Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling

Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling

2015. The Guardian

A court in The Hague has ordered the Dutch government to cut its emissions by at least 25% within five years, in a landmark ruling expected to cause ripples around the world.

To cheers and hoots from climate campaigners in court, three judges ruled that government plans to cut emissions by just 14-17% compared to 1990 levels by 2020 were unlawful, given the scale of the threat posed by climate change.

Jubilant campaigners said that governments preparing for the Paris climate summit later this year would now need to look over their shoulders for civil rights era-style legal challenges where emissions-cutting pledges are inadequate.

“Before this judgement, the only legal obligations on states were those they agreed among themselves in international treaties,” said Dennis van Berkel, legal counsel for Urgenda, the group that brought the suit.

“This is the first a time a court has determined that states have an independent legal obligation towards their citizens. That must inform the reduction commitments in Paris because if it doesn’t, they can expect pressure from courts in their own jurisdictions.”

In what was the first climate liability suit brought under human rights and tort law, Judge Hans Hofhuis told the court that the threat posed by global warming was severe and acknowledged by the Dutch government in international pacts.

“The state should not hide behind the argument that the solution to the global climate problem does not depend solely on Dutch efforts,” the judges’ ruling said. “Any reduction of emissions contributes to the prevention of dangerous climate change and as a developed country the Netherlands should take the lead in this.”

After a legal campaign that took two and a half years to get to its first hearing in April, normally dispassionate lawyers were visibly moved by the judge’s words. “As the verdict was being read out, I actually had tears in my eyes,” Roger Cox, Urgenda’s lead advocate, told the Guardian. “It was an emotional moment.”

Young activists in court said that the ruling had gone some way to restoring Dutch national pride, which has been dented as Denmark, Germany and even the UK overtook the Netherlands, once seen as a European climate leader, in the green economy race.

The Dutch government has not decided whether to appeal the court’s decision yet, but opposition politicians are steeling themselves for the prospect.

“The government has never ignored a court ruling like this one before, but there has never been a ruling like this before either,” she said. “Everybody has a right to appeal.” Veldhoven has requested a parliamentary debate on Wednesday’s court ruling.

In a statement on behalf of prime minister Mark Rutte’s cabinet, the Dutch environment minister Wilma Mansfeld said that the government’s strategy was to implement EU-wide and international agreements.

“We and Urgenda share the same goal,” Mansfeld said. “We just hold different opinions regarding the manner in which to attain this goal. We will now examine what this ruling means for the Dutch state.”

Some 886 plaintiffs organised by Urgenda had accused the Dutch government of negligence for “knowingly contributing” to a breach of the 2C maximum target for global warming.

Their legal arguments rested on axioms forbidding states from polluting to the extent that they damage other states, and the EU’s ‘precautionary principle’ which prohibits actions that carry unknown but potentially severe risks.

A UN climate secretariat article obliging states to do whatever is necessary to prevent dangerous climate change was also cited. So was the UN climate science panel’s 2007 assessment of the reductions in carbon dioxide needed to have a 50% chance of containing global warming to 2C.

Several legal sources said that ideas outlined in the Oslo principles for climate change obligations, launched in the Guardian in March, appeared to have been influential in the judge’s reasoning.

Professor Pier Vellinga, Urgenda’s chairman and the originator of the 2C target in 1989 said that the breakthrough judgement would have a massive impact. “The ruling is of enormous significance, and beyond our expectations,” he said.

Около 886 истцов от организации “Urgenda”, обвинили правительство Нидерландов в халатности за «сознательное участие» в нарушении максимального нормативного показателя 2C (2 градуса по Цельсию) для глобального потепления.

Их юридические доводы основывались на аксиомах, запрещающих государствам загрязнять окружающая среду в той мере, в которой они наносят вред другим государствам, и «принципе предосторожности» ЕС, который запрещает действия, которые несут неизвестные, но потенциально серьезные риски.

Также была упомянута статья секретариата ООН по климату, обязывающая государства делать все, что необходимо для предотвращения опасных изменений климата. Так, по экспертной оценке климата ООН 2007 года по сокращению углекислого газа, требуется 50% -ная вероятность того, чтобы сдержать глобальное потепление до 2С.

Несколько правовых источников заявили, что идеи, изложенные в принципах Осло по обязательствам в области изменения климата, выпущенные в “Guardian” в марте, по-видимому, оказали влияние на основания, вынесенного судьей, решения.

Джеймс Торнтон, исполнительный директор группы по защите окружающей среды “ClientEarth”, приветствовал постановление, которое, по его словам, было «мужественным и дальновидным», и которое сформировало бы площадку для будущих исков.

«Бывают в истории моменты, когда только суды могут решить непреодолимые проблемы. Раньше были такие проблемы, как дискриминация. Изменение климата - наша непомерная проблема, и суд урегулировал ее. Постановление голландского суда должно побуждать суды по всему миру решать сейчас проблемы изменения климата».

Серж де Гелдере, президент “Klimaat Zaak” в Бельгии, которая является аналогом организации “Urgenda”, сказал: «Такая потрясающая судебная практика обнадеживает. Правительство Бельгии примет к сведению то, что произошло сегодня. Это может стать первым камнем, который вызывет движении лавины».

