The story so far: September 27th marks the start of a historic legal battle in the climate protection movement. The stage: European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. The actors are 32 European governments (including Great Britain, Russia and Turkey) and six young people from Portugal aged 11 to 24. The plaintiffs are expected to argue before 17 judges that their governments have failed to adequately address the climate crisis, violating their human rights and discriminating against young people worldwide. Gearóid Ó Cuinn from the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) said the scale and impact of the lawsuit was unprecedented. “This is truly a case of David and Goliath… Never before have so many countries had to defend themselves in any court in the world,” he told reporters.
The narrative of young people taking governments to court is gaining traction: As of December 2022, 2,180 climate-related lawsuits have been filed in 65 countries in international and regional courts, tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies, according to the United Nations Global Climate Litigation Report. At least 34 cases were filed by or on behalf of children and young people under the age of 25. In addition to women, local communities and indigenous stakeholders, young people also “driven climate change governance reform.”
What is the lawsuit?
Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and Others was filed in September 2020 following the wildfires that devastated the Portuguese region of Leiria in 2017. Almost 66 people died and 20,000 hectares of forest were lost. The recent spate of heatwaves and fires in Greece, Canada and other parts of Europe have reminded us that any temperature increase beyond the 1.5°C limit would be catastrophic and increase “multiple and simultaneous hazards,” as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes Report.
The Portuguese youth claim that European nations have stalled on their climate emissions targets and exceeded their global carbon budgets in line with the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to below 1.5°C. They are expected to provide scientific evidence that global warming will rise to 3°C within their lifetime if every country moves at the current pace. Nations have thereby violated people’s fundamental rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to life, the right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to privacy and family life, and the right to be free from discrimination. “
These European governments are failing to protect us… Our ability to do anything and live our lives is becoming more and more limited. The climate crisis is affecting our physical and mental health; How could you not be afraid?” André dos Santos Oliveira, 15, told a media outlet. More than 50% of young people, including from France, India and the US, said they feel sad, afraid, angry, powerless, helpless and guilty because they have “little power to limit the damage of climate change” .
Because the 32 countries have contributed to climate disasters and endangered the futures of young people, it is incumbent on the nations to rapidly increase their emissions reductions and aim for higher targets for reducing domestic emissions, consistent with the science, the lawsuit says. Other proposed measures include reducing fossil fuel production and cleaning up global supply chains.
The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC), a body that provides scientific advice to EU countries, said countries must aim for emissions reductions of 75% compared to 1990 levels (as opposed to the current 55% in the EU) . “Under some of these principles, the EU has already exhausted its fair share of the global emissions budget,” its report says, repeating the plaintiffs’ claim that European countries have overstated their carbon budget claims. The EU is currently the sixth largest emitter with 7.2 tonnes of CO2 per capita, while the world average is 6.3 tonnes per capita.
UNICEF has called the climate crisis a “child rights crisis” as unchecked carbon emissions and extreme weather threaten access to education, health, nutrition and the future. Research agrees: Air pollution is already linked to poor birth outcomes and increased risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease. Heat waves cause psychological problems. Both lead to “a deterioration in school performance and greater impairment due to missed school days,” UNICEF stated.
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child also stated that water scarcity, food insecurity, physical trauma from sudden and slow-onset events, and vector- and water-borne diseases – accelerated by climate change – “are disproportionately borne by children.” .
Source: Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review
How have governments reacted?
It’s a matter of cause and effect: countries have so far rejected any connection between climate change and its effects on human health. For example, Greece claimed in its statements that the effects of climate change “do not appear to have a direct impact on human life or health.” This is despite the country witnessing devastating forest fires earlier this year that destroyed 72,000 hectares of land and undermined people’s livelihoods, in what the European Commission said was Europe’s largest fire.
The Portuguese and Irish governments have dismissed these concerns as “future fears”, arguing that there is no evidence that climate change poses an imminent threat to their lives and that their claims are based only on “mere assumptions or general probabilities”.
Other nations have argued that they are on track to meet climate goals set out to protect the interests of their citizens. The UK has provided evidence of its proactive climate action, highlighting its 10-point plan and “concrete steps” to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. However, some measures, such as the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, which have now come into force have been scrapped by the new Rishi Sunak government, weakening its defences. “Now is the time to raise ambition and not roll back existing commitments,” said GLAN’s Gerry Liston, adding that the UK’s new policy was “not only pointless and immoral” but also “illegal.” be.
The age of climate litigation
The European Convention on Human Rights is responsible for 47 member states. Two other cases are still pending before the Grand Chamber. In the Climate Senior Women Association Switzerland and Others against Switzerland, more than 2,000 women took Switzerland to court on the grounds that their lives and health were at risk from climate change and that it was the state’s responsibility to protect their human rights. “The court recognized the urgency and importance of an answer to the question of whether states are violating the human rights of older women by not taking the necessary climate protection measures,” said Rosmarie Wydler-Wälti, co-president of Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland Greenpeace.
The second case was filed in March this year: the former mayor of Grande-Synthe in France argued in the case Carême v. France that France had inadequately responded to the climate crisis, which constituted a violation of the right to life (Article 2 of the Convention ). and the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the Convention).
The novelty of the Duarte Agostinho case is not only that almost a quarter of the world’s nations are defending their role in exacerbating the most urgent crisis of our time. It focuses on the question of the right of current and future generations to a just future, while emphasizing that human-caused climate change is testing the limits of human health.
Types of climate litigationMost ongoing climate litigation falls into one or more of six categories, according to the UN report:
Cases that invoke human rights enshrined in international law and national constitutions
Challenges to non-enforcement of climate-related laws and policies domestically
Cases to keep fossil fuels in the ground
Advocating for greater climate disclosure and an end to greenwashing
Corporate liability and responsibility for climate damage
Cases involving failure to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
Earlier this year, a Montana court ruled that the state’s use of fossil fuels violated people’s constitutional rights. In Austria, twelve children under the age of 16 argued that the government needs to tighten its climate goals. Vanuatu students are embroiled in a legal battle at the world’s highest international court, calling on the chambers to codify into law countries’ obligations to address “climate change and other parts of the environment for current and future generations.”
The impact and legal validity of youth-led climate litigation is unclear, but experts acknowledge that lawsuits are changing the landscape of climate litigation: Uncontrolled CO2 emissions violate people’s fundamental rights, jeopardize young people’s right to a healthy future while challenging the climate science center for litigation to combat misinformation and denial. The United Nations report said rising climate disputes are evidence of the “strong links between human rights and climate change,” which could translate into “increased accountability, transparency and justice” and force governments and companies to take more ambitious climate action. and to pursue adaptation goals.”
Nathan Baring, a 23-year-old plaintiff who launched a federal lawsuit in the US in 2015, told a media outlet: “Without [a trial], Justice cannot be done because you cannot establish facts and you cannot denounce the sometimes blatant falsehoods that the government spreads. It is necessary.”
This is a premium article available exclusively to our subscribers. Read more than 250 premium articles like this every month You’ve exhausted your free article limit. Please support quality journalism. You have exhausted your free item limit. Please support quality journalism. X You have read {{data.cm.views}} of {{data.cm.maxViews}} free articles. X This is your last free article.