SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
senior women for climate protection
In 'Landmark' Ruling, Top EU Court Rules Swiss Climate Inaction Violates Human Rights
"This ruling is a call to action for the climate movement—we will not stop demanding action from governments on their clear obligations, set out in this ruling, to prevent climate catastrophe," said one attorney.
Apr 09, 2024
A decision handed down by one of the European Union's top courts on Tuesday should signal to governments across the bloc and beyond that their time may soon be up when it comes to delaying climate action, as the panel ruled the Swiss government has violated the human rights of its senior citizens by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings and swiftly phase out fossil fuel production.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) announced its decisions in three separate climate cases, including one brought by theKlimaSeniorinnen, or Senior Women for Climate Protection, in Switzerland.
The group of about 2,400 women aged 64 and up argued last year that the Swiss government has violated their rights by failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to stop intensifying heatwaves and other climate impacts from affecting citizens.
The plaintiffs cited research showing that older women are particularly vulnerable to heat-related illnesses and death.
Switzerland has pledged to cut planet-heating fossil fuel emissions by 50% from 1990 levels by the end of the decade. In 2021 voters rejected a proposal to tax airline tickets and fuel to help the country meet its goal.
According to the Swiss Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology, Switzerland is warming at twice the rate of the global average.
The Climate Action Tracker has classified Swiss climate policies and actions as "insufficient," partially because it has implemented agreements with other countries to offset its domestic emissions in an attempt to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
Gerry Liston, an attorney representing another group of litigants from Portugal, told The New York Times that the ECHR's acknowledgment that Switzerland's policies are not based in science was especially significant.
"No European government's climate policies are aligned with anything near" the Paris climate agreement's goal of limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C, Liston said, "so it will be clear to those working on climate litigation in those countries that there is now a clear basis to bring a case in their national courts."
Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney for the Center for International Environmental Law, said the ruling—the first by an international human rights court on governments' climate inaction—is likely "to influence climate action and climate litigation across Europe and far beyond."
"Today's historic judgment... leaves no doubt: The climate crisis is a human rights crisis, and states have human rights obligations to act urgently and effectively and in line with the best available science to prevent further devastation and harm to people and the environment," said Chowdhury. "The ruling reinforces the vital role of courts—both international and domestic—in holding governments to their legal obligations to protect human rights from environmental harm. It also affirms the power and courage of those who speak out and dare to demand a livable future for all."
The other two cases on which the ECHR ruled Tuesday, finding them "inadmissable," were brought by a former mayor of a town in France and a group of six Portuguese children and young people, ranging in age from 12-25.
Damien Carême, former mayor of Grande-Synthe and now a member of the European Parliament for the Green Party, argued France had taken insufficient steps to protect the coastal town from flooding. The ECHR ruled that the case was not admissible because Carême no longer lives in Grande-Synthe.
The six Portuguese plaintiffs had argued that the effects of fossil fuel-driven planetary heating—including heatwaves and wildfires—have and will continue to affect their lives and wellbeing. The court ruled the group had not exhausted all its legal options in Portugal.
The Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), which represented the Portuguese group, said the court's decision was still "a win for all generations," because the court made clear that "government failure to rapidly cut emissions is a violation of human rights."
"This ruling is a call to action for the climate movement—we will not stop demanding action from governments on their clear obligations, set out in this ruling, to prevent climate catastrophe," said GLAN.
The Council of Europe's 46 members, which includes all 27 E.U. countries, are bound by the ECHR's rulings, and the verdict opens the countries up to similar cases in national courts.
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the court's mixed rulings "underscore how difficult it can be for impacted communities to demonstrate in a legal setting what science has clearly shown for decades: the direct connection between heat-trapping emissions, climate change, and the extreme weather impacts they are experiencing such as heatwaves and wildfires."
"The uphill battle for climate accountability persists as vulnerable communities bravely challenge entrenched political, economic, and legal systems that have historically prioritized the fossil fuel industry and private interests," said Merner. "The courts still have a critical role to play in holding high-emitting entities accountable for their role in the climate crisis, helping to address historical responsibility for the release of heat-trapping emissions resulting in climate injustice, and protecting human rights for current and future generations."
