Unlocking the Power of Climate Legislation: A Path towards a Sustainable Future
Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges facing our planet. Its devastating effects are already being felt around the world, with severe weather events, rising sea levels, and ecosystem disruptions becoming increasingly common. In the face of this crisis, it is imperative that we take action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and transition towards a sustainable future. A key tool in this endeavor is climate legislation, which seeks to regulate and reduce emissions through legal means.
The Unprecedented Climate Lawsuit in Strasbourg
On 27 September, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg will hear a groundbreaking climate lawsuit brought by six Portuguese youths against 32 European countries. This case is of utmost importance as it is the first time that so many nations are being called upon to jointly defend their actions. The plaintiffs argue that these countries have violated their human rights by failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal.
Portugal, at the forefront of climate change-induced heat extremes, has experienced firsthand the turmoil caused by inaction. The youth who have filed the lawsuit claim that their health and even their lives are endangered by the inadequate response of these countries. This case is part of a wave of climate litigation aimed at increasing pressure on governments that oppose cutting emissions.
One of the most influential cases in this regard is the Urgenda case in the Netherlands. In this case, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the country’s targets failed to meet its human rights obligations, setting an important precedent for climate litigation. The decisions of courts around the world, both national and international, will play a crucial role in shaping climate policy and holding governments accountable.
The Effectiveness Principle and Its Role in Climate Litigation
In their quest for justice, the young plaintiffs are relying on the “effectiveness principle,” a key tenet of human rights law. This principle requires contracting parties to the European Convention on Human Rights to respect individuals’ rights in ways that are practical and effective, rather than theoretical and illusory. This principle has been invoked in the past to protect access to justice and other fundamental rights.
The case brought forward by Josie Airey, an Irish access to justice campaigner, serves as an important precedent for the effectiveness principle. Airey sought legal separation from her abusive husband but couldn’t afford the necessary legal fees. She argued that Ireland’s failure to grant her access to legal aid violated her right of access to a court. The court ruled in her favor, declaring that her right to a court was illusory without access to legal aid, highlighting the importance of practical implementation of human rights.
Similarly, the Portuguese youth fear that their right to live free from severe climate impacts will be illusory if countries continue to do the absolute minimum to address climate change. They argue that countries have a positive obligation to take significant action to tackle climate change and protect their rights. It is worth noting that former Irish President Mary Robinson, a prominent climate justice activist, represented Airey in court, underlining the interconnectedness of climate justice and human rights.
The Paris Agreement and Its Limitations
The Paris Agreement, a landmark international treaty on climate change, provides a framework for global cooperation to limit global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. However, the agreement lacks binding enforcement mechanisms, leaving governments free to determine their individual contributions to the global effort. This flexibility, while intended to accommodate diverse national circumstances, poses a significant weakness.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had warned prior to the Paris Agreement that independent, insufficient actions by individual countries would not be enough to achieve effective climate change mitigation. Unfortunately, it appears that we are currently on track for catastrophic global warming of almost 3°C by 2100 due to the reluctance of many countries, especially the wealthiest ones, to take decisive action.
Advocating for Ambitious Climate Action
The crux of the current climate action problem lies in the need for countries to do more, much more. The urgency of the situation cannot be overstated, with the IPCC emphasizing the narrowing window of opportunity to ensure a livable and sustainable future for all. Climate legislation, backed by judicial rulings, can serve as a catalyst for change and compel governments to take bolder action in line with their human rights obligations.
While the law is not a panacea for addressing climate change, judges have a crucial role to play in interpreting and applying the law to protect individuals’ rights in practice. Just as the Strasbourg Court ruled that the European Convention covers environmental damage, they can interpret the principles laid down in the Convention to safeguard people’s rights in the face of the dire consequences of climate change.
However, the effectiveness of climate legislation and judicial rulings depends on several factors:
- The level of public awareness and engagement
- The extent of collaboration between governments, civil society, and the private sector
- The availability of scientific evidence and expertise
Efforts to educate the public about the importance of climate action and the potential consequences of inaction are crucial. Climate change must be framed as a pressing issue that threatens the well-being and rights of individuals across the globe. By fostering a broad understanding of the linkages between human rights and climate change, we can galvanize support for ambitious climate action.
Building a Sustainable Future: A Collective Responsibility
Addressing climate change requires collective action and global collaboration. Governments, civil society organizations, and the private sector must come together to develop and implement effective climate legislation, leveraging the power of the law to drive transformative change. Legal frameworks that incentivize sustainable practices, promote renewable energy, and impose penalties for environmental harm are essential in shifting our societies towards a low-carbon future.
Moreover, individuals can make a significant difference by making sustainable choices in their daily lives. Small changes, such as reducing energy consumption, adopting renewable energy sources, and supporting businesses with sustainable practices, can cumulatively have a substantial impact.
