The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / International / Dutch Court Upholds Urgenda, Says Government Must Reduce Emissions
Dutch Court Upholds Urgenda, Says Government Must Reduce Emissions

Dutch Court Upholds Urgenda, Says Government Must Reduce Emissions

October 9, 2018 Filed Under: International, Liability Litigation

print
By Ucilia Wang

An appeals court in the Netherlands upheld a historic ruling that requires the Dutch government to reduce emissions in the name of protecting the rights of its citizens.

The Hague Court of Appeal on Tuesday denied the request of the government to overturn the lower court ruling in Urgenda Foundation v. The State of Netherlands, which ruled in 2015 that the Dutch government must reduce emissions 25 percent from 1990 levels by 2020.

The plaintiffs in the case, the Urgenda Foundation and a group of 886 citizens, cited the European Convention on Human Rights as a basis of their complaint, a novel approach that has inspired other cases around the world. They also pointed to data showing that the government has had limited success in cutting emissions so far—only  13 percent, leaving only two more years to reach 25 percent.

“The court said climate change is a grave danger, and the action of the government is violating the rights of it citizens,” said Dennis van Berkel, legal counsel of the Urgenda Foundation in Amsterdam.

“The European Convention on Human Rights applies to other countries. But it’s not just about specific provisions. It’s about the universality of the ruling, where the court says humans have a fundamental rights to be protected from this danger,” van Berkel said.

The ruling will also likely have a significant impact beyond Europe. Internationally, climate lawsuits are increasingly popular as the impacts of climate change grow more visible and damaging.

Since the case was filed in 2013, similar lawsuits have popped up in countries including the U.S., Norway, Pakistan, Ireland, Belgium, Colombia, Switzerland and New Zealand.

These lawsuits are trying to hold either governments or fossil fuel companies accountable for the effects of climate change. Many seek policy actions to cut emissions and limit fossil fuel development; others ask for compensation to help communities deal with damages from climate impacts like intense wildfires, hurricanes and threats to public health.

A U.S. case that is headed to trial in Oregon later this month has survived numerous legal challenges from the Department of Justice, which is trying to have the case halted. The government attorneys filed its latest motion to delay the case last Friday.

The case, Juliana v. United States, was filed in 2015 by 21 young plaintiffs who argue that the government’s support of fossil fuel development has exacerbated climate change and violated the public trust doctrine as well as their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property. The case has surprised scholars in how far it has advanced.

“The rights from the European Convention on Human Rights very much resonate in the constitutional rights that the federal court in Oregon has established,” Van Berkel said.

The Urgenda ruling came a day after the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a dire warning about the need to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels by 2030. That target was added to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement as a concession to island countries that will absorb the heaviest impacts of more intense hurricanes, sea level rise and other natural disasters. The agreement set 2 degrees Celsius as the primary goal.

Scientists for the IPCC report acknowledged that they had underestimated how the difference of 0.5C could unleash significantly more destruction to the wildlife and the environment and affect humans in the process as more droughts and floods lead to public health crisis and food shortage. The world has already warmed 1 degree C since pre-industrial times.

The IPCC report, coupled with the Urgenda ruling, will help to frame the U.N. negotiations on climate change in Poland this December, said Carroll Muffett, chief executive of the Center for International Environmental Law in Washington, D.C.

“You have a court decision immediately after the IPCC report that said relying on hypothetical technology is not a responsible answer to the crisis of climate change. That’s tremendously significant,” Muffett said.

Van Berkel said the new IPCC report underscored the urgency for the Dutch government to not only act but to cut emissions more than 25 percent, which is at the low end of the range to keep temperatures from rising 2C. The government had pledged to cut emissions by 30 percent but when it was slow to implement those policies, the Urgenda lawsuit was filed.

After losing the case in the lower court three years ago, the government announced it would start to implement policies to cut emissions by 25 percent, which the plaintiffs in the Urgenda case argued was the minimum that the government needed to undertake. But the plan it put in place, such as phasing out all coal power plants, was still more about hitting long-term goals beyond 2020, and the latest court ruling told the government it needs to hit the short-term goal, van Berkel said.

Despite promising it would lower emissions, the government said at the time it would  appeal because it disagreed with the court’s opinion that the government had a “duty of care” to protect the environment for its people. That phrase formed the heart of the decision that established a legal obligation to cut emissions. The government argued that the court shouldn’t interfere with its ability to set climate policies.

“For the Dutch government, the Urgenda procedure is not about climate policy. Instead it is about the basic question whether it is legitimate for an independent legal court to judge on government policy and in doing so, change that policy,” Paul van der Zanden, a spokesman for the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, wrote in an email after the appeals court ruling.

The government is considering whether to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. Van der Zanden said regardless of the appeal, the government will work to meet the 25 percent reduction, which he said is “feasible” by 2020.