The ECHR has had six other climate cases on hold pending the decisions handed down Tuesday, including one against the Norwegian government. Plaintiffs in that case argue Norway violated human rights by issuing new licenses for oil and gas drilling in the Barents Sea beyond 2035.
Scientists and the International Energy Agency have said in recent years that there's no place for new fossil fuel production on a pathway to limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C.
Courts in Australia, Brazil, Peru, and South Korea are also considering human rights-based climate cases.
Despite the ECHR's mixed rulings, Merner called the decision regarding Switzerland "groundbreaking."
"This ruling highlights the undeniable link between government climate policies and the fundamental rights to life and family," said Merner. "With extreme weather events like heatwaves becoming more frequent and intense due to fossil fuel exacerbated climate change, this landmark judgment sends a clear message: Governments must strengthen their efforts to combat climate change, not just as a matter of environmental policy, but as a crucial aspect of protecting human rights."
Keep ReadingShow Less
12 Climate Justice Milestones From 2023
2024 brings an opportunity for people most impacted by climate to tell their stories and leverage the power of the world’s courts.
Dec 24, 2023
2023 has been a watershed year in the climate justice movement. The number of climate justice cases in front of international courts and tribunals surged this year, and this is why.
This year saw youth from almost 100 countries across the Global South gather in Lebanon to co-create strategies and demands calling on decision-makers at COP28 and beyond to implement an equitable climate action framework. Soon after at the inaugural African climate summit, young people from across the continent demanded meaningful action to address the environmental challenges threatening their future.
Here is a summary of major updates, wins, pauses, and losses from the climate change litigation world in 2023.
Swiss Senior Women at the European Court of Human Rights
The Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection (widely known as KlimaSeniorinnen) case is the first climate case ever heard at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It addresses the duties of Switzerland to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more ambitiously to protect the lives of at-risk people. The decision (expected in 2024) will impact national climate policies and cases in Europe and beyond.
In the Swiss Senior Women’s own words, “To sue one’s own government is no ‘Sunday picnic’ and can only be done by those who can prove that they are particularly affected. And in this process, we have come a long way,” said Elisabeth Stern in her personal reflections on the significance of the case.
International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion (ICJAO)
The United Nations held a historic vote, led by the Vanuatu government, to determine whether the matter of climate crisis and human rights is referred to the International Court of Justice. On March 29, 2023, the resolution for an advisory opinion on the obligations of States with respect to climate change and human rights was adopted by 132 co-sponsoring countries at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). For the first time in history, the UNGA adopted a resolution to the ICJ by consensus. This was a result of a global alliance campaigning to get the highest court in the world (the International Court of Justice) to determine what duties countries have to protect the human rights of current and future generations from the climate crisis; and what should happen under international law when countries breach these legal duties.
Dutch Citizens’ Legal Action Against the Netherlands
Residents and Dutch citizens of the island of Bonaire, in the Caribbean, together with Greenpeace Netherlands, in May launched a legal action over the government’s failure to protect the Caribbean island against climate change impacts. Bonaire, a former Dutch colony, has been a special Dutch municipality since 2010. According to the seven individual plaintiffs, the state is negligent in protecting the people of Bonaire from climate change and violates their human rights. They demand that the Netherlands meet its fair share when it comes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and that the island of Bonaire is better protected against the impacts of climate change, while recognizing the roots of the issues, such as colonialism.
#EniKnew—The Call for Corporate Accountability
ENI Knew a report by Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon, revealed that the Italian oil and gas giant has known since the early 1970s about the damage caused by fossil fuels to the planet’s climate. This report follows a lawsuit filed by 12 Italian citizens, Greenpeace Italy, and ReCommon in May 2023 against the fossil fuel company for its contribution to global warming.
The claimants are asking the Court of Rome to declare ENI liable for past and potential future damages to fundamental rights, such as the right to health, safety, and property and for putting and continuing to put in danger the same assets of the applicants because of the consequences of climate change.
