On the eve of Earth Day, young climate activists who are taking governments to court over the climate crisis in the US assembled in front of the White House in Washington DC to send a clear message to US President Joe Biden and his administration’s Department of Justice: “We will not be silenced!”
Several of the youth plaintiffs from the landmark constitutional climate case Juliana v. United States came together with youth plaintiffs in other US rights-based climate lawsuits, including the Held v. State of Montana case that won a historic victory last year, to demand that President Biden allow the Juliana case to proceed to trial. The case has faced unprecedented attempts by government lawyers in the US Department of Justice to terminate it and prevent any evidence and testimony from being heard at trial, and DOJ under the Biden administration is continuing this relentless obstruction that some legal experts say is an abuse of power. In February the DOJ filed an extreme emergency petition called a writ of mandamus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – its seventh such petition in this case over the past nine years – in a last-ditch effort to bypass the normal course of civil litigation procedure and avoid facing evidence and real accountability at trial. In response, the 21 Juliana plaintiffs, their attorneys, and supporters are amplifying calls to let “America’s climate case” go to trial and let youth voices be heard in open court. Sunday’s rally was a key demonstration of that, along with more than 70,000 emails sent to President Biden and his administration in recent weeks and petitions with over 300,000 signatures delivered to the White House and Department of Justice. At the start of the “Save Juliana” rally, youth plaintiffs from Juliana and several other climate cases, all spearheaded by the Oregon-based nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust, stood behind a giant banner and donned cloth gags to protest their attempted silencing by the US government. “For almost nine years, the Juliana plaintiffs have tirelessly fought to have their day in court. They have endured extreme legal tactics from across three presidential administrations aimed at silencing their voices and preventing their case from being heard at trial,” Mat dos Santos, co-executive director of Our Children’s Trust, said during the demonstration. “No other case in the history of this country has faced this level of government persecution. And out of the more than 40,000 cases in front of the DOJ, these extreme legal tactics have been used in only one case – Juliana v. United States,” said Isaac Vergun, one of several Juliana plaintiffs who took part in Sunday’s rally. “Lives are at stake here. Futures are at stake here. And the government continues to try to stop our case from being heard. I am outraged, and you should be too!” Vergun, speaking out on his 22nd birthday, said he will “continue to fight for my future and the future of all generations.” Initially filed in 2015, the Juliana v. US youth climate lawsuit alleges that the federal government is violating young people’s fundamental rights under the US Constitution through systemic actions and policies promoting and perpetuating fossil fuels that are the primary driver of climate destabilization. The climate crisis disproportionately impacts younger generations as its harmful effects worsen over time, and increasingly children, teens and young adults are turning to courts all over the world as the political branches of government fail to take sufficient actions informed by climate science to rein in greenhouse gas emissions and to protect the fundamental rights of youth. Solidarity from Other Youth Plaintiffs Last June a youth climate lawsuit filed against the state of Montana went to trial – the first climate trial of its kind in US history – and following the seven-day proceeding featuring testimony from youth plaintiffs and their expert witnesses, Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in August that the state was in fact violating the Montana constitution with its anti-climate policy that prohibited consideration of GHG emissions and climate impacts in the permitting process. Two of the plaintiffs from that case, Held v. State of Montana, which is currently on appeal before the Montana Supreme Court, spoke in support of the Juliana plaintiffs at Sunday’s rally. “We had our right to a fair trial and that is exactly what Juliana deserves,” said 20-year-old Olivia Vesovich from Missoula, Montana. “I feel a small bit of relief now knowing that in Montana my rights have been recognized and upheld. The Juliana 21 deserve this too,” added Grace Gibson-Snyder, also 20 years old from Missoula. “After over nine years of fighting for their rights, they deserve their day in court.” Lead youth plaintiffs from two other climate cases, Layla H. v. Commonwealth of Virginia and Genesis B. v. U.S. EPA, also spoke at the rally expressing solidarity with the Juliana plaintiffs. “We are all here today because we believe in holding our national and state governments accountable,” said Virginia plaintiff Layla H. “Our lawsuit was filed in 2022. And now we too are facing opposition from a government that does not want us to testify in open court.” The trial court tossed out this case before it could go to trial, and last month the Virginia Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the appeal of that dismissal. The Genesis case, filed in December 2023 by 18 children in California against the US Environmental Protection Agency, will have a hearing on April 29 in Los Angeles on the government defendants’ motion to dismiss. “On April 29 we will have the opportunity to present oral arguments in Los