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 Government Will Again Appeal Historic Urgenda Climate Verdict
Dutch Government Will Again Appeal Historic Urgenda Climate Verdict

Dutch Government Will Again Appeal Historic Urgenda Climate Verdict

November 19, 2018 Filed Under: International, Liability Litigation

print
By Ucilia Wang

The Dutch government announced it will appeal a ruling in the landmark Urgenda case that requires the government to reduce emissions to protect its people, a ruling the framed climate change as a human rights issue.

Eric Wiebes, minister of economic affairs and climate policy, announced the government will ask the Supreme Court to review the latest ruling in Urgenda Foundation v. The State of Netherlands, which ruled that the government must cut emissions by 25 percent from the 1990 levels by 2020. The court noted that the 25 percent reduction is the minimum needed for the country to meet its international climate commitments.

The case was originally filed in 2013 by the Urgenda Foundation and 886 Dutch citizens, seeking to hold the government accountable to its climate promises.

The case is unusual for arguing that the government is violating the human rights of its people by failing to address climate change, which leads to a host of environmental and public health harms, including  sea level rise, extreme heat, drought, more intense wildfires and extreme weather.

The initial court ruling in favor the plaintiffs in 2015 is widely credited for kick-started similar lawsuits in other countries, including  the U.S., Norway, Pakistan, Ireland, Belgium, Colombia, Switzerland and New Zealand.

Since that first ruling, the Dutch government has maintained that it would work on hitting the 25 percent target while fighting the court opinion that it had a “duty of care” to protect the environment for its people. The government argued that the court is interfering with its ability to set climate policies. The appeals court affirmed the lower court ruling in October.

The decision to appeal to the Supreme Court “sends the wrong message,” said Dennis van Berkel,  legal counsel for the Urgenda Foundation. He pointed to the recent report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that issued a dire warning about the catastrophic consequences of allowing global warming to climb above 1.5 Celsius from pre-industrial levels by 2030.

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

“It’s clear that what we have to do is to reduce emissions as fast as possible. What we need is a real climate leadership. The government will show real leadership if it shows we will act and get on with it,” van Berkel added.

Data shows that the country has managed to reduce emissions by only 13 percent from the 1990 levels by the end of 2017, leaving a big gap to get to the 25 percent in two years.

The government has talked about closing coal power plants and other measures to help it achieve the 2020 goal.

It has until Jan. 9 to file the appeal with the Supreme Court, which could take up to  a year to decide the case, van Berkel said.

Connecting climate change impacts to human rights violations is a relatively new legal approach that is being put to test in courts around the world. In the U.S., a case brought by 21 young plaintiffs against the federal government, Juliana v. United States, has been stalled by volleys of petitions by the government to prevent it from going to trial.

In the Juliana case, the plaintiffs contend that the government’s support of fossil fuel development is leading to worsening climate impacts, which violates their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property as well as the public trust doctrine, which holds that governments are bound to protect cultural or natural resources for future generations.

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. Latest youth-led climate lawsuit launched against Canada says:
    November 27, 2018 at 9:52 am

    […] Dutch Government Will Again Appeal Historic Urgenda Climate Verdict […]

  2. Civil Society's role in making NDCs Binding says:
    January 22, 2019 at 7:48 am

    […] representatives of the state have since announced their intention to appeal the District Court’s decision, these two subsequent rulings unquestionably constitute a  historic victory, from which one can […]

  3. Ireland court will decide if country must strengthen its climate plan says:
    January 28, 2019 at 10:55 pm

    […] argument had a similar structure to the historic Urgenda case in the Netherlands. Like the Dutch government, the Irish state has not denied the importance of […]

  4. Shell sued in Netherlands for insufficient action on climate change says:
    April 5, 2019 at 10:02 am

    […] was the first case in which a court ordered a government to reduce its emissions and the first time a court ruled that not taking sufficient […]

  5. Shell Sued in the Netherlands for Insufficient Action On Climate Change – Olduvai.ca says:
    April 9, 2019 at 9:00 am

    […] was the first case in which a court ordered a government to reduce its emissions and the first time a court ruled that not taking […]

  6. Irish court rejects demand for more aggressive climate action says:
    September 23, 2019 at 3:41 pm

    […] either the short or medium term. The case, dubbed Climate Case Ireland, had a similar structure to Urgenda’s historic case in the Netherlands – and like the Dutch government, the Irish state did not deny the […]

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

  • Colorado Judge Rejects Oil Companies’ Attempt to Move Climate Case
  • Biden’s DOJ Could Help Swing Momentum Around Climate Cases
  • Supreme Court Questions Oil Companies’ Tactics to Shake Climate Cases
  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?

Most Popular

  • Climate Case Gets Green Light from European Union Court
  • Exxon Continues to Fund 'Science' Group Steeped in Climate Denial and Delay
  • Pacific Islands Group Pushes for International Court Ruling on Climate and Human Rights
  • Study Estimates Seawalls to Protect U.S. Coast Will Cost $400 Billion
  • 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.