Lov og orden er blevet et vigtigt element i kampen mod klimaforandringer.
Det viser en ny rapport af Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
“Global Trends in Climate Change Legislation and Litigation” er titlen på rapporten, og den viser, at de fleste lande har mindst en lov, som handler om klimaforandringer og omstilling til en klimavenlig økonomi.
Samtidigt viser den, at ud af de 106 love, der er godkendt siden Paris-aftalen blev vedtaget, nævner 28 af dem den globale klimaaftale.
Her er hovedkonklusionerne fra rapporten.
All Paris Agreement signatories or ratifiers have at least one law addressing climate change or the transition to a low-carbon economy. 139 have framework laws that address climate mitigation or adaptation holistically. These form a substantial legal basis on which further action builds. The challenge now is to strengthen existing laws.
Of the 106 new laws and policies passed since the Paris Agreement was reached, 28 explicitly reference the Agreement. Further analyses will be required to determine if these new laws and policies are consistent with the Paris Agreement and countries’ nationally determined contributions. Alignment between national and international goals will be pivotal to meeting the Paris targets.
A new wave of strategic court cases linking climate and rights is emerging. They make up a small number of the 1,000 climate court cases now identified but could have significant impact in holding governments and greenhouse gas emitters accountable for climate change.
Aktivister præsenterer sager ved klimatopmøde
Fire aktivister præsenterede deres sager mod klimasyndere mandag ved et arrangement ved klimatopmødet i Bonn.
Her er beskrivelser og citater:
Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE) vs. Ireland:
Basis of the case: FIE, which is a network of Irish citizens committed to protecting Ireland’s environment, are suing the Government of Ireland on the basis that Ireland’s National Mitigation Plan—one of the main planks in the Government’s climate change policy—does not do enough to reduce Ireland’s emissions and is a violation of Ireland’s Climate Act, the Irish Constitution and its human rights obligations. FIE also claims that the Plan falls far short of the steps required by the Paris Agreement on climate change. FIE is hoping to build on its success in another groundbreaking case against the Irish environment in 2017, in which an Irish Court for the first time recognised a ‘constitutional right to an environment that is consistent with the human dignity and wellbeing of citizens at large’.
Status: The case has been filed against the Government and is now in a pre-trial procedural phase. The case will be publicly launched on Monday 7 June.
Sadhbh O’Neill, Friends of the Irish Environment: “Ireland’s per capita emissions are among the highest in the EU, and our emissions are projected to increase by 7.5-10% by 2020 compared to 1990. This is the opposite of what’s needed: to help avoid dangerous climate change, Ireland has recognised that it needs to reduce its emissions by 25-40% by 2020 compared to 1990. We’re asking the Government to revise its National Mitigation Plan to make it consistent with Ireland’s international obligations.”
Urgenda vs. Netherlands:
Basis of the case: Urgenda and 886 Dutch citizens successfully sued the Dutch Government for not taking sufficient steps to reduce the Netherlands’ greenhouse gas emissions. It was the first case in the world in which a court has ordered a Government to reduce emissions by a minimum amount (25% by 2020, compared to a 1990 baseline). The court found that the Government’s climate policy amounted to hazardous negligence and was a breach of its duty of care to Dutch citizens.
Status: Despite calls from leading scientists, lawyers, citizens, companies and the 886 co-plaintiffs, the Dutch government decided to appeal the historic judgment. The appeal will be heard in the Hague Court of Appeal on 28 May 2018.
Dennis van Berkel, legal counsel to the Urgenda Foundation: “Despite the Paris Agreement, too little is being done to address rising global temperatures. But we can help our politicians to fulfil their Paris commitments and their legal duties to protect us from climate chaos. We proved this can be done for the first time in the Netherlands: the court ruled in our favour and judged that the State needs to take more action against climate change. Unfortunately, despite protests from the opposition, scientists, lawyers and citizens, the Government has appealed the judgment, even though it has been drafting new policies to comply with the Urgenda judgment. On 28 May, we will be back in court.”
Klimaatzaak vs. Belgium
Basis of the case: In 2014, 11 citizens who were concerned about Belgium’s inadequate climate policy united in the association vzw Klimaatzaak and obtained the financial and legal support to file a climate case. On 27 April 2015, a subpoena was issued to the Belgian government, which marked the beginning of the proceedings. Since then, Klimaatzaak has gained the support of 32,000 co-plaintiffs. The case is being argued on the same legal grounds as the Dutch Urgenda case.
Status: The case will proceed to trial in 2018.
Serge de Gheldere, Klimaatzaak Belgium: “Climate change is the biggest threat to our welfare and wellbeing worldwide. Out of that concern, a group of Belgian citizens initiated THE CLIMATE CASE (Klimaatzaak) in 2015. It is a lawsuit against the Belgian government highlighting the huge gap between the commitments made in international climate agreements and our Government’s actions. Inspired by the victory in Urgenda’s case against the Netherlands, we believe that court rulings are a powerful tool to get things moving. The CLIMATE CASE now has more 35,000 Belgian co-plaintiffs. It is the biggest and most important lawsuit Belgium has ever seen, showing judges that our demands are not on behalf of a few hippies, but legitimate legal claims.”
KlimaSeniorinnen vs. Switzerland
Basis of the case: In May 2017, an association of 770 senior women (Klimaseniorinnen, Senior Women for Climate Protection) filed a legal complaint against the Swiss Government and several cantons. They claim that the Government’s climate policies are unlawful and violate constitutional and human rights because they fail to limit warming to the politically agreed ‘safe level’. They demands an immediate increase in the ambition of national mitigation targets for 2020 and 2030
Status: A judgment in the case is expected in the coming months.
Juan Pablo Osornio, Greenpeace International: “Our political leaders are on notice. If they do not live up to their obligations to protect human rights and prevent climate change, they will be taken to court. In Bonn, the mandate is clear: countries must agree on a transparent and ambitious rule book to close the gap between the Paris goals and the woefully inadequate national commitments. Until governments take action, communities will see them in court to protect their lives and livelihoods. The successful lawsuits brought in Colombia, Pakistan, New Zealand and the Netherlands provide a roadmap for doing so.”
