Sustainability Law, Australia, Breaking Basin Aquifers Downunder Ltd
Breaking Basin Aquifers Downunder Ltd (BBAD) and Heisenberg Inc. which was directly involved in fracking at Green Acres would be liable for prosecution for pollution of water under the provision of Article 38, and Article 39, sub-section (1), and sub-section (5) of the Environmental Protection Act, 1970(2002 Reprint). This so because their actions contravened the provisions of these Articles, which requires that no person should pollute any waters in way that would make the waters harmful, poisonous or noxious to animals health, human beings, aquatic life, wildlife, birds, fish, or vegetation; or in a way that the poison, toxins, or pollutants become detrimental to any meaningful use of the said waters.
It is clear that after 6 months of BBAD and Heisenberg fracking operation, Block the gas community group was able to determine that the waters in the local streams such as the Connedagain River, which drains its waters into the Murray Darling system had been contaminated; its salinity had greatly increased as a result of chemical contamination, which appeared to be related to BBAD's extraction of deep ground water and the chemical used for fracking.
[...] Bates, G Environment Protection and Common Law. In Environmental Law in Australia. Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths, pp. 57–96. Tricker, B. & Tricker, R.I CSR and Sustainability. In Corporate Governance: Principles, Policies and Practices. [...]
[...] How should Linas respond to the widespread criticisms of its Kuantan facility? In response to these widespread allegations and criticism, Linas should respond first by reassuring the public of the company's commitment to environmental protection(Tricker & Tricker 2012) and oitted to take prepare a safety disposal facility at the shortest time possible. Secondly, he should also reassure the public as well as the shareholders of the steps that the company was taking to overhaul and redesign its waste management system such that the suspected radio-active leakages may not occur and may not be a cause of concerns for locals(Tricker & Tricker 2012). [...]
[...] Further, the contamination of the Green Acres waters means that the Landers can no longer sell their beef at a premium price. Further, water, considered by common law as a non-static resource(Bates 2013), means that BBAD although have the property ownership right to do as they see fit with the mining site, have no such right with regards to water. Thus, the Landers can rely on this remedy and argue that BBAD exploitation degradation of the waters in Green Acres unreasonably affected the Lander's enjoyment of their property. [...]
[...] The common law has never regarded and does not regard harm to the environment, prima facie, as being worthy of remedy under common law. The Landers, however, can seek compensation under the common action in nuisance, which as has already been mentioned, common law considers to be an infringement on the property rights of the land owner, although not a breach of duty. Usually, these remedies are sought through trespass or nuisance actions, which are forms of civil wrong or tort, under which there is compensation for any injury or loss, and an injunction to stop all together, such injurious and unlawful activities(Meiners & Morriss 2000). [...]
[...] This will significantly assist in reducing its carbon pollution. The most important part of these strategies is pricing pollution, which experts believe supports the renewable energy target in various ways including providing a long-term signal to willing investors so that they can favour the use of less polluting and renewable energy such as solar and wind. Further, putting a price on pollution works well with RET, the Renewable Energy Target to assist in lowering the cost of constructing new renewables; particularly the cost incurred by consumers. [...]
using our reader.