Parents for Climate has sent a legal letter to Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, saying that, following the recent International Court of Justice advisory opinion and new scientific analysis, an emissions reduction target of net zero by 2035 to align with 1.5°C is now required to comply with Australian law.
The letter from Equity Generation Lawyers, representing Parents, says that the recent International Court of Justice advisory opinion informs how Australia’s climate change act works.
Failure to set a target that can achieve limiting warming to 1.5C could expose the government to legal and reputational risk, undermining Australia’s bid to co-host COP31 with Pacific nations and leaving families vulnerable to escalating climate harm. Before the ICJ opinion the Climate Change Authority published a draft advice on 2035 targets that were capable of limiting temperature rise to 2C.
Australia has currently committed to a net zero by 2050 target. It must submit a 2035 target this year.
David Barnden, Managing Principal & Director, Equity Generations Lawyers says:
“The International Court of Justice confirmed governments must set emissions reduction targets consistent with 1.5C and the best available science. For Australia, under the Climate Change Act, we say that means a net zero by 2035 target.”
Nic Seton, CEO for Parents for Climate says:
“As parents, we expect anyone entrusted with our children’s safety to comply with the law. Following the recent International Court of Justice ruling, we say Minister Bowen is required by Australian law to follow best-available science and set a target of net zero by 2035. We need this to keep our kids safe. Anything less could be against the law.”
“Target setting for 2035 by the Minister and Cabinet is a critical opportunity to set our kids up for success. Net zero by 2035 would make Australia a global clean energy leader, creating jobs, boosting regional economies, and giving our children the safe, healthy future they deserve. Parents want leaders who will rise to this moment, not shy away from it.”
“The impacts outlined in the forthcoming National Climate Risk Assessment - heatwaves, infrastructure failure, economic shocks - aren’t abstract threats; they're warnings that inaction comes with a steep human cost. Every week of delay means more Australians are hurt, more systems strained, and more futures compromised. A stronger target means safer communities. Whereas a 65–75% target, previously mooted by the Climate Change Authority, would lock in 2.2–2.6°C of warming if adopted globally. That’s not Paris-aligned. It’s not safe. And we allege it’s not lawful.”
“This letter puts the government on notice. The science, the law, and the community all demand the same thing: a 2035 target that aligns with 1.5°C. Anything else is not good enough, may not be lawful, and not safe for Australian children. Families are watching, and they understand the law is on their side. If Australia sets a target that is not science-aligned, it risks failing its legal duties under both domestic and international law.”
The recent International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion has made clear the global legal consensus that emissions reduction targets must correlate with what the science demands if governments are to protect the environment and their citizens’ human rights.
The ICJ also found that climate change threatens fundamental human rights including the right to life, health, food, water, housing, and especially the rights of children and future generations.