Families from eight nations joined their ranks on Thursday when they collectively sued the European Union over the impact of rising temperatures on their livelihoods.
Currently, the EU accounts for about 9% of global CO2 emissions. Taking into account accumulated emissions since 1850, that share rises to a quarter, second only to the United States (27%).
Globally, there are at least 1,000 active legal cases related to climate change, more than two-thirds of them in the United States, according to a recent tally from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in London.
The climate justice movement highlights the fact that if richer nations are overwhelmingly to blame for climate change, it is the poorer countries which have been hit first and worst.
The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Changerecognisedthat inequality, declaring that developed countries bear a larger responsibility for fixing the problem.
After a climate justice “summit” in The Hague in 2000, a coalition of global NGOs, which play a crucial role in channelling grassroots activism, adopted 27 principles.
These included the right to not suffer climate change impacts, a moratorium on new fossil fuel exploration, access to affordable and sustainable energy, and the notion that richer nations and industry owe humanity an “ecological debt”.
“Climate justice affirms the rights of unborn generations to natural resources, a stable climate, and a healthy planet,” they declared.
These ideas slowly gravitated from the fringes toward the center of formal UN negotiations, and finally into the preamble of the 2015 Paris Agreement, the 196-nation treaty that enjoins the world to cap global warming at “well under” 2°C, and 1.5°C if feasible.
In parallel to the diplomatic arena, citizens and civic groups also tested the concept’s power within a legal framework.
Some plaintiffs have targeted governments, while others have taken on individual companies. A few have made headlines.
In 2015, a landmark court ruling in the Netherlands ordered the government to slash greenhouse gases by a quarter by 2020. The case was brought by 900 Dutch citizens. The government is appealing.
Also in 2015, 21 young people sued the US federal government for allegedly violating their constitutional rights by failing to ensure a livable future. A trial date has been set for October.
The judge could decide whether the United States has “violated these fundamental constitutional rights, and, if so, whether to compel the government to come up with a plan to move us from disaster to security,” Daniel Galpern, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said.
In November last year, a German court agreed to hear a Peruvian farmer’s case against energy giant RWE over climate change damage in the Andes, a decision hailed by campaigners as a “historic breakthrough”. Farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya says that RWE must share in the cost of protecting his hometown Huaraz from a glacier lake overflowing with melting snow and ice.
The Paris Agreement “recognizes the importance… of addressing loss and damage” caused by climate change, and has set up a mechanism to do so. At the same time, however, this provision “does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation,” it stipulates.
This does not mean that richer nations are off the hook, analysts say.
As some island nations literally sink beneath rising seas, the pressure is mounting for a clear commitment to rescue climate-damaged economies and societies.
On the legal front, plaintiffs are pointing to scientific evidence that extreme weather events can be directly linked to climate change. Other research apportions historic responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, whether to countries or companies.
A 2014 study in Climatic Change, for example, calculated that accumulated CO2 and methane pollution stemming from oil, gas, and coal produced by 90 major energy companies accounts for nearly two-thirds of all greenhouse gas emissions since 1850.
RWE, the firm being sued by the Peruvian farmer, was found to have emitted 0.47% of the total.
“The possibility of assigning contributions of individual regions to damage could have the potential to reshape environmental litigation,” a quartet of scientists wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change last month.
“This raises questions regarding damage and responsibility in national jurisdictions, and thus climate justice.”
Source: Free Malaysia Today | 24 May 2018
