Sep 27, 2023
Six Portuguese
young people are suing the governments of 33 countries, arguing their
human rights have been violated by a widespread failure to mitigate the
climate crisis.Lawyers for six
Portuguese children and young adults on Wednesday expressed hope that their
unprecedented climate case, brought to the European Court of Human Rights three
years after it was first filed, will ultimately be a "game-changer"
that forces governments in Europe and across the globe to take decisive action
to address the climate emergency.
Ranging in age
from 11 to 24, the six plaintiffs sat on Wednesday before nearly two dozen
human rights judges and attorneys representing nearly three dozen nations,
determined to prove to the court that countries across Europe have violated
their fundamental rights by allowing greenhouse gas emissions to continue
heating the planet despite warnings from energy experts and scientists.
In Duarte
Agostinho v. Portugal and 32 Others, the plaintiffs are seeking not financial
relief but a ruling from the court that would compel the governments of the 27
E.U. member-nations as well as Russia, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Norway,
and Turkey to speed up their efforts to keep planetary heating below 1.5°C
above preindustrial levels.
Because the
human rights court's rulings are legally binding for E.U. members, a decision
in favor of the young plaintiffs "would act like a binding treaty imposed
by the court on the respondents, requiring them to rapidly accelerate their
climate mitigation efforts," Gerry Liston of the U.K.-based Global Legal
Action Network (GLAN), told the Associated Press.
"In legal
terms, it would be a game-changer," Liston told the outlet.
Four of the
plaintiffs live in central Portugal, where wildfires killed at least 66 people
in 2017. The country faced more blazes this summer—the hottest on record—as
well as a record-breaking heatwave which saw the temperature in the central
region of the country rise to 46.4°C (115.5°F), which at least one plaintiff
said had interfered with schoolwork, and which climate scientists said would
not have happened without planetary heating and fossil fuel extraction.
"Without
urgent action to cut emissions, [the place] where I live will soon become an
unbearable furnace," 20-year-old Martim Agostinho, one of the plaintiffs,
said in a statement.
Lawyers for the
defendants claimed the group should have litigated the case in the domestic
court system, with Belgian legal expert Isabelle Niedlispacher arguing before
the court that the plaintiffs did not make an attempt "to invoke, let
alone exhaust domestic remedies."
But GLAN, which
says it "pursues innovative legal actions across borders," dismissed
the claims, noting that the fossil-fueled climate emergency and the extreme
weather it's causing have no respect for countries' boundaries and are placing
the entire planet at risk.
"It cannot
be within a state's discretion whether or not to act to prevent catastrophic
climate destruction," said Alison MacDonald, another attorney representing
the young people.
Sébastien Duyck,
a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, called the
case "truly historic" because the governments of dozens of countries
have been compelled to respond.
"These
governments are forced to lay out a legal defense justifying the gap between
their climate policies and what science says is needed to avoid climate
breakdown," said Duyck. "In the broader context of global litigation,
this case wields remarkable influence, given that the European Court of Human
Rights holds a prominent role in setting legal precedents within Europe and
beyond."
The case was
brought to the court a month after a state judge in Montana sided with 16 young
residents who argued that the state had violated their rights by promoting
fossil fuel extraction. The United Nations Environment Program released a
report in July showing that climate litigation has emerged as an important
driver of far-reaching, concrete action by governments to reduce emissions.
Gearoid O'Cuinn,
another lawyer for GLAN, said defendants resorted to "climate
denialism" when they argued, as Greece did, that the "effects of
climate change, as recorded so far, do not seem to directly affect human life
or human health."
Greece has faced
both deadly wildfires and flooding in recent weeks.
"European
governments' climate policies are consistent with a catastrophic 3° of global
heating this century," said Liston. "For the brave youth-applicants,
that is a life sentence of heat extremes which are unimaginable even by today's
rapidly deteriorating standards."
"The
European Court of Human Rights was set up following the horrors of World War II
to hold European governments to account for failing to protect human
rights," Liston added. "Never has there been as urgent a need for the
court to do so than in this case."
No comments:
Post a Comment