Pacific Climate Justice Ship Tour
Throughout July and August, the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior sailed from Vanuatu to Tuvalu and Fiji as part of our Pacific Climate Justice Ship Tour. During the visit, Greenpeace Australia-Pacific campaigners met with community and government leaders to listen and engage in ‘talanoa’ or discussion, and to learn how best to support Pacific climate demands. They celebrated the beauty of culture and campaigned for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the impacts of climate change on human rights.
Korean Constitutional Complaint
On September, 20, 2023, 167 South Koreans, backed by Greenpeace East Asia’s Seoul office, presented a petition at the Constitutional Court for the declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 159(2) of the Capital Markets Act, for its lack of requirement of climate disclosure of business enterprises. They argued that the lack of mandatory climate disclosure results in companies picking and choosing what elements to report in their sustainability reports, leading to increased greenwashing. Unfortunately, in November 2023, the Constitutional Court ruled that the complaint should be rejected, but this is only opening another chapter of people-powered legal work as an answer.
Advisory Opinion at the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
Greenpeace International attended the opening day of three weeks of hearings at the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, Germany, in September 2023. The Tribunal was requested by a coalition of Pacific states to advise on the obligations of states to protect the marine environment from greenhouse gas pollution. The hearings were significant because three international judicial courts and tribunals currently are working to prepare advisory opinions on climate change, and ITLOS is the first to receive submissions and hear arguments. Greenpeace and Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submitted a written statement, circulated to the parties involved, on the obligations of states to phase out fossil fuels.
Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 31 Other States
On September 27, 2023, the Duarte Agostinho and Others vs. Portugal and 31 Other countries’ case had its big moment with a public hearing in front of 17 judges at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Strasbourg, France. Six courageous Portuguese children and young adults brought this case against 32 European countries to the European court. These young people are asking the courts to legally compel countries to ramp up their efforts to cut emissions in line with holding global heating below 1.5°C.
The Climate Justice Walk
In the lead-up to the 10th anniversary of Typhoon Haiyan’s (locally known as Yolanda) historic landfall in the Philippines, 12 core Climate Walkers and supporters from a diverse coalition of climate and human rights advocates began their solidarity walk from Manila to Tacloban for the Climate Justice Walk 2023: A People’s Journey for Climate Justice.
The 1,000-kilometer journey on foot and on bicycles culminated on November 7, 2023, on the eve of the 10th anniversary of Typhoon Haiyan, with the Climate Walkers converging with local storm survivors and impacted communities as they crossed the iconic San Juanico bridge on their way to Tacloban. The walk was in support of the wave of climate litigation cases worldwide, including the Philippine Commission on Human Rights’ landmark inquiry. It also demanded that world governments intensify their ambition for the Global Stocktake, mobilize essential resources for the Loss and Damage Fund of the UNFCCC, and elevate the call for climate reparations.
Greenpeace Nordic and Natur og Ungdom v. The Norwegian State
Greenpeace Nordic and Natur og Ungdom (Young Friends of the Earth Norway) took the Norwegian state to court again in a new trial from November 28 to December 6. The new climate lawsuit in Norway is part of the wider movement to hold states and corporations accountable for the climate and nature crises. The organisations argue that the recent approvals of three oil fields violate the Norwegian constitution and Norway’s international human rights commitments, including the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. They demand an immediate halt to the ongoing development of the oil fields.
Climate Litigation Victory in Belgium
After nine years of procedure, a Belgian climate litigation case finally achieved a momentous victory. After a first symbolic win in 2021, where the judge held that the Belgium government breached its duty of care by failing to take necessary measures to prevent the harmful effects of climate change but did not rule on binding reduction targets, the Court of Appeal has now ruled in favor of such binding targets. The ruling of the Court of Appeal obliges the different governments in Belgium to collectively cut CO2 emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990.
