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
south korea
Ahead of Hearing, South Koreans Hope Climate Case Inspires Others
"If we have a favorable precedent in South Korea, I think that will really be a trigger in spreading this trend," said one attorney in the landmark youth-led lawsuit.
May 20, 2024
Climate justice advocates on Monday expressed hope that a landmark youth-led South Korean lawsuit—which alleges the country's government is failing to protect citizens from the effects of the human-caused planetary emergency—will have a ripple effect that inspires activists throughout Asia and beyond to take similar action.
South Korea's Constitutional Court is set to hold a second and final hearing Tuesday in the case, which was filed in 2019 by 19 members of Youth4ClimateAction who accuse the South Korean government of violating their rights to life, the "pursuit of happiness," a "healthy and pleasant environment," and to "resist against human extinction."
"All countries need to take action in order to tackle this global crisis, and there are no exceptions."
The case was merged with three similar suits filed since 2020, including one brought by parents on behalf of dozens of children under the age of 5. One infant, nicknamed "Woodpecker," was not yet born at the time the complaint was lodged. The lawsuit comes amid a growing wave of similar cases around the world.
"If we have a favorable precedent in South Korea, I think that will really be a trigger in spreading this trend," Sejong Youn, an attorney in the South Korean case, toldNature Monday. "It will send a message: All countries need to take action in order to tackle this global crisis, and there are no exceptions."
Referring to the Paris climate agreement, Amnesty International Korea climate campaigner Jiyoun Yoo said Monday that "strategic litigation is a powerful tool which is being increasingly used to enforce states' binding duty to protect people's rights from the adverse impacts of the climate crisis and ensure there is no backsliding on the international commitments they made in 2015 to prevent average global temperatures from rising above 1.5°C this century."
"The climate crisis is already upon us but the effects will be felt even more intensely by future generations," Yoo added. "Cases like this are vital to safeguarding citizens' rights. Taking legal action against a state is often a long and arduous process which requires patience and perseverance and the courage of these pioneering plaintiffs is to be admired and applauded."
According to the United Nations Environment Program's (UNEP) most recent Emissions Gap Report, humanity must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 28% before 2030 to limit warming to 2°C above preindustrial levels and 42% to halt warming at 1.5°C. UNEP said that based on current policies and practices, the world is on track for 2.9°C of warming by the end of the century.
South Korea is the fifth-largest greenhouse gas emitter among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations.
Mingzhe Zhu—who studies the links between politics, science, and nature at the University of Glasgow in Scotland—told Nature that even if the South Korean case fails, it will inspire other potential litigants around the world.
"Even if you lose this time, you can lose beautifully in the sense that you provoked social awareness," Zhu said. "The very fact that this case went to the Constitutional Court—that is already a certain sense of success. I believe in people's creativity. Even if you fail this time, you can learn from this experience and just try another pass."
Keep ReadingShow Less
South Korean Court Hears First Asian Youth Climate Case
"Carbon emission reduction keeps getting pushed back as if it is homework that can be done later," said one plaintiff's mother. "But that burden will be what our children have to bear eventually."
Apr 23, 2024
One of South Korea's two highest courts on Tuesday began hearing Asia's first-ever youth-led climate lawsuit, which accuses the country's government of failing to protect citizens from the effects of the worsening, human-caused planetary emergency.
Nineteen members of the advocacy group Youth4ClimateAction filed a constitutional complaint in March 2020 accusing the South Korean government of violating their rights to life, the "pursuit of happiness," a "healthy and pleasant environment," and to "resist against human extinction."
The lawsuit also notes "the inequality between the adult generation who can enjoy the relatively pleasant environment and the youth generation who must face a potential disaster from climate change," as well as the government's obligation to prevent and protect citizens from environmental disasters.
"South Korea's current climate plans are not sufficient to keep the temperature increase within 1.5°C, thus violating the state's obligation to protect fundamental rights," the plaintiffs said in a statement.
South Korea's Constitutional Court began hearing a case that accuses the government of having failed to protect 200 people, including dozens of young environmental activists and children, by not tackling climate change https://t.co/XRIGE23KGM pic.twitter.com/snvqBaGGe9
— Reuters (@Reuters) April 23, 2024
Signatories to the 2015 Paris agreement committed to "holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C."
According to the United Nations Environment Program's (UNEP) most recent Emissions Gap Report, the world must slash greenhouse gas emissions by 28% before 2030 to limit warming to 2°C above preindustrial levels and 42% to halt warming at 1.5°C. UNEP said that based on current policies and practices, the world is on track for 2.9°C of warming by the end of the century.
A summary of the lawsuit notes that South Korea is the fifth-largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations, and that the government is constitutionally obligated to protect Koreans from the climate emergency.
Instead, the plaintiffs argue, the Korean Parliament "gave the government total discretion to set the GHG reduction target without providing any specific guidelines." Furthermore, they contend that the government's downgraded reduction targets fall "far short of what is necessary to satisfy the temperature rise threshold acknowledged by the global community."
Lee Donghyun, the mother of one of the plaintiffs, toldReuters: "Carbon emission reduction keeps getting pushed back as if it is homework that can be done later. But that burden will be what our children have to bear eventually."
