Federal Court Slams the Brakes on Climate Litigation Nonsense: A Win for Reason, By Ian Wilson LL. B
The Federal Court's recent ruling against Torres Strait Islanders Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai:
Pabai Pabai & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] FCA 727
is a rare dose of sanity in a world drowning in climate change hysteria (The Conversation, July 2025). The elders demanded that the Australian government be legally bound to a "duty of care" to protect their low-lying islands from supposed climate-induced flooding and cultural loss. The court rightly shut this down, refusing to impose such a duty or recognise vague claims of cultural harm. For us climate sceptics, this decision is a victory, signalling that courts are starting to push back against the runaway train of climate litigation that seeks to hold governments hostage to unproven alarmism and shaky legal theories.
The Absurdity of the Climate Duty Claim
Pabai and Kabai's case was a textbook overreach. They argued the government must slash emissions to keep global warming at 1.5°C, claiming their islands, Sabai and Boigu, face existential threats from sea-level rise. They also demanded taxpayer-funded sea walls, as if the government's job is to build personal fortresses against every natural challenge. The court, led by Justice Wigney, saw through the nonsense. It recognised that setting emissions targets and funding infrastructure are policy decisions, complex, political, and not for judges to micromanage. Forcing courts to dictate climate policy based on "best available science" (a phrase often weaponised by activists) would turn unelected judges into de facto climate czars. That's not justice; it's judicial activism.
Sceptics have long pointed out the flaws in climate change narratives. The claim that Sabai and Boigu will be "uninhabitable" in 25 years rests on speculative models, not hard evidence. Sea-level rise has been gradual for centuries, and local factors like erosion or subsidence often play a bigger role than global warming. Yet plaintiffs leaned on climate scientists' doomsday predictions, conveniently ignoring that small islands have always faced natural risks. Demanding a legal "duty of care" to shield specific communities from such uncertainties is absurd, it's like suing the government for not stopping a cyclone. The Federal Court's refusal to entertain this sets a precedent: courts aren't here to rewrite policy based on fearmongering.
The Slippery Slope of Climate Litigation
This case is part of a global wave of climate lawsuits, from Indigenous groups to farmers and youth activists, all claiming special victimhood to force governments into submission. The Torres Strait Islanders argued their "particular vulnerability" and cultural ties to the land create a unique duty for the government. But where does this end? If every group with a grievance can sue over climate impacts, courts will be swamped with demands for everything from flood barriers to compensation for "cultural loss." The Paris Agreement, which the plaintiffs waved around like a legal trump card, is a political commitment, not a binding standard courts can enforce. The government rightly argued that climate policy involves balancing economic, social, and environmental priorities, decisions voters elect politicians to make, not judges.
Climate sceptics see these lawsuits for what they are: attempts to bypass democratic processes and impose radical agendas. The "best available science" mantra is a Trojan horse, often hiding exaggerated claims or cherry-picked data. For instance, the 1.5°C target is arbitrary, with no clear evidence it's a tipping point for catastrophe. Yet litigants demand governments be legally bound to it, ignoring trade-offs like energy costs or economic growth. The Federal Court's ruling is a firewall against this overreach, ensuring courts don't become tools for activists to dictate policy under the guise of justice.
Why Reining in Climate Litigation Matters
The court's decision is a win for common sense and national sovereignty. Climate litigation like this threatens to paralyse governments, forcing them to divert billions from schools, hospitals, or infrastructure to fight endless lawsuits or fund pet projects like sea walls. It also risks inflating the power of unaccountable institutions, courts, scientists, or NGOs, at the expense of elected officials. For sceptics, the real danger isn't a fraction of a degree of warming; it's the erosion of democracy under the weight of climate dogma.
The Torres Strait case also exposes the absurdity of pinning local issues on global climate policies. Islands like Sabai and Boigu face challenges from natural geography, not just emissions from Australia (which contributes a mere 1.2% of global CO2). Holding the government liable for global warming's supposed harms ignores the complexity of natural systems and the limits of national control. The court's refusal to recognise "cultural harm" as a legal claim is equally sharp, how do you quantify or compensate something so subjective? This ruling draws a line: courts won't indulge every emotional or cultural grievance dressed up as a climate crisis.
In conclusion, the Federal Court's rejection of the Torres Strait Islanders' climate case is a triumph for reason over hysteria. By refusing to impose a "duty of care" or recognise nebulous cultural harms, it's reining in the runaway climate litigation that threatens to clog courts and undermine democracy. Climate sceptics can breathe a sigh of relief: the judiciary isn't falling for the alarmist narrative that every flood or erosion is a government's fault. This decision sends a clear message: the climate change litigation circus needs to be tamed, and Australia's courts are finally putting their foot down!