Another costly piece of identity politics and belief that some Australians should be treated differently by dint of their race and their ‘special’ threat from ‘climate change’ has been knocked in the head by the Federal Court.

Two Torres Strait Islanders (supposedly on behalf of their community) took the government to court claiming that it had a duty of care to “protect them from climate change”, whatever that means. It seems to be as logical as their idea that the climate was also a threat to their ‘culture’.

The court declined to “recognise either duty or to legally recognise cultural harm”. The ‘climate justice advocates’ were disappointed that this ridiculous claim didn't provide the Mabo-like victory they expected.

The nonsense seems to have arisen from the belief that the government had not set ‘targets’ based on ‘science’ that would keep global warming at no more than 1.5 degrees.

The Torres Strait Islanders, or their urgers, believed the government's promotion of fanciful science and the idea that the climate could be controlled by man - as did so many other people a lot more sophisticated; although the Islanders were alone in expecting the government to fund the construction of sea walls around them.

Despite the obvious scams and scaremongering surrounding climate change, the Court just had to go along with “the existential threat” nonsense; but it wasn't up to the Court to review government emissions targets.

It sounds as if the Court would have liked to interfere.

If the government wants to do something for Torres Strait Islanders in the unlikely event that they look like being washed away, it can offer the same refuge on the mainland as they have offered non-Australians on low-lying Pacific islands.

Until the government accepts that much, if not most, of the climate waffle has been proven wrong - and says so - they will keep getting these vexatious challenges.

https://theconversation.com/federal-court-rules-australian-government-doesnt-have-a-duty-of-care-to-protect-torres-strait-islanders-from-climate-change-25999

Two Torres Strait Islanders (supposedly on behalf of their community) took the government to court claiming that it had a duty of care to “protect them from climate change”
ttbn,
Per Capita the use of generators & indeed anything relying on modern technology on these islands far outweighs that of mainland communities. To claim concern of inundation is literally absurd & nothing but an excuse by mainland & outside academic ignoramuses to extort funding for no need whatsoever. The lifestyle of the people there does not in the slightest reflect any concern about consequences for the environment. The whole show is one big act choreographed by Academia & Bureaucracy from the outside & naturally some local but non-environment orientated interest groups are boarding the bandwagon. They are simply following the money trail. The tactic deployed is to say what people want to hear, no facts required.

Indyvidual,

Yes. Hopefully the decision will put a stop to the extortion attempts of minorities who think there's something special about them. Even scientists who accept the 'rising sea levels' claim, put it at no more than 33mm over 100 years. Although the clear evidence that the land mass of islands in the Pacific has actually increased suggests that the whole thing is BS.

The “culture harm” claim is the silliest.

‘Culture’ has been done to death. Majorities don't carry on about culture. It's a thing of minorities whose individuals can't find inner satisfaction. They need some mass movement, a mob, instead of accepting - or being allowed to accept by do-gooders - that humans are autonomous individuals, irrespective of race, religion or colour. We are not boring blob, or a group of worshipers of some divisive culture that has no place in the 21st. Century, particularly with people leaving backward countries to live in the West.

In the case of Torres State Islanders and other ‘indigenous’ people, they have benefited from modernity long enough to get over old ways and humbug and live like other Australians, and stop moaning and looking for extra handouts not available to anyone else.

I once had a very enlightening discussion about culture with a TIer when working in the straits a number of years ago.

He basically said that many non-indigenous Australians see Islander culture as being fixed at the time when there was initial contact and that their culture is now seen as static and fixed in time.

He talked about culture always changing and always adapting. If this means using dinghies with outboard motors and access to better health care and education then so be it.

It if involves incorporation of a new legal system that allows for a Mabo type claim to land then so be it.

Saibai Islanders moved to the mainland to establish Bamaga because of concerns of high tide flooding on the Island.

The seawall on Saibai was first constructed in the mid-1990s with the latest upgrade being in 2017. Both State and Federal governments have had an interest in protecting this island for decades.

The Saibai Islanders took their case to court as part of their present day culture and that was unsuccessful and they'll have to accept that.

So why all the angst? They lost the case.

Is this just about the Islanders using the legal frameworks available to them? Is it about the Islanders being "uppity" and daring to incorporate the legal system into their modern day culture.

If not, is it unreasonable for the Islanders to expect both governments to continue protection of an Island that they have shown a willing to protect in the past?

Even if the court erroneously found that the Australian government had a duty of care to protect these people from rising sea levels, there isn't a damn (or dam!!) thing the government could do to stop the purported sea level rise.

Even if we all decided to save these people from their fairy-tale fears by stopping all CO2 emissions or by truly implementing a net zero policy, the change in temperatures or sea level rise would be so small as to be immeasurable. Based on IPCC modelling data, taking Australia's CO2 emissions out of the equation would mean that temperatures would rise by 0.0007 degrees less in 2100AD. Sea level rise would be fractions of a millimetre less by the end of the century.

So this isn't about seeking a solution to their claimed problems. Its a money grab. There's been a few of thee around the world recently, all trying to blame this or that cash cow for purported climate problems. All have failed. Logic sometimes still prevails.