Since you asked…climate change

The Urgenda Foundation and 900 co-plaintiffs sued the government for not taking sufficient measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause dangerous climate change, citing human rights in their assertion that the state has a legal obligation to protect its citizens. They were successful. This is the first time that a judge has legally required a state to take precautions against climate change.

The verdict surprised Behnam Taebi, assistant professor of philosophy at TU Delft, and a research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School. Not, however, because there was an appeal made to human rights or protecting the environment. “In environmental protection discussions, and more specifically in climate change, one distinguishes between the spatial and temporal effects. The former being immediate effects in the space, and the latter effects that could materialise in the future. Hence, an appeal is often made to intergenerational justice or justice to posterity. What is interesting in the Urgenda case is that this intergenerational argument has been explicitly taken into account,” he said.

“One major source of controversy in the climate debate is the extent to which each state should cut emissions,” said Taebi. “It is often argued: why should richer countries accept the cuts and harm their economies, while the developing countries may continue to emit and pollute? Another aspect of the debate is: accepting cuts unilaterally is not helpful, since it is a common interest that is at stake, it is only in a common course of action that cuts are useful and fair. The verdict is offering a way out of this stalemate in that it says it is not sufficient to refer to other states inaction in order to justify your own inaction. This is fascinating reasoning by the court, a type of reasoning that could generate important action.”

It remains to be seen what the Dutch government’s next steps will be, how the ruling can be enforced, and whether there will be a wave of similar litigation in other countries. The government is expected to debate the issue after the summer recess. “My guess is that the state will appeal. The economic stakes are high. So, I guess that the battle will go on for some years,” said Taebi. “However, the verdict, and at more fundamental level, the Urgenda movement, must be valued. Firstly, the verdict is offering a legal exit out of long lasting political stalemate and, secondly, it shows a great level of awareness among citizens. This type of well-informed grassroots movement, with sufficient understanding of legal instruments at its disposal, is exactly what we need in combatting climate change.”