Angeles to federal district court judge Fitzgerald on why our case should proceed to trial,” lead plaintiff Genesis Butler told supporters during the rally. Federal Trial Court Judge, 30 Members of Congress Support “America’s Climate Case” Going to Trial On Friday, April 19, US District Judge Ann Aiken, the trial court judge who has ruled several times that the Juliana case should go to trial, responded to DOJ’s mandamus petition in a filing recommending that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals deny the petition. She explained that the government can raise objections to her decisions in the normal course of appeal after a trial. “We’re pleased that Judge Aiken told the Ninth Circuit that DOJ is wrong on the law and cannot abuse an emergency procedure to rip this case out of the hands of the trial court. It is long past time for this case to go to trial,” Julia Olson, founder and chief legal counsel for Our Children’s Trust, said in a statement responding to the filing. More than two dozen members of Congress submitted an amicus brief in late March also urging the Ninth Circuit Court to reject DOJ’s petition. “Given the overwhelming evidence in the record that Defendants’ conduct perpetuates the present climate change crisis, the Court has a duty to assess the constitutionality of the government’s conduct,” the brief argues. Denying the mandamus petition, the Congressional brief concludes, “would grant these Youth Plaintiffs an opportunity to present their evidence, to secure their constitutional rights, and to save their Nation.”
0 Comments
Switzerland's Insufficient Climate Mitigation Measures violate European Convention on Human Rights, Court FindsA regional human rights court in Europe ruled today for the first time in its 65-year history that the climate crisis is a serious threat to human rights, finding that the Swiss government’s insufficient measures to address climate change constitute violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. The historic verdict is a win for citizens seeking to hold their governments accountable through the courts for inadequate climate action, and it could have ripple effects across Europe and beyond in influencing other rights-based climate cases, experts say.
The European Court of Human Rights delivered the verdict in a public hearing on Tuesday, April 9. The Court also issued decisions in two other climate cases during that session - including cases brought by six Portuguese youths against 32 European countries and by a former mayor of a French coastal village – deciding against these applicants on procedural grounds. The ruling in the case against Switzerland, brought by a group of older Swiss women (ages 64+) who are particularly vulnerable to adverse health impacts from extreme heat events, established that protection from climate-related harms is a legal obligation of European states under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The Court found that Article 8 (right to private and family life) includes protection from “serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life,” and that Switzerland’s current climate policies fall short of ensuring this protection for its citizenry. Additionally, the Court ruled that the Swiss senior women were not granted their right to a fair trial in Switzerland’s domestic courts, which had tossed out the case without considering the arguments on their merits. That denial of a fair hearing violates Article 6 (Section 1) of the Convention, the Court found. Initially filed in 2016 by an association called Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection, the case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland applied to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France for consideration in 2020 following exhaustion of domestic remedies with a rejection that year by the Swiss Supreme Court. The human rights court fast-tracked the case, with a hearing before the Grand Chamber held on March 29, 2023. A “Win for All Generations” Now, a year later, the Swiss senior women and their lawyers as well as supporters are celebrating the landmark judgment. “I am absolutely overwhelmed and extremely proud that after nine years of intensive work, the senior women have finally got their due. This is an indescribable moment,” Cordelia Bähr, lead lawyer for the Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection, said in a statement. The decision, she added, “will be of great importance for further climate lawsuits against states and companies worldwide and increase their chances of success.” Rosmarie Wydler-Wälti, co-president of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection, called the ruling a “victory for all generations.” She said the generation represented by the Portuguese youth applicants in the climate case Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others will especially benefit from a “long-term improved climate.” The human rights court ultimately found the Agostinho case to be “inadmissible” since it asked the court to rule on the conduct of multiple European states, thereby raising concerns over what’s called extraterritorial jurisdiction. One attorney representing the Portuguese youth, however, said that the Court’s ruling in the senior women’s case against Switzerland in effect achieves what his young clients were seeking. “Today’s ruling against Switzerland sets a historic precedent that applies to all European countries,” Gerry Liston, senior lawyer with the Global Legal Action Network, said in a statement posted via X (formerly known as Twitter). “It means that all European countries must urgently revise their targets so that they are science-based and aligned to 1.5 degrees. This