Tweet
It will be interesting to see how various European governments react to the European Court ruling yesterday where a group of older women from Switzerland have won the first ever climate change case.
Selected comments from the article include:
The article notes that other challenges have failed in the Court but it remains to be seen if others will now be brought and what any future rulings may have for both European countries and potentially the wider world given the European trading bloc's connections.
Of course the cynic in me accepts the likely outcome that a lot of hot air will be produced by various ministers from across Europe but very little action will actually be taken.
Selected comments from the article include:
BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68768598
This is only the beginning of climate litigation," said Ms Thunberg. "This means that we have to fight even more, since this is only the beginning. Because in a climate emergency, everything is at stake."
The Court ruled that Switzerland had "failed to comply with its duties under the Convention concerning climate change" and that it had violated the right to respect for private and family life.
It also found that "there had been critical gaps" in the country's policies to tackle climate change including failing to quantify reductions in greenhouse gases - those gases that warm Earth's atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels like oil, coal and gas.
The Swiss women, called KlimaSeniorinnen or Senior Women for Climate Protection, argued that they cannot leave their homes and suffer health attacks during heatwaves in Switzerland.
On Tuesday data showed that last month was the world's warmest March on record, meaning the temperature records have broken ten months in a row.
More than 2,000 women are in the KlimaSeniorinnen group. They launched the case nine years ago, calling for better protection of women's health in relation to climate change.
[...]
Decisions made in the European Court of Human Rights influence law across its 46 member states.
Estelle Dehon KC, a barrister at Cornerstone Barristers in the UK, said "the judgement deals with difficult issues that also vex the UK courts in a way that may be persuasive."
"It comprehensively dismisses the argument that courts cannot rule on climate legal obligations because climate change is a global phenomenon or because action by one state is just a 'drop in the ocean'," she told BBC News.
Governments globally have signed up to drastically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
But scientists and activists say that progress is too slow and the world is not on track to meet the crucial target of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5C.
The ruling is binding and can trickle down to influence the law in 46 countries in Europe including the UK.
This is only the beginning of climate litigation," said Ms Thunberg. "This means that we have to fight even more, since this is only the beginning. Because in a climate emergency, everything is at stake."
The Court ruled that Switzerland had "failed to comply with its duties under the Convention concerning climate change" and that it had violated the right to respect for private and family life.
It also found that "there had been critical gaps" in the country's policies to tackle climate change including failing to quantify reductions in greenhouse gases - those gases that warm Earth's atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels like oil, coal and gas.
The Swiss women, called KlimaSeniorinnen or Senior Women for Climate Protection, argued that they cannot leave their homes and suffer health attacks during heatwaves in Switzerland.
On Tuesday data showed that last month was the world's warmest March on record, meaning the temperature records have broken ten months in a row.
More than 2,000 women are in the KlimaSeniorinnen group. They launched the case nine years ago, calling for better protection of women's health in relation to climate change.
[...]
Decisions made in the European Court of Human Rights influence law across its 46 member states.
Estelle Dehon KC, a barrister at Cornerstone Barristers in the UK, said "the judgement deals with difficult issues that also vex the UK courts in a way that may be persuasive."
"It comprehensively dismisses the argument that courts cannot rule on climate legal obligations because climate change is a global phenomenon or because action by one state is just a 'drop in the ocean'," she told BBC News.
Governments globally have signed up to drastically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
But scientists and activists say that progress is too slow and the world is not on track to meet the crucial target of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5C.
The article notes that other challenges have failed in the Court but it remains to be seen if others will now be brought and what any future rulings may have for both European countries and potentially the wider world given the European trading bloc's connections.
Of course the cynic in me accepts the likely outcome that a lot of hot air will be produced by various ministers from across Europe but very little action will actually be taken.
Comment