits of corporate responsibility.
The New Zealand case, brought by climate change activist Michael Smith against six companies including dairy giant Fonterra Co-Operative Group, is set to go to trial next year.
The novel case alleges the companies’ emissions have contributed to climate change and harmed Smith’s land, interests and cultural rights.
GOVERNMENT SAYS CLIMATE LITIGATION UNDERMINES BUSINESS
However, Goldsmith said the litigation was undermining business confidence and investment, and that New Zealand’s response to climate change should be managed through parliament, its Emissions Trading Scheme and existing climate legislation.
“The courts are not the right place to resolve claims of harm from climate change,” Goldsmith said, adding that tort law was not suited to the complex environmental, economic and social issues involved.
The government said the change would not alter its responsibilities under climate legislation or businesses’ obligations under the ETS.
The international campaign group ClientEarth, which has sued countries and companies over their contributions to global warming, said the move was “deeply concerning” and pointed to a U.N. court ruling on countries’ obligations issued last July:
“The International Court of Justice has affirmed that states have a legal obligation to address climate harm, and people must be able to test those obligations in court. Restricting access to courts is bad for justice, bad for the environment, and bad for democracy and the rule of law.”
(Reporting by Lucy Craymer; Editing by Lincoln Feast and Kevin Liffey)
Comments