is a massive win for all generations.” A Swiss government representative for the Federal Office of Justice said the government has “taken note” of the ruling. “The judgment is final. Together with the authorities concerned, the FOJ will now analyze the comprehensive ruling and examine what measures Switzerland needs to take in the future,” Ingrid Ryser of the Federal Office of Justice said in an emailed statement. “Climate Action is a Legal Duty” The landmark verdict could have far-reaching implications beyond Switzerland, as litigants brining other climate accountability cases against governments now have an authoritative decision to point to from an international court finding that the climate crisis, and insufficient government action to address it, threatens human rights. “Today’s ruling from the European Court of Human Rights will give a huge boost to communities around the world who are demanding greater climate action from their governments. The Court has affirmed that climate action is a legal duty, and that our governments must adopt much stronger efforts to combat climate change in order to protect all of our human rights,” said Lucy Maxwell, co-director of the Climate Litigation Network. “We expect this ruling to influence climate action and climate litigation across Europe and far beyond,” Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law, said in a statement. “Today’s historic judgment in Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland – the first ruling by an international human rights court on the inadequacy of States’ climate action – leaves no doubt: the climate crisis is a human rights crisis, and States have human rights obligations to act urgently and effectively and in line with the best available science to prevent further devastation and harm to people and the environment.” Efforts to hold major corporations and governments accountable through the courts for policies and actions that fuel the climate crisis are on the rise around the world, and especially so in Europe. This week and next will see critical developments in European climate accountability litigation. Hearings on the appeal of the landmark 2021 verdict in Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell, in which a Dutch court ruled that the oil and gas major Shell must reduce CO2 emissions across its entire supply chain by a net 45% by 2030 in line with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, start this week in The Hague, Netherlands. Since that May 2021 ruling – the first of its kind in the world against a fossil fuel behemoth – Shell has moved its headquarters to the UK and dropped “Royal Dutch” from its name; it has also appealed the verdict, and the Dutch climate campaigners that brought the lawsuit say Shell is flagrantly disregarding its court-mandated emissions reduction obligation. The appeal is a key opportunity for them to urge the courts to enforce the 2021 verdict, particularly in light of the latest climate science and expert analyses warning that society and major oil and gas producers are way off track to meeting international climate targets. “The scientific basis on which we’ve founded our claims against Shell has only solidified. In court, it’s facts that matter, which is why I am confident that we can once again convince the judges that Shell needs to act in line with international climate agreements,” Roger Cox, lawyer for Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands), said in a statement. The Shell case builds upon the historic Urgenda climate case against the Dutch state, where the courts determined that the Netherlands must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by 2020. It was the first climate lawsuit in the world to establish that a national government has a legal duty to protect human rights by taking more ambitious climate action to mitigate serious climate harms. The Urgenda case has inspired a wave of rights-based climate lawsuits against governments throughout Europe (and beyond), and now a regional human rights court is set to deliver highly-anticipated decisions in a trio of climate cases that could have major ramifications for European climate policies. Next week on Tuesday, April 9, the European Court of Human Rights will hand down rulings in three climate lawsuits heard by the Court’s Grand Chamber last year. The cases, brought by Portuguese youths, an association of elder Swiss women, and by a French citizen and former mayor of a coastal village, all challenge government climate policies as insufficient to protect citizens’ human rights against the ravages of the unfolding climate emergency. Shell “Can’t Bolt from the Courtroom” It was almost exactly three years ago that the District Court of The Hague issued its historic ruling against Shell, hailed by climate advocates as a “watershed” moment and a win for climate accountability and justice. This week, starting on Tuesday, April 2, Milieudefensie and Shell will be back in court as the company tries to get the 2021 ruling overturned on appeal. In a July 2021 statement on its decision to appeal, Shell suggested that it was unfair to single it out with such a verdict, with then-CEO Ben van Beurden claiming that “a court judgment, against a single company, is not effective.” Since then, Shell has appeared to refuse to comply with the court’s order that it slash its emissions by almost half by the end of the decade, as the company has doubled down on oil and gas production despite expert warnings that development of new oil and gas is not needed in net zero emissions pathways and would be incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C. A new report from Milieudefensie and Oil Change International reveals that Shell plans to continue extracting fossil fuels for decades to come. Shell has already approved 20 new oil and gas projects since the court verdict and it has another 813 assets yet to be developed. A Shell spokesperson previously told Climate in the Courts, in response to the report, that it expects liquified natural gas (LNG) “will play a critical role in the [energy] transition,” adding that the court ruling “gives Shell broad discretion to determine how the emissions reduction should be achieved. Importantly,” the spokesperson said, “the court did not impose a prohibition on new oil and gas investments.” Dutch climate campaigners, however, argue that Shell is not taking its emissions reduction obligation seriously and seems to be intent on driving more climate breakdown with its continued oil and gas investments. “We are holding Shell accountable with this case, because the climate crisis will only get worse if Shell simply continues to invest in oil and gas,” Andy Palmen, director of Greenpeace Netherlands, said in a statement. “It is outrageous that Shell is ignoring the earlier court ruling and going full steam ahead with liquefied gas: LNG,” added Liset Meddens, founder of Fossil-Free NL. “The run on LNG is leaving a trail of destruction: for example, people in the US are struggling with the consequences of fracking, coastal destruction and sickening emissions. Moreover, LNG is a disaster for the climate due to numerous leaks of methane. This appeal is incredibly important to demand justice, not only for a livable planet, but also for the health of all residents around this devastating industry.” In addition to prioritizing growing its LNG business, Shell has cut spending on renewable energy and has now slightly scaled back its target for reducing the ‘net carbon intensity’ of the energy products it sells – the company is now aiming for a 15-20% reduction by 2030 (its previous target was 20% by 2030). Net carbon intensity, however, is not the same as absolute emissions reductions, meaning that Shell’s overall emissions can increase even as it lowers the carbon intensity of its products by producing more gas for example, since gas emits less CO2 when burned than oil or coal (though fossil gas is comprised almost entirely of methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than CO2). Still, Shell says it strives to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 across its operations and energy products, and says it believes its strategy “supports the more ambitious goal of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” But a new assessment from Carbon Tracker finds that none of the top 25 oil and gas companies (Shell included) are currently aligned with the Paris Agreement goals. That means that Shell is not on track to reduce its entire supply chain emissions by 45% by 2030, as the Dutch district court had ordered. Milieudefensie will make this clear to the Court of Appeal, and will argue that Shell should not be allowed to evade its emissions reduction obligation. “Shell is constantly trying to run away from its responsibility to stop dangerous climate change, but they can't bolt from the courtroom,” said Donald Pols, director of Milieudefensie. “Climate scientists warn that we need to act even faster than originally thought. Shell may keep putting up smokescreens, but the facts are crystal clear. Their emissions need to be drastically cut.” The hearings at the Court of Appeal will take place April 2, April 3, and April 4, and will wrap up next week on April 12. Human Rights Court Set to Deliver Climate Case Verdicts
Also next week, on April 9, the European Court of Human Rights will deliver its decisions in the three climate cases that the Grand Chamber heard last year. The Chamber heard the first two cases - KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland and Carême v. France - on March 29, 2023, and the third one, Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others, on September 27, 2023. The Agostinho case is particularly groundbreaking because it marks the first time that youth are alleging human rights violations by dozens of European countries in the context of climate change in a single case. If the court finds in favor of the young applicants, then the 33 European countries that are parties to the case (all 27 nations in the EU plus Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, and the UK) would likely have to reassess their domestic climate policies to ensure they are aligned with what the best available science says is necessary to safeguard human rights. According to the Global Legal Action Network, which is supporting the youth applicants in this case, a positive ruling would “be the equivalent of a legally binding regional treaty compelling the Respondent countries to rapidly accelerate their climate action.” The case against Switzerland, brought by senior Swiss women who say that inadequate climate action leaves them. More vulnerable to extreme heat events, could similarly see a landmark judgment compelling the Swiss government to accelerate its emissions reduction efforts. According to Greenpeace Switzerland, which is supporting the Swiss women, a ruling in the applicants’ favor would “not only be a groundbreaking success for older women in Switzerland. It would be a victory for all generations, Europe-wide. In order to protect human rights, Switzerland and all Council of Europe states would have to review their climate policy based on the principles developed by the ECHR and, if necessary, strengthen them.” The ECHR’s decisions will be delivered during a public hearing on April 9 at the Human Rights Building at the court in Strasbourg, France at 10:30am CET. |
Archives
April 2024
Categories |