Saturday, 25 July 2020

Pointless publicity stunt of the week

From the BBC:

An Australian student has filed a lawsuit against her government for failing to make clear climate change-related risks to investors in government bonds. It is thought to be the first such case in the world...

What does the lawsuit say?

"Australia is materially exposed and susceptible" to climate change risks, according to the statement filed with the Federal Court of Australia in Victoria state.

It alleges that the country's economy and the national reputation in international financial markets will be significantly affected by the Australian government's response to climate change.

You can only bring a civil case like this if:

a) you have suffered a loss (which she hasn't shown), and

b) the counter-party completely misrepresented what you were investing in, or at least, deliberately withheld certain important facts and you wouldn't have invested if you had been told those facts.

She knew perfectly well what she was investing in.

And I see no reason why the Australian government has to state the blindingly obvious like "the weather is unpredictable" and "Australia always has been - and always will be - susceptible to heat waves, floods, droughts and wild fires".

But I suppose the lawyers will make a shed load of money from this.


Penseivat said...

I would suggest the student is only a 'face' for an organisation with specific, anti-government aims, a bit like Gina Miller in this country.
Not only could a student not afford such a lawsuit, but would be incapable of using such big words without help.

Mark Wadsworth said...

P, in which you might be quite correct.

Graeme said...

A lot of similar cases get filed around the wirkd, probably just to make work for the environment columnists at the Guardian and NY Times Judges have always struck them out. Normally, they go after Exxon, which makes it hard because Exxon has been very open about possible climate change. Going after a government seems just stupid. All that Paris agreement bullshit puts up a high barrier for any court case. The question is who benefits from the mass media publicising these doomed cases?

Mark Wadsworth said...

G, good question. I've said what I think, what do you think?