“The Dutch government is fully committed to execute this verdict,” he said.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: International, Liability Litigation

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Trackbacks

  1. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #41 | Climate Change says:
    October 13, 2018 at 1:33 pm

    […] Dutch Court Upholds Urgenda, Says Government Must Reduce Emissions by Ucilia Wang, Climate Liability News, Oct 9, 2018 […]

  2. French communities demand climate action from oil giant Total says:
    October 25, 2018 at 11:04 am

    […] action follows the recent decision in a Dutch appeals court to uphold the landmark Urgenda decision, which requires the government of the Netherlands to reduce its emissions as it has […]

  3. German government faces lawsuit over its failure to meet climate goals says:
    October 29, 2018 at 12:01 am

    […] Netherlands that challenged the Dutch government’s emissions reduction target. An appeals court recently upheld the landmark 2015 decision that requires the government cut emissions by at least 25 percent below […]

  4. EJIL: Talk! – Climate Change before the Courts: Urgenda Ruling Redraws the Boundary between Law and Politics says:
    November 16, 2018 at 3:01 am

    […] greenhouse gas emissions more progressively than planned by the government. The appeal judgment was applauded across the world and welcomed as a source of inspiration for climate change litigation in other […]

  5. The Banner, Vol. 4, No. 48 – Courts Step Up. Sometimes. - The Banner says:
    November 27, 2018 at 2:19 am

    […] a fundamental rights to be protected from this danger,” van Berkel said.…—Ucilia Wang, “Court upholds historic Urgenda ruling: the Netherlands must cut emissions,” Climate Liability News, […]

  6. Latest youth-led climate lawsuit launched against Canada says:
    November 27, 2018 at 9:50 am

    […] won a landmark verdict requiring the government to reduce emissions at least 25 percent by 2020. An appeals court recently upheld the decision in Urgenda v. Netherlands, though the government has since announced it will […]

  7. Las demandas por cambio climático se están globalizando. | Nepabuleici's Blog says:
    December 25, 2018 at 11:00 pm

    […] sus derechos garantizados por el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos. En octubre,  el Tribunal de Apelaciones de La Haya confirmó la decisión original de que el gobierno holandés d…  en un 25 por ciento desde los niveles de 1990 para […]

  8. A Surge Of Climate Lawsuits Targets Human Rights, Damage From Fossil Fuels | PopularResistance.Org says:
    January 5, 2019 at 1:35 pm

    […] the Netherlands, citizens won rulings in 2018 ordering their governments to cut emissions and protect forests. By […]

  9. OilWire Issue #6: 1.5°C = No new fossil fuels; Dutch ruling puts Shell on notice; Pipeline blast rocks Nigeria – Global Gas & Oil Network says:
    March 1, 2019 at 3:31 pm

    […] A Dutch court is also going to hear arguments in a lawsuit that Friends of the Earth Netherlands/Milieudefensie is bringing against Shell. That suit seeks to compel Shell to reduce its fossil fuel production activities in order to align its business model with the Paris Agreement. Of particular interest for the Shell case, the court ruling in Urgenda Foundation v. The State of Netherlands dismisses climate scenarios that rely on future negative emissions technologies – a tactic used by Shell (and other oil and gas companies) – as “highly uncertain” and not a reasonable basis for delaying emissions cuts in the near term. Read the full court ruling (in English) here. (The Guardian, Climate Liability News) […]

  10. Final appeal in historic Urgenda case may hinge on human rights says:
    May 28, 2019 at 8:38 am

    […] government lost its first appeal at the Court of Appeal in the Hague in October, which upheld the district court’s decision. The […]

  11. UN human rights expert: Fossil fuel companies to blame for climate crisis says:
    June 27, 2019 at 7:23 am

    […] report said these lawsuits are important, specifically referencing legal wins by the Urgenda Foundation forcing the Dutch government to reduce emissions and an Australian case in which a court […]

  12. Court advisors urge Dutch Supreme Court to uphold historic climate verdict says:
    September 13, 2019 at 5:55 pm

    […] It backed lower court rulings in the case, initially by the District Court of The Hague in 2015 and reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal last October. That ruling said the Dutch government has a legal duty to strengthen its emissions […]

  13. Irish climate case appealed to the country's Supreme Court says:
    November 22, 2019 at 5:25 pm

    […] ruled in 2015 that the Dutch government must make steeper emissions cuts by 2020. An appeals court upheld that ruling and the case currently awaits a decision by the Dutch Supreme […]

  14. Historic Urgenda climate ruling upheld by Dutch Supreme Court says:
    December 20, 2019 at 9:34 am

    […] court rulings in the case, initially by the District Court of The Hague in 2015 and reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal last October. Earlier this year, independent judicial officials advised the Dutch Supreme Court to […]

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing
  • Oil Companies Ask Supreme Court to Decide Jurisdiction of More Climate Cases
  • Climate Suits Grew in 2020, Could Clear Huge Hurdle in 2021

Most Popular

  • Hawaii Joins Trend: Recognizes Constitutional Right to Safe Climate and Environment
  • R.I. Wins Battle to Keep Climate Suit Vs. Big Oil in State Court
  • As San Francisco, Oakland Press Climate Cases, They Pay Homage to Tiny Kivalina
  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • BP Accused of 'Greenwashing' and Deceiving Public With Renewable Energy Ads

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.