top line
The European Court of Human Rights said on Tuesday that governments have a duty to try to stop climate change and reduce its impact on their populations, citing a group of elderly women in Switzerland who said climate change puts them at higher risk of death from heatwaves. The judgment was in favor. Governments are not doing enough to protect them from global warming.
Protesters hold pennants during a rally in front of the European Court of Human Rights on April 9, 2024.
important facts
The court said that governments' failure to meet emissions targets or take other measures to combat climate change is a violation of fundamental human rights, and the ruling will lead to further legislation in the 46 member states of the Council of Europe's Human Rights Council. This could open the door to a legal challenge. group.
Court President Siofra O'Leary accused the Swiss government of failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and of not putting in place a strong national regulatory framework to take concrete steps to combat climate change.
According to the New York Times, Switzerland awarded the group 80,000 euros (about $87,000) in legal costs after the court rejected its argument that human rights laws do not apply to climate change. It is said that you need to pay.
The case is one of three similar climate change cases brought before the court, with two others ruled inadmissible primarily on jurisdictional grounds. One case was bought by a group of six youth activists in Portugal over greenhouse gas emissions, and the other was bought by a former Portuguese mayor. French coastal towns are facing more flooding as climate change worsens.
O'Leary ultimately decided that it would be up to each government to decide how to implement its climate change obligations, according to the Associated Press.
important quotes
“It is clear that future generations are likely to bear increasingly severe burdens as a result of current failures and inaction in climate action,” Mr O'Leary said.
Main background
Thousands of women over the age of 64 came together to sue the Swiss government in a group called KlimaSeniorinnen (Senior Women for Climate Protection). They argued that the government failed to protect their right to life because people of their age and gender were more likely to die from heatstroke. Like many parts of the world (2023 was the warmest year since world records began in 1850), a heatwave has hit Switzerland in recent summers. Last summer, Switzerland broke temperature records at ground level and at the zero-degree line, the altitude at which temperatures fall below freezing. This line is getting higher and higher (rising from 5,184 meters in July 2022 to 5,298 meters in August last year), which scientists have measured means it continues to get hotter deeper into the atmosphere. This also applies to plants that “have a significant impact on human and animal habitats,” MeteoSwiss reported last year. Klimaseniolinnen argued in his lawsuit that by not doing more to stop global warming, the government is putting residents at increased risk of death.
What to watch out for
More lawsuits. By ruling that there is a link between climate change and human rights, the court opened the door to further allegations of violations in dozens of other countries. Ruth Delbert of the non-profit Avaaz Campaign told Reuters the case is “a blueprint for how to successfully sue your own government over climate change failures.”
tangent
The Swiss case is similar to a similar case in Montana last year, where the court also ruled in favor of climate change activists. In 2020, more than a dozen young people sued the state, accusing lawmakers of violating the state's constitutional right to a “clean and healthy environment” by favoring the fossil fuel industry over residents and wildlife. insisted. The judge agreed, striking down the law banning access to state institutions. Similar to the European decision, the Montana court stopped short of ordering the state to develop a remedial plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, leaving future climate action to local governments. Appeal against judgment.
References