U.N. Human Rights Prize
In December, The Global Coalition of Civil Society, Indigenous Peoples, Social Movements, and Local Communities for the Universal Recognition of the Human Right to a Clean, Healthy, and Sustainable Environment was awarded the 2023 U.N. Human Rights Prize at a ceremony in New York, USA. Greenpeace is one of the members of the Global Coalition that comprises civil society, Indigenous peoples, social movements, and local communities. The Right to Healthy Environment Coalition is calling for accountability from governments to ensure we live in a world with a safe climate, nontoxic environment, clean air, access to safe water, and adequate sanitation, healthy and sustainably produced food, and thriving biodiversity, now and for the future.
What Next for Climate Justice?
2024 brings an opportunity for people most impacted by climate to tell their stories and leverage the power of the world’s courts. It is a global opportunity to shape and define government and corporate obligations to tackle the climate crisis and protect the rights of current and future generations. It is an opportunity to build collective and transformative power to fight toxic power led by those most impacted by the multiple crises today.
What do we want? Climate Justice! When do we want it? NOW!
Keep ReadingShow Less
European Human Rights Court Hears Historic Climate Case Brought by Elderly Swiss Women
"We are suing for our human right to life," said one 78-year-old plaintiff. "With this case, we want to help spur politicians into action a little bit."
Mar 29, 2023
The European Court of Human Rights on Wednesday heard arguments in a case brought by a group of elderly Swiss women who are suing their country's government, alleging that its "current climate targets and measures are not sufficient to limit global warming to a safe level."
Members of Senior Women for Climate Protection (KlimaSeniorinnen) and their attorneys appeared in the Strasbourg, France court for the tribunal's first-ever climate case. Outside the court, activists from the group and from other organizations including Greenpeace held banners and flowers and chanted "bravo" as each woman exited the building, according toSwissInfo.
"We are suing for our human right to life," Lore Zablonier, a 78-year-old from Zurich, toldThe Associated Press outside the court. "With this case, we want to help spur politicians into action a little bit."
\u201cThank you for supporting us \ud83d\ude0d\n\ud83d\ude4c\ud83d\ude4c\ud83d\ude4c\ud83d\ude4c\ud83d\ude4c\ud83d\ude4c\ud83d\ude4c\ud83d\ude4c\ud83d\ude4c\ud83d\ude4c\u201d— KlimaSeniorinnen (@KlimaSeniorinnen) 1680071319
As KlimaSeniorinnen's website explains:
Climate change already produces extensive damage. Menacing heatwaves, landslides, and floods will become the norm unless we take immediate action. Scientific insights notwithstanding, Switzerland along with most other countries is not doing as much as is necessary to avert such disasters. Because governments, through their inaction, violate basic rights, more and more people around the globe are taking them to court. What's at stake is a livable future—without climate collapse.
A growing number of climate-related cases are on the docket in courts around the world, from Australia to Sweden to the United States. The European Court of Human Rights will hear at least two more climate cases this year—one filed by a group of Portuguese youth and the other by a Green member of the European Parliament from France.
Switzerland is warming at a rate of more than twice the global mean. According to the Swiss Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology:
The strong warming has an impact on many other climate indices in Switzerland. For instance, the zero-degree line has climbed substantially, which has resulted in Alpine glaciers losing over 60% of their volume since 1850. It is likely that they will no longer be part of the Alpine landscape by the end of this century. The vegetation period now lasts several weeks longer in the lowlands than it did even in the 1960s. Due to warming, precipitation now falls more often as rain than snow.
In 2021, Swiss voters narrowly rejected a government proposal to tax automobile fuel and airline tickets in a bid to help the country meet its targets under the Paris climate agreement. Switzerland is responsible for about 0.1% of global emissions.
(Image: Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology)
A verdict in the suit filed by KlimaSeniorinnen is expected next year.
"Should we win... a better climate policy will help less the lives of senior people than those of our children and grandchildren," explained plaintiff Elisabeth Stern.
"Are we older women victims? Yes, in the sense of being personally affected and at increased health risk from increasing temperatures," Stern added. "But we are also highly competent agents of change. Because our climate complaint for the first time puts the European Court of Human Rights in the situation to comment on the climate protection measures of a member state. And on the question of whether climate action to protect citizens is a fundamental human right."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular