SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Greenpeace Germany announced today that it is suing Volkswagen, the world's second largest car manufacturer, for failing to decarbonise the company in line with the 1.5degC goal agreed in Paris. Based on the most recent reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), the independent environmental organisation demanded the company end the production of climate-damaging internal combustion vehicles and reduce its carbon footprint by 65% by 2030 at the latest.
By holding Volkswagen accountable for the consequences of its climate-damaging business model, Greenpeace Germany is enforcing the landmark Karlsruhe constitutional court ruling of April 2021, when the judges ruled that future generations have a fundamental right to climate protection. Large companies are equally bound by this requirement.
Martin Kaiser, Executive Director of Greenpeace Germany, said: "While people suffer from floods and droughts triggered by the climate crisis, the car industry, despite its enormous contribution to global warming, seems unaffected. The ruling of the Constitutional Court represents a mandate to quickly and effectively enforce the legal protection of our common livelihoods. We need all hands on deck to protect our common future."
In its letter to Volkswagen preceding the filing with the court, Greenpeace Germany claims that the company's current and planned measures contravene the Paris climate goals, fuel the climate crisis and thus violate applicable law. Disregarding the need to rapidly phase out the internal combustion engine to be able to stay below 1.5degC, Volkswagen continues to sell millions of climate-damaging diesel and petrol cars, causing a carbon footprint almost equivalent to Australia's total annual emissions, contributing to increase extreme weather events, according to a research by Greenpeace Germany.
The plaintiffs, including Fridays for Future activist Clara Mayer, are asserting civil liability claims for the protection of their personal liberties, health and property rights, based on the May 2021 Dutch Court case against Shell, which ruled that large corporations have their own climate responsibility and ordered Shell and all its subsidiaries to do more to protect the climate.
Notes
Greenpeace Germany is represented by Dr. Roda Verheyen. The Hamburg-based attorney was already legal counsel for the nine plaintiffs in the climate lawsuit against the German government, which ended with the successful ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court in April 2021 and is also leading the claim against RWE brought by a Peruvian farmer since 2015.
Greenpeace Germany is appearing today, 3 September 2021, together with Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) at the Federal Press Conference in Berlin. In addition, DUH today initiated proceedings against the other two major German carmakers, Mercedes-Benz and BMW, demanding a climate strategy that complies with the Paris Agreement goals. DUH also announced legal action against the oil and natural gas company Wintershall Dea.
The suit is launched only days before the start of the Internationale Automobil-Ausstellung (IAA), one of the largest Car Shows in the world due to open on 7 September 7 in Munich. Greenpeace Germany as part of a large NGO alliance is organising a large protest march and bike ride against the car and internal combustion engine-centred industry.
Quotes
Roda Verheyen, counsel for the plaintiffs: "Whoever delays climate protection harms others and thus behaves unlawfully. This is clear on the basis of the constitutional court decision, and this also and especially applies to the German car industry with its gigantic global CO2 footprint. Clearly, this is not a game. Civil law can and must help us to prevent the worst effects of climate change by ordering corporations to stop emitting - otherwise they endanger our lives and deprive our children and grandchildren of the right to a safe future."
Clara Mayer, plaintiff against Volkswagen and climate protection activist, said: "Climate protection is a constitutional right. It is not acceptable that a company should so significantly prevent us from reaching our climate targets. At the moment, Volkswagen is making huge profits by producing climate-damaging cars, which we will have to pay dearly for in the form of climate consequences. The basic rights of future generations are in danger, as we are already seeing the effects of the climate crisis. The begging and pleading has come to an end, it is time to hold Volkswagen legally responsible."
Links
The claim letter from Greenpeace in German can be found at https://bit.ly/3mV05Hn.
Further information on the claim at https://www.greenpeace.de/themen/energiewende/mobilitaet/auf-klimaschutz-verklagt
Contacts
Benjamin Stephan, transport expert Greenpeace Germany, mobile +49151-57208151, Benjamin.Stephan@greenpeace.org
Simone Miller, Press Officer Greenpeace Germany, mobile +49171-8706647, Simone.Miller@greenpeace.org
Photo desk Eva Petschull, +49174-1313323, pictures available here
Greenpeace is a global, independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
+31 20 718 2000"Our fight to ensure that voters—not politicians—have the final say is far from over," said one organizer.
Campaigners who last month celebrated the success of their effort to place an abortion rights referendum on November ballots in Missouri faced uncertainty about the ballot initiative Friday night, after a judge ruled that organizers had made an error on their petitions that rendered the measure invalid.
Judge Christopher Limbaugh of Cole County Circuit Court sided with pro-forced pregnancy lawmakers and activists who had argued that Missourians for Constitutional Freedom had not sufficiently explained the ramifications of the Right to Reproductive Freedom initiative, or Amendment 3, which would overturn the state's near-total abortion ban.
The state constitution has a requirement that initiative petitions include "an enacting clause and the full text of the measure," and clarify the laws or sections of the constitution that would be repealed if the amendment were passed.
Missourians for Constitutional Freedom included the full text of the measure on their petitions, which were signed by more than 380,000 residents—more than twice the number of signatures needed to place the question on ballots.
Opponents claimed, though, that organizers did not explain to signatories the meaning of "a person's fundamental right to reproductive freedom."
Limbaugh accused the group of a "blatant violation" of the constitution.
Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for the group, said it "remains unwavering in [its] mission to ensure Missourians have the right to vote on reproductive freedom on November 5."
"The court's decision to block Amendment 3 from appearing on the ballot is a profound injustice to the initiative petition process and undermines the rights of the... 380,000 Missourians who signed our petition," said Sweet. "Our fight to ensure that voters—not politicians—have the final say is far from over."
Limbaugh said he would wait until Tuesday, when the state is set to print ballots, to formally issue an injunction instructing the secretary of state to remove the question.
Missourians for Constitutional Freedom said it plans to appeal to a higher court, but if the court declines to act, the question would be struck from ballots.
As the case plays out in the coming days, said Missouri state Rep. Eric Woods (D-18), "it's a good time for a reminder that Missouri's current extreme abortion ban has ZERO exceptions for rape or incest. And Missouri Republicans are hell bent on keeping it that way."
The ruling came weeks after the Arkansas Supreme Court disqualified an abortion rights amendment from appearing on November ballots, saying organizers had failed to correctly submit paperwork verifying that paid canvassers had been properly trained.
"We demand our government completely stop arming Israel and push for a cease-fire now," said the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Thousands of people gathered at London's Picadilly Circus Saturday for the city's latest march against Israel's bombardment of Gaza and the United Kingdom's continued support for the Israel Defense Forces, following what organizers called "a major victory in defense of the democratic right to protest."
The Metropolitan Police on Friday dropped its restrictions on the march, which was the first pro-Palestinian protest since last October to proceed to the Israeli embassy in London.
The police had attempted to stop campaigners from gathering before 2:30 pm, conflicting with plans to begin the rally preceding the march at noon.
"They never provided any convincing explanation or evidence for this delay, and it has caused enormous, unnecessary difficulty to the organization of a large-scale demonstration," Ben Jamal, who leads the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, one of the groups organizing the march, toldMiddle East Eye on Friday.
"It has unfortunately been part of a pattern of obstruction, delay, and lack of communication on the part of the Met which we will press them to review and reflect on for future demonstrations," he added. "For tomorrow, we call on our supporters to turn out in their hundreds of thousands to show we will not be deterred from seeking an end to Israel's genocide and justice for Palestine!"
Jamal said the police "saw sense and abandoned their unjustified and impractical attempt to delay the start of the march by two hours on Saturday," allowing the march to begin at 1:30 pm.
During previous marches in which hundreds of thousands of people have demonstrated in solidarity with Palestinians since last October, police have blocked off the area surrounding the Israeli embassy in Kensington, threatening anyone who protested in the vicinity with arrest.
Marching to the embassy, demonstrators made a "renewed call to end the ongoing genocide in Gaza" and demanded an "immediate and full cessation of arms supplies to Israel."