By embracing climate legislation as a powerful tool for change, we can pave the way towards a sustainable future. The unprecedented climate lawsuit in Strasbourg serves as a stark reminder that our actions, or inaction, have far-reaching consequences for the rights and well-being of future generations. Let us seize the opportunity to work towards a world where climate justice is upheld, and the principles of human rights are protected for all.
Summary:
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg will hear a groundbreaking climate lawsuit brought by six Portuguese youths against 32 European countries. The plaintiffs argue that these countries have violated their human rights by failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal. Climate legislation, backed by judicial rulings, can serve as a catalyst for change and compel governments to take bolder action in line with their human rights obligations. Efforts to educate the public about the importance of climate action and the potential consequences of inaction are crucial. By fostering a broad understanding of the linkages between human rights and climate change, we can galvanize support for ambitious climate action. Addressing climate change requires collective action and global collaboration. Governments, civil society organizations, and the private sector must come together to develop and implement effective climate legislation, leveraging the power of the law to drive transformative change.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
Receive free updates on climate legislation
We will send you a myFT Collection Daily e-mail with the list of the latest news Climate legislation news every morning.
The writer is a law professor at University College London and a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. His latest book is “The Last Colony”
On 27 September, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg will hear an unprecedented climate lawsuit brought by six Portuguese youths against 32 European countries. The case is important and unique: never before have so many nations been called upon to jointly defend their actions.
The youth argue that these countries have violated their human rights by failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris Agreement 1.5C goal. Portugal is at the forefront of climate change-induced heat extremes that have caused such turmoil in Europe lately. The group claims that their health and even their lives are threatened by inaction.
The case is part of a tsunami of climate litigation aimed at increasing pressure on governments that oppose cutting emissions. The decision of the Dutch Supreme Court in the Urgenda case — namely that the Netherlands’ targets have failed to meet its human rights obligations – lit a touchpaper. The cases are pending before national and international courts around the world. In September, the International Tribunal in Hamburg will examine the arguments on climate obligations under the Convention on the Law of the Sea; next year the International Court of Justice in The Hague will follow the example of general international law (in a case in which I am involved).
Even if the Urgenda decision sets an important precedent, the applicants argue that it is not broad enough. The Dutch Supreme Court ruled only that the Netherlands was obligated to achieve the “absolute minimum” of its fair share of global emissions reductions needed to meet the now outdated target of 2°C temperature rise. The science is clear: if countries do not do more than the minimum, global warming will significantly exceed the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Young people are promoting a principle of human rights law known as the “effectiveness principle.” This requires contracting parties to the European Convention on Human Rights to respect our rights in ways that are ‘practical and effective’, not merely ‘theoretical and illusory’.
One of the most important cases on the principle of effectiveness was brought forward 50 years ago by Josie Airey, an Irish access to justice campaigner. She wanted to legally separate from an abusive husband, but she couldn’t afford the legal fees. You argued that, by not granting you access to legal aid, Ireland violated your right of access to a court under the Convention.
Airey was faced with a significant challenge: the convention says nothing about the right of access to legal aid, except in criminal cases. However, the court ruled in his favor, on the grounds that, as things now stood, his right of access to a court was illusory. Protection had to be made real.
Portuguese youth fear their right to live free from severe climate impacts will be illusory if countries continue to be required to do the absolute minimum. Countries have a positive obligation to act. It is a fitting coincidence that former Irish President Mary Robinson – one of today’s leading climate justice activists – represented Airey in court.
This case goes to the heart of the climate action problem. The Paris Agreement leaves governments free to determine their individual contribution to the global effort to meet the temperature target. This is a big weakness. A year before Paris, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had warned that “it will not be possible to achieve effective climate change mitigation if each of them. . . the country acts independently in its own interest”. Yet it seems we are on track for catastrophic global warming of almost 3°C by 2100, precisely because most countries – especially the richest ones – are unwilling to act, to go far enough.
Simply put, the point of this case is to get countries to do more, much more. It does so as the IPCC has warned that there is “a short and rapidly closing window of opportunity to ensure a livable and sustainable future for all”.
The law is not a panacea. In the face of political failure, what are judges to do? Their role is to interpret and apply the law, not legislate or enact it. Yet this case does not ask them to do so. Just as the judges of the Strasbourg Court filled a gap by ruling many years ago that the European Convention covers environmental damage, so they can interpret what the drafters of the Convention put in place in the 1950s to protect every person’s rights in practice. Right now, there is no greater threat to those rights than the consequences of climate change. If they fail to act, they risk consigning the Convention to the rubbish bin of good but useless intentions.
Climate capital
Where climate change meets business, markets and politics. Explore the coverage of the FT here.
Are you curious about the FT’s environmental sustainability commitments? Learn more about our science-based lenses here
—————————————————-