Urgenda | Jotup

Scotland is ditching its flagship 2030 climate goal – why legally binding targets really matter

Retrieved on:

Thursday, April 18, 2024

Temperature, European Court, High court, Climate change, Letter, Human rights, Climate, Urgenda, Policy, Neubauer, Carbon, Court of cassation, ClientEarth, Embarrassment, Government, Legislation

The target was statutory, meaning it had been set in law in the Emissions Reduction Targets Act of 2019.

Key Points:

The target was statutory, meaning it had been set in law in the Emissions Reduction Targets Act of 2019.
Scotland is still subject to the 2030 carbon target for the UK as a whole.
The consistent implementation of the existing targets, in other words, is the difference between meeting the Paris objectives and condemning the planet to dangerous climate change.

Legally (but not literally) binding

In 2017, Sweden was the first major economy to enact a statutory net zero target.
Its net zero target is complemented by a series of intermediate steps: five-yearly carbon budgets, which are also legally binding.
Legal scholars have long known that, even though the targets are legally binding, they would be difficult to enforce against an unwilling government.

Governments in the dock

The plaintiff was the environmental law charity ClientEarth, which remains dissatisfied with the strategy and returned to court in February 2024.
If successful, such a move would be the latest in a series of court cases in which judges have ordered governments to scale up their climate ambitions.

The political embarrassment of missing a statutory target, or being subject to a court case, can focus the mind.
A review of the UK Climate Change Act found that civil servants were petrified about the threat of a judicial review.
Scotland’s decision to abandon its 2030 climate ambition is the most brazen violation of a statutory climate target yet.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 30,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.
Sam Fankhauser receives funding from the University of Oxford's Strategic Research Fund for Oxford Net Zero and the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) for the Place-based Climate Action Network (PCAN).

How Canadian courts are taking on climate change

Retrieved on:

Thursday, January 4, 2024

Policy, Indigenous peoples, Government, Supreme court, Urgenda, Justiciability, Constitution, Federal court, Climate change, Climate, Rights, House

Courts around the world are increasingly being asked to determine whether governments and Crown corporations are doing enough to address climate change.

Key Points:

Courts around the world are increasingly being asked to determine whether governments and Crown corporations are doing enough to address climate change.
In the past few weeks, courts in Belgium and Germany have ordered greater emissions reductions from national governments.
It accepts that courts are an appropriate way to resolve the hotly contested issues at the centre of climate policy.

‘Justiciability 101’

Justiciability marks the line between what should be decided by courts versus other government branches.
In 2012, the same court decided that the federal government’s decision to leave the Kyoto Protocol was also not a matter for the courts.

A turning tide?

The first was a youth-led challenge to current federal climate policy based on its disproportionate harms to young people.
The second one involved two Wet’suwet’en House groups claiming that federal climate policy violated their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
According to the lower court, these challenges were “too political” for courts to resolve and better left to legislators and government officials.
The lower court rulings put an early end to both challenges, preventing judicial scrutiny of claims of rights violations.

Perverse incentives?

Governments expose themselves to court challenges when they enact laws and regulations, but not when they merely make policy statements.
This approach fails to capture how government inaction can itself be a political decision affecting constitutional and other rights.
The Federal Court of Appeal’s broader understanding of what constitutes a legal anchor may also alleviate this issue.

The future role of courts

Going forward, the increase in cases related to climate change and climate policy will test the balance between courts and other government branches.
Now those most suffering the effects of climate change want and need courts to act on climate when governments fail to do so.

Steve Lorteau receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). Andrew Green receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Portuguese youths sue 33 European governments at EU court in largest climate case ever

Retrieved on:

Wednesday, September 27, 2023

A little over three years ago, a group of Portuguese youths filed a legal action against 33 European governments to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) over what they say is a failure to adequately tackle global heating.

Key Points:

A little over three years ago, a group of Portuguese youths filed a legal action against 33 European governments to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) over what they say is a failure to adequately tackle global heating.
Now, the Strasbourg court will be hearing them on 27 September, in a novel, far-fetching bid to arm-twist them into taking climate action.

The claim

Plaintiffs expressed their grave concern over governments’ insufficient efforts to limit global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
Were the rest of the world to mirror their commitments, the global temperature would hike by 2 to 3°C, according to Climate Tracker.

Human rights to the rescue of climate justice

Against a global backdrop of increasing climate litigation, the Duarte Agostinho application follows in the steps of other climate lawsuits to draw a clear link between human rights violations and climate change.
The first to have blazed that trail in 2015 was the Urgenda Foundation, whose legal action compelled the government to cut emissions by 25% from 1990 levels on the grounds of its applicants’ human rights.
They also claim to suffer from anxiety after wildfires in Portugal in 2017 killed more than 120 people.

In the absence of a specific article on environmental protection, these articles are essential tools for protecting people against various forms of pollution and other nuisances.
The youths also argue that governments, in failing to take bold climate action, have breached Article 14, which guarantees the right not to suffer discrimination in the “enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention,” with the view that climate change impacts their generation in particular.

Ushering in effective action

To prevent this from happening again, young people will be banking on a range of principles from human rights, including that of effectiveness.
According to this postulate, states cannot remain passive in the face of a violation of the rights of individuals.
For the court, this principle originally offered a guarantee that states would implement the positive obligations of protection required by the convention.
The latter orders parties to take action to prevent a provision from being violated, even in a context of uncertainty.

The European court’s climate challenge

Because the ruling is set to be issued by the Grand Chamber, there will no possibility of appealing against it.
The question of its impact on the continent’s climate justice also remains to be seen.
However, it could sharpen states’ resolve in climate and human rights’ matters.

Portuguese youths sue 32 European governments at EU court in largest climate case ever

Retrieved on:

Wednesday, September 27, 2023

A little over three years ago, a group of Portuguese youths filed a legal action against 32 European governments to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) over what they say is a failure to adequately tackle global heating.

Key Points:

A little over three years ago, a group of Portuguese youths filed a legal action against 32 European governments to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) over what they say is a failure to adequately tackle global heating.
Now, the Strasbourg court will be hearing them on 27 September, in a novel, far-fetching bid to arm-twist them into taking climate action.

The claim

Plaintiffs expressed their grave concern over governments’ insufficient efforts to limit global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
Were the rest of the world to mirror their commitments, the global temperature would hike by 2 to 3C, according to Climate Tracker.

Human rights to the rescue of climate justice

Against a global backdrop of increasing climate litigation, the Duarte Agostinho application follows in the steps of other climate lawsuits to draw a clear link between human rights violations and climate change.
The first to have blazed that trail was the Urgenda Foundation in 2015, whose legal action compelled the government to cut emissions by 25% from 1990 levels on the grounds of its applicants’ human rights.
They also claim to suffer from anxiety after wildfires in Portugal in 2017 killed more than 120 people.
Governments, they argue, have failed to comply with their positive obligations under Articles 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Right to life):
“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.

Ushering in effective action

To prevent this from happening again, young people will be banking on a range of principles from human rights, including that of effectiveness.
According to this postulate, states cannot remain passive in the face of a violation of the rights of individuals.
For the Court, this principle originally offered a guarantee that states would implement the positive obligations of protection required by the Convention.
The latter orders parties to take action to prevent a provision from being violated, even in a context of uncertainty.

The European Court’s climate challenge

The ECHR takes on average two years to reach a decision, though this period may vary depending on the complexity of the case.
The question of the verdict’s impact on the continent’s climate justice also remains to be seen.
However, it could sharpen States’ obligations in climate matters and respect for human rights.