The South Korean case comes on the heels of a landmark ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which found that Switzerland's government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to heed scientists' warnings to swiftly phase out fossil fuel production.
The ECHR ruled on the same day that climate cases brought by a former French mayor and a group of Portuguese youth were inadmissible.
Courts in Australia, Brazil, and Peru also have human rights-based climate cases on their dockets.
In the United States, a state judge in Montana ruled last year in favor of 16 young residents who argued that fossil fuel extraction violated their constitutional right to "a clean and healthful environment."
Meanwhile, the Biden administration is trying to derail a historic youth-led climate lawsuit against the U.S. government.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Need an Alternative to Nuclear-Armed Nationalism
If “war made the state and the state made war,” then the state, as currently perceived, at least by those besotted with military power, is the problem.
Apr 13, 2024
An enormous flash, a mushroom cloud, multi-thousands of human beings dead. We win!
Nuclear weapons won’t go away, the cynics—the souls in despair—tell us. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. You can’t, as Gen. James E. Cartwright, former head of U.S. Strategic Command, once put it, “un-invent nuclear weapons.” So apparently we’re stuck with them until the “big oops” happens and humanity becomes extinct. Until then: Modernize, modernize, modernize. Threaten, threaten, threaten
David Barash and Ward Wilson make the case that this is completely false: We’re not “stuck” with nuclear weapons any more than we’re stuck with obsolete and ineffective technology of any sort, bluntly pointing out: “Crappy ideas don’t have to be forgotten in order to be abandoned.”
“Useless, dangerous, or outmoded technology needn’t be forced out of existence. Once a thing is no longer useful, it unceremoniously and deservedly gets ignored.”
We live in a self-declared democracy but we, the people, are not the ones with real authority here. Those who run the show seem essentially blind to the consequences of militarism, war and, for God’s sake, nukes.
This is a valid and significant challenge to the cynicism of so many people, which is an easy trap to get caught in. Nuclear weapons will eventually go the way of the penny-farthing (huge front-wheeled) bicycle, according to the authors. Humanity is capable of simply moving beyond this valueless technology—and eventually it will. The genie has no power to stop this. Praise the Lord.
Transcending cynicism is the first step in envisioning change—but envisioning change isn’t the same thing as creating it. The next step in the process is hardly a matter of “better technology”—i.e., a better (less radioactive?) means of killing the enemy. The next step involves a change in humanity’s collective consciousness. As far as I can tell, we’re caught—horrifically caged—in the psychology of a border-drawn, divided planet. Social scientist Charles Tilly once put it with stunning simplicity: “War made the state and the state made war.”
The human race cuddles with the concept of “state sovereignty.” It’s the basic right of the 193 national entities that have claimed their specific slices of Planet Earth—and I certainly understand the “sovereignty” part. Who doesn’t want to make his or her own life decisions? But the “state” part? It’s full of paradox and contradiction, not to mention a dark permission to behave at one’s worst. The militarism that worships the nuclear genie couldn’t exist without state sovereignty.
To me the question in crucial need of being asked right now is this: What is our alternative to nationalism, which currently claims free reign on the planet? And nationalism strides with a lethal swagger—especially nuclear-armed nationalism. For instance, as The Associated Press recently reported:
President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that Russia is ready to use nuclear weapons if its sovereignty or independence is threatened, issuing another blunt warning to the West just days before an election in which he’s all but certain to secure another six-year term.
Or here’s The Times of Israel: “Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu said Sunday that one of Israel’s options in the war against Hamas could be to drop a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip...”
Plunk! Finish the job!
And then, of course, there’s the global good guy—USA! USA!—leading the charge to bring peace to the world wherever and however it can: for instance, by claiming “sovereignty” (you might say) over the national interests of South Korea and declaring, as Simone Chun puts it at Truthout, a “new Cold War with China” and implementing a “massive expansion of the provocative U.S.-led military exercises in the Korean Peninsula.”
Wow, a new Cold War! Over 300,000 South Korean troops and 10,000 American troops, in a series of war games known as “Freedom Shield 2024,” have conducted numerous field maneuvers, including bombing runs, at the North Korean border.
Chun writes: “The combined United States Forces Korea (USFK) and South Korean forces far overshadow those of North Korea, whose entire military budget is $1.47 billion compared to that of South Korea at $43.1 billion, not to mention that of the U.S. at $816.7 billion...”
“The U.S. is using North Korea as a pretext for its new Cold War against China,” she goes on, “and, with its control of 40% of the world’s nuclear stockpile, is even willing to risk nuclear war to further its geopolitical aims.”
And she quotes Noam Chomsky who, addressing the country’s blatant indifference to this risk, points out that “the United States always plays with fire.”
How do we get it to stop?
We live in a self-declared democracy but we, the people, are not the ones with real authority here. Those who run the show seem essentially blind to the consequences of militarism, war and, for God’s sake, nukes. Having power means having the ability to threaten—and, if necessary, cause—harm... beyond their divinely sanctioned borders, of course (not counting the likely consequences that know no borders).
If Tilly is right—if “war made the state and the state made war”—then the state, as currently perceived, at least by those besotted with military power, is the problem. Knowing this is the beginning... but of what? Survival means finding an answer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular