In order to force greater commitment to the EU’s 2030 emission targets, ten families from inside and outside Europe initiated a people’s climate case. Since their homes, livelihoods, traditional family occupation and culture are affected by climate change they take the EU institutions to court to claim their fundamental rights and to prevent dangerous climate change.
The plaintiff families are challenging the EU’s 2030 climate targets through addressing the three EU emission regulation legal acts[1] that have recently been approved by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. The families argue that the high level of greenhouse gases still emitted under these three legal acts is lagging behind what the EU could do to reduce emissions. The families are supported by a broad range of NGOs[2] that firmly believe that the EU can and must act more ambitiously regarding its 2030 climate targets.
There are three particular points that make this case remarkable:
- Climate change “reaching Brussels”: This lawsuit is another example of tangible consequences of climate change in and for Europe – with might have judicial, political and economic implications. It illustrates how climate change affects the population in vulnerable areas and how it raises their stakes in mitigation and adaptation efforts.
- Climate change is a planetary phenomenon: Beyond the implications, this case considerably demonstrates the planetary character of climate change consequences – seeing families from places as different as Fiji, France, Germany, Kenya and Romania are facing similar kind of challenges.
- Climate change is a legal issue: The case shows that climate change is also addressed outside politics – as last resort seeking to reverse or mitigate consequences of global warming on people’s livelihoods.
It is not the first time that citizens appeal to the justice system to be heard in climate cases: In 2015, for example, the Dutch government lost its case against the Urgenda Foundation and 900 Dutch citizens and was ordered to tighten the 2020 emissions targets since the existing pledge was insufficient to keep global warming below the targeted critical two degrees Celsius. Two years later, a German court heard a Peruvian farmer against RWE that hat argued the energy giant’s emissions foster global warming and claimed a financial contribution for measures that protect his hometown from a swollen glacier lake after snow and ice melt had increased. Outside of the European Union, more than 30 cases are ongoing with one in the United States at the federal level.
Concretely, this case is not seeking any financial compensation, only policy change to void and nullify the emission trading scheme directive, the effort sharing regulation and the land use, land use change and forestry regulation since those three acts will allow too many emissions from greenhouse gases to go on until 2030.
While in both cases, the defendant claimed that they could hardly be held liable for specific consequences of climate change, it does show the complexity of pinpointing culprit for the consequences of the inevitable change in climate that will appear more and more often. Further, this turn toward the justice apparatus by the citizens highlight the unfairness of the effects of climate change and the will of those individuals to search for justice. Indeed, those that contribute it are not necessarily those that will pay the price for it.
[1] The Emission Trading Scheme Directive, the Effort Sharing Regulation and the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry Regulation
[2] Such as the Climate Action Network Europe, Germanwatch, The Danish Ecological Council, etc.