Earlier this week, the U.K. government announced it was suspending approximately 30 of its 350 arms export licenses for Israel, saying that "there does exist a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law."
Human rights advocates, medical professionals working in Gaza, and legal experts have for months demanded that Israel's top international funders, including the U.S. and U.K., stop providing military aid as Israel has blocked humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza and waged attacks on civilian infrastructure, killing more than 40,000 people.
The country has also been accused of carrying out genocide in a case led by South Africa at the International Court of Justice; the court has ordered Israel to end its blockade on humanitarian aid and to prevent genocide in Gaza.
"We demand our government completely stop arming Israel and push for a cease-fire now," said the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
As Londoners marched on Saturday, the Gaza Health Ministry announced that at least 61 Palestinians had been killed by Israeli forces in the last two days. Four people were killed in a strike on Halimah al-Saadiyah school in Jabaliya, where displaced Palestinians have been sheltering, and three were killed in a bombing at Amr Ibn al-As school in Gaza City.
Media outlets in Palestine reported that a baby named Yaqeen al-Astal had become the 37th child in Gaza to die of malnutrition since Israel began its near-total aid blockade.
International outrage also grew on Saturday regarding the killing of a Turkish American activist, Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, in the West Bank on Friday. Local media and eyewitnesses said Eygi had been deliberately shot in the head by Israeli forces at a protest over the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements.
The U.S. called on Israel to investigate the killing on Friday, but Eygi's family said in a statement that such a probe would not be "adequate."
"We call on President [Joe] Biden, Vice President [Kamala] Harris, and Secretary of State [Antony] Blinken to order an independent investigation into the unlawful killing of a U.S. citizen and to ensure full accountability for the guilty parties," said the family.
Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson for the United Nations, called for "a full investigation of the circumstances" and said that "people should be held accountable. And again, civilians must be protected at all times."
“If Speaker Johnson drives House Republicans down this highly partisan path," said Democratic leaders, "the odds of a shutdown go way up."
Leading U.S. Senate Democrats on Friday accused House Republicans of "wasting precious time catering to the hard MAGA right" as House Speaker Mike Johnson unveiled a stopgap funding bill tied to a proposal that would require proof of citizenship in order to vote in federal elections.
The proposal—the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act—has been pushed by Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump and was passed by the House in July, with five Democrats joining the GOP in supporting the bill.
Non-citizens are already barred from voting in federal elections. With about 21.3 million eligible voters reporting in a recent survey that they would not be able to quickly access their birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, or certificate of citizenship in order to prove their status, critics say the proposal is a clear attempt to stop people of color and young Americans from taking part in elections.
Johnson proposed including the legislation in a stopgap bill, or a continuing resolution, that would keep the government running roughly at current spending levels through March 28—a move that would postpone major spending negotiations until after the next president takes office.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said that "avoiding a government shutdown requires bipartisanship, not a bill drawn up by one party," and alluded to former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's (R-Calif.) attempt last September to ram a spending bill through with immigration and border policy changes in order to avert a government shutdown.
"Speaker Johnson is making the same mistake as former Speaker McCarthy did a year ago," said Schumer and Murray in a statement. "The House Republican funding proposal is an ominous case of déjà vu."
“If Speaker Johnson drives House Republicans down this highly partisan path," they added, "the odds of a shutdown go way up, and Americans will know that the responsibility of a shutdown will be on the House Republicans' hands."
Johnson is expected to bring the bill to the House floor on Wednesday after lawmakers return from summer recess. Congress has a September 30 deadline to make changes to the spending bill in order to avoid a partial government shutdown on October 1.
The House speaker called the proposal "a critically important step" toward funding the government and ensuring "that only American citizens can decide American elections"—prompting one critic to accuse Johnson of pushing a "manufactured" issue.
"Anyone who reads the SAVE Act understands it is a bad bill," said attorney Heath Hixson, "a poorly worded unfunded mandate that'll lead to voter suppression and racist outcomes."