‘Blah Blah Blah’: Can Climate Lawsuits Hold Governments Accountable?
It has been approximately 6 months since the news rush and political fervour of COP26. Despite some progress, for many, the deals agreed in Glasgow do not go far enough in reducing emissions and protecting our planet. Political leaders have certainly adopted ‘green’ language, promising they are doing their best but there is a lingering sense that scientists’ dire warnings are not getting through.
As Greta Thunberg put it, political discussions about the climate currently go something like this:
“Build back better, blah blah blah. Green economy, blah blah blah. Net zero by 2050, blah blah blah. Climate neutral, blah blah blah.”
This leaves a key question: how do we ensure promises are fulfilled and the necessary emissions levels are achieved? How do we stop the ‘blah blah blah’? One answer could lie in climate lawsuits.
The first landmark ruling of this kind came in June 2015 when a court in the Hague ordered the government of the Netherlands to cut emissions by 25% (compared to 1990 levels) within five years. The case focused on accusing the government of negligence for knowingly contributing towards a breach of the 2 degree maximum target on global warming. The EU’s ‘precautionary principle’ was used in this argument; this forbids actions with potentially severe risks, even if they were unknown.
This ruling was upheld by the Netherlands’ Supreme Court in December 2019, confirming the link to the right to life and to private and family life, as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Following this, the Dutch government announced further measures to reduce emissions. These included scaling-back the capacity of coal-fired power stations by 75% and beginning negotiations to close one of the country’s three stations.
Furthermore, sustainable home solutions were encouraged through investment and subsidies in solutions like double glazing, reduced concrete use, and increased greenery. They also committed to other solutions like reducing livestock, lowering speed limits to reduce nitrogen dioxide emissions, adding solar panels to all school rooftops, and pursuing other forms of renewable energy.
Urgenda Foundation, the non-profit that coordinated and filed the original legal challenge, estimated the total cost of measures prompted by the ruling came to approximately €3 billion.
The success of this landmark ruling inspired other cases to be brought against local and national governments, as well as corporations. Staggeringly, climate-related cases have more than doubled since 2015. This includes the Federal Court of Australia preventing a proposal to expand a coal mine in northern New South Wales in May 2021; this ruling concluded that the environment minister, and therefore government, has a duty to protect young people from future harm from the climate crisis.
Another successful lawsuit in May 2021 caused the Constitutional Court of Germany to rule that the climate protection act must be amended to make CO2 emissions reduction targets more ambitious. This rested on the ruling that the government’s failure to protect future generations from the climate crisis was unconstitutional, a similar strategy to the Australian case. In Germany, amending the constitutions is especially effective and significant as it applies for all time rather than only until certain targets are met.
Some may see resorting to legal measures as extreme but it is one of the most effective ways to hold governments accountable. One of the primary ways citizens can do this is through voting for climate-aware representatives. However, it is inevitable that administrations and party agendas will change so legal measures may be the only way to safeguard climate targets over time.
Furthermore, governments have been aware of the impacts of human actions on the climate for decades; the time of the public implicitly trusting governments to act in their interests seems to be over.
The success of climate lawsuits has also spread to action against corporations. This includes Shell, a large oil corporation, being ordered by the Netherlands to reduce emissions by 45% by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels). This was the first time a company was ordered to comply with the Paris agreement, making it a landmark ruling.
The success of this case has prompted lawsuits against other corporations, including major German car brands like Volkswagen, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz. Large companies often argue they have climate plans in place but, like with governments, the situation is too urgent to rely on promises. Additionally, it is impossible to bring lawsuits against all companies who damage the environment so setting clear examples may force others to change their policies.
The rise of climate lawsuits may also impact investors’ decisions as the business operations of companies may be affected by being forced to change their practices; this could lead to more green investment.
Overall, climate lawsuits may be one of the most effective ways we can ensure governments and the private sector meet climate targets. Currently, many public figures use green-washing language in their speeches but this is ultimately ‘blah, blah, blah’ if their actions are not significant enough. The success of landmark climate lawsuits against governments and corporations has inspired a wave of cases aiming to protect future generations from an even greater climate disaster than they already face.
This is only one method of acting for the good of the planet, but it is one that can produce results and send a clear message that times are changing and inaction is no longer an option.