Профессор Пьер Веллинга, председатель “Urgenda” и создатель нормативного максимального показателя 2C в 1989 году, сказал, что новаторское судебное решение будет иметь огромное влияние. «Постановление имеет огромное значение и выходит за рамки наших ожиданий», - сказал он.

Act damages harm party

Tort: a wrongful 1) act that causes 2) harm to another person for which the injured 3) party may request 4) damages

Система наказаний за нарушения правил гражданских норм: противоправное 1) деяние, которое наносит 2) вред другому лицу, за которое потерпевшая 3) сторона может потребовать возмещения 4) ущер ба

3. Read the article and say whether these statements are true (T) or false (F). Correct the false ones. Прочтите статью и определите, являются ли эти утверждения истинными (T) или ложными (F). Исправьте неверные.

1. A court in The Hague has ordered the Belgian government to cut its emissions by at least 25% within five years. false (F)

A court in The Hague has ordered the Dutch government to cut its emissions by at least 25% within five years.

 

2. To cheers and hoots from climate campaigners in court, three judges ruled that government plans to cut emissions by just 14-17% compared to 1990 levels by 2020 were unlawful. true (T)

 

3. Jubilant campaigners said that governments preparing for the Paris climate summit later this year would not now need to look over their shoulders for civil rights era-style legal challenges. false (F)

Jubilant campaigners said that governments preparing for the Paris climate summit later this year would now need to look over their shoulders for civil rights era-style legal challenges.

 

4. This is the last a time a court has determined that states have an independent legal obligation towards their citizens. false (F)

This is the first a time a court has determined that states have an independent legal obligation towards their citizens.

 

5. “Any reduction of emissions contributes to the prevention of dangerous climate change and as a developed country the Belgium should take the lead in this.” false (F)

“Any reduction of emissions contributes to the prevention of dangerous climate change and as a developed country the Netherlands should take the lead in this.”

 

6. The Dutch government has already decided to appeal the court’s decision. false (F)

The Dutch government has not decided whether to appeal the court’s decision yet.

 

7. The government has never ignored a court ruling like this one before, but there has never been a ruling like this before. true (T)

8. Some 150 plaintiffs organised by Urgenda had accused the Dutch government of negligence for “knowingly contributing” to a breach of the 2C maximum target for global warming. false (F)

Some 886 plaintiffs organised by Urgenda had accused the Dutch government of negligence for “knowingly contributing” to a breach of the 2C maximum target for global warming.

 

9. The court also ordered the government to pay all of Urgenda’s costs. true (T)

Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling

2015. The Guardian

A court in The Hague has ordered the Dutch government to cut its emissions by at least 25% within five years, in a landmark ruling expected to cause ripples around the world.

To cheers and hoots from climate campaigners in court, three judges ruled that government plans to cut emissions by just 14-17% compared to 1990 levels by 2020 were unlawful, given the scale of the threat posed by climate change.

Jubilant campaigners said that governments preparing for the Paris climate summit later this year would now need to look over their shoulders for civil rights era-style legal challenges where emissions-cutting pledges are inadequate.

“Before this judgement, the only legal obligations on states were those they agreed among themselves in international treaties,” said Dennis van Berkel, legal counsel for Urgenda, the group that brought the suit.

“This is the first a time a court has determined that states have an independent legal obligation towards their citizens. That must inform the reduction commitments in Paris because if it doesn’t, they can expect pressure from courts in their own jurisdictions.”

In what was the first climate liability suit brought under human rights and tort law, Judge Hans Hofhuis told the court that the threat posed by global warming was severe and acknowledged by the Dutch government in international pacts.

“The state should not hide behind the argument that the solution to the global climate problem does not depend solely on Dutch efforts,” the judges’ ruling said. “Any reduction of emissions contributes to the prevention of dangerous climate change and as a developed country the Netherlands should take the lead in this.”

After a legal campaign that took two and a half years to get to its first hearing in April, normally dispassionate lawyers were visibly moved by the judge’s words. “As the verdict was being read out, I actually had tears in my eyes,” Roger Cox, Urgenda’s lead advocate, told the Guardian. “It was an emotional moment.”

Young activists in court said that the ruling had gone some way to restoring Dutch national pride, which has been dented as Denmark, Germany and even the UK overtook the Netherlands, once seen as a European climate leader, in the green economy race.

The Dutch government has not decided whether to appeal the court’s decision yet, but opposition politicians are steeling themselves for the prospect.

“The government has never ignored a court ruling like this one before, but there has never been a ruling like this before either,” she said. “Everybody has a right to appeal.” Veldhoven has requested a parliamentary debate on Wednesday’s court ruling.

In a statement on behalf of prime minister Mark Rutte’s cabinet, the Dutch environment minister Wilma Mansfeld said that the government’s strategy was to implement EU-wide and international agreements.

“We and Urgenda share the same goal,” Mansfeld said. “We just hold different opinions regarding the manner in which to attain this goal. We will now examine what this ruling means for the Dutch state.”