Abstract
According to climate science and the 195 signatory States to the UN Climate Convention, every emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases contributes to climate change. Furthermore, they hold that a two degree Celsius rise of Earth’s average temperature is to be considered as a dangerous climate change to mankind and all of the world’s ecosystems. Using the climate proceedings of Dutch citizens against the Dutch state as a starting point, the author of this case note explains why each European Member State’s contribution to dangerous climate change as a result of inadequate emission reduction policies constitutes a tort of negligence against its citizens and poses a real threat for its citizens’ effective enjoyment of human rights. The author argues that this makes individual European Nations severally liable for dangerous climate change and gives European citizens and non-governmental organisations the possibility to request their Nation State’s competent court to compel the Nation’s government to implement stricter emission reductions in accordance with what is deemed necessary to help avoid dangerous climate change and to protect their human rights.
Highlights
On November 20, 2013 the Dutch Urgenda foundation2 and 886 individual citizens served a summons on the Dutch State in an action to hold the State liable for its role in causing dangerous global climate change.Essentially, Urgenda et al state that man’s excessive worldwide cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases, are significantly changing the chemical composition of the planet’s atmosphere, causing it to retain more heat and thereby warming the planet
For the purposes of this introduction, it suffices to note that Urgenda et al assign the State a several or proportional liability and corresponding duty of care, which is so that the State has a duty of care to help prevent dangerous climate change
In adopting the Cancun Agreements and the two-degree threshold, the signatory countries to the United Nations (UN) Climate Convention defined the red line of what constitutes the maximum acceptable risk level for society in relation to the emission of greenhouse gases
Summary
On November 20, 2013 the Dutch Urgenda foundation and 886 individual citizens (hereinafter jointly referred to as ‘Urgenda et al’) served a summons on the Dutch State in an action to hold the State liable for its role in causing dangerous global climate change. Put, contributing to breaching the red line of two degrees is contributing to breaching a universally defined and accepted duty of care These ramifications of the Cancun Agreements will be relevant for courts in European countries faced with answering the question of whether and at what point carbon dioxide emissions of a country should be judged to be unlawful in view of the consequent dangers for its people and its territory and the consequent human rights infringement. For the purposes of this introduction, it suffices to note that Urgenda et al assign the State a several or proportional liability and corresponding duty of care, which is so that the State has a duty of care to help prevent dangerous climate change It should do this by reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from its own territory to a degree that is necessary through taking into account the two-degree threshold of the Cancun Agreements and the derived necessary emission reductions of 25 to 40% before 2020 compared to 1990 levels. This article takes a closer look at the abovementioned line of argumentation and concludes by examining the often raised question in the Dutch media of whether, in submitting these claims, Urgenda et al are effectively asking the court to usurp political jurisdiction
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
