The Supreme Court also condemned the Dutch state in cassation to make more efforts to reduce climate change. The Netherlands may therefore emit less than the government has allowed. No appeal can be made against this decision—20th Of December 2019.
Climate Lawsuit: Final Verdict Court In Dutch Climate Case: Limit Emissions
The climate lawsuit won. Urgenda is celebrating
The Netherlands must now have achieved a 25% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2020 compared to 1990. The Court ruled that climate change is a significant threat and that the State has a duty of care to reduce Dutch emissions as quickly as possible. A reduction of less than 25% in 2020 is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Recommended: Is Neoliberalism Hurting Our Climate And The Paris Accord?
Reactie @marjanminnssma @urgenda hoe moet de regering nu 14mton besparen eind 2020?
Climate Lawsuit Against Government Will It Work? Netherlands
Judges ordered a 25% carbon emissions cut by 2020 in the first successful lawsuit against a government’s climate policy in the Netherlands. (May 2019)
Marjan Minnesma, director of the environmental group Urgenda, arrives at court in The Hague before the appeal from the Dutch government. Photograph: Jerry Lampen/AFP/Getty Images
Climate lawsuit: Democracy Has Been Sidelined
The Dutch government has launched a bid to overturn a landmark climate ruling, arguing that judges in The Hague sidelined democracy; they ordered a 25% cut in carbon emissions by 2020. Government plans for a lesser 17% cut in CO2 pollution were deemed unlawful three years ago, in the first successful lawsuit against a government's climate policy. The case inspired a wave of climate lawsuits against governments in Belgium, Colombia, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, the UK, Uganda, and the US. But Mark Rutte's government on Monday put the ball back in the plaintiffs; court, arguing that judges in The Hague had overstepped their authority and were in danger of outflanking public opinion. Climate minister Eric Wiebes told Dutch media: We also believe that renewable energy should be increased and CO2 emissions should be reduced, so this is really about something else: it's about how the judge has intervened in something that's (called) democracy, and democracy has been sidelined.
Youth for Climate talks with Mark Rutte about the climate
After the original ruling, the Dutch government announced ambitious plans to phase out all coal plants and cut emissions by 49% by 2030, as measured against 1990 levels. But the plans have not yet been implemented, and Urgenda, the citizens’ alliance that brought the original case, said Dutch greenhouse gas emissions were currently only 13% below 1990 levels while CO2 output was mostly unchanged.
Climate The Netherlands: A Dutch Person Emits Twice As Much Greenhouse Gas
Recommended: Climate Change Natural Man-Made: Causes And Facts
Lawyers representing the groups 886 Dutch plaintiffs told the court: The Netherlands is 34th globally when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. But when it comes to per capita emissions, the Netherlands ranks ninth, the highest of any EU country. A Dutch person emits twice as much as the global average and 1.5 times more than the average EU citizen. If we are not to reduce our emissions as quickly as possible, who is?
With Urgendas legal battle becoming a litmus test for the effectiveness of climate litigation, the judges; verdict, expected on 9 October, will be closely watched. Christiana Figueres, the former head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said: Urgendas bold action against the government of the Netherlands created an essential new incentive for all governments to act expeditiously. Governments must act boldly and urgently. The Urgenda climate case is evidence that this is not just what should be done, its what must be done.
Climate Change 2019: The Third Warmest April On Record After 2016 And 2017
The World Meteorological Organization reported that last month was the third-warmest April on record after 2016 and 2017, while Bering Sea ice cover fell to the lowest level ever and a new CO2 ppm (parts per million) record was set. In a sign of increased urgency in Brussels, the EU's climate commissioner, Miguel Arias Caete, called this month for member states to accelerate our efforts considerably and raise our ambition. A UN dialogue to begin the process of “ratcheting up” climate pledges made at the Paris climate conference is underway, and seven EU states have called for the bloc to raise its ambitions.
The Netherlands was one of them, and Wiebes reportedly proposed a 55% cut in Europe’s planet-warming emissions by 2030, describing the Dutch government as one of the frontrunners on climate policy Citizens are fed up with a government that chooses the interests of fossil companies Domestically though, frustration with the slow pace of climate mitigation helped the Dutch Green party to more than triple its count of MPs in elections last year. Jesse Klaver, the Greens; leader, told the Guardian: The main reason for that is that citizens are fed up with a government that chooses the interests of fossil companies over the environment. Our governments always had goals but were never able to fulfill them. The Urgenda case made it possible to call the government to account.
The tragedy of Dutch climate policy is that our governments always had goals, but were never able to fulfill them.
The verdict showed that when they fail to act on climate change, a court can tell a government: you have a responsibility to protect your people and to keep your commitments.
Climate Lawsuit Against The Government: The Court Judges Had Set A Major Legal Precedent
Climate actions have often been hostage to the changing composition of national governments, and the Dutch parliament is currently working on a climate change bill to ensure policy continuity. Anne van Pinxteren, a government spokeswoman, said that while Rutte's administration expected to cut emissions by between 19-27% by 2020, the court judges had set a significant legal precedent; in altering its plans. There is a chance that with the current policy, the emission reduction goal of the court will not be met, she said. If that is the case, the state will have to take additional measures, which will need to affect in the concise term. These will most likely not be cost-effective and have significant consequences on society. Environmentalists, though, counter that the cost of the most stringent climate action now pales by comparison to the estimated $30tn of damages that not meeting it could bring.
Marjan Minnesma, Urgenda co-founder and director, said: "Today in court, we showed that it would cost around 0.5% of our GDP to meet the climate measures that have been proposed. If necessary and we are a wealthy country, and we can avoid extremely high risks, we think it should be done."
Before you go!
Recommended: Biomass Much More Polluting Than Gas And Coal: Netherlands
Did you find this an interesting article, or do you have a question or remark? Leave a comment below.
We try to respond the same day.
Like to write your article about the effect of climate change in your country?
Click on 'Register' or push the button 'Write An Article' on the 'HomePage.'