Six young climate activists battle 32 European nations in a landmark court case

In the most recent and significant instance of activists bringing governments to court to compel climate action, six young people argued on Wednesday before the European Court of Human Rights that governments throughout Europe aren’t doing enough to safeguard people from climate change.

Legal representatives for the 32 countries, which also include the 27 EU members, the UK, Switzerland, Norway, Russia, and Turkey, questioned both the case’s validity and the plaintiffs’ assertion that they were the victims of climate change damage.

However, the young people and children from Portugal who are suing the countries said that by failing to appropriately address human-caused global warming, some of the group’s basic rights had been breached.

National governments are aware of the risks and difficulties posed by climate change, according to UK attorney Sudhanshu Swaroop, and they are committed to address them via international collaboration.

He emphasized that the European Court of Human Rights cannot have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs since they are not citizens of the nations they are challenging, with the exception of Portugal, and that they should have first gone via national courts.

According to Isabelle Niedlispacher, a legal expert representing Belgium, “there was no attempt by the applicants to invoke, let alone exhaust domestic remedies.”

Alison Macdonald, speaking on behalf of the youth, urged the judges to address the “biggest crisis that Europe and the world” may have ever experienced and urged them to give the youth a greater voice in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A state cannot decide whether or not to take action to avert catastrophic climate catastrophe, she said.

Young environmentalists recently won a similar case in Montana, but despite successful climate cases at the national and regional levels, the activists’ legal team claimed that because national jurisdictions did not go far enough to protect their rights, the group felt compelled to bring the matter to the Strasbourg-based court.

The plaintiffs contend that their rights to life, privacy, and a family life, as well as their right to be free from discrimination, are being infringed, and they argue that a favorable verdict would compel governments to step up their efforts to combat climate change.

At the beginning of the day-long hearing, attorney Gerry Liston told The Associated Press, “We’ve put forward evidence to show that it’s within the power of states to do vastly more to adjust their emissions, and they are choosing not to do it.”

The court’s decisions are legally obligatory on participating nations, and refusal to abide by them subjects the government to steep penalties imposed by the court.

According to Liston, “this judgment would function like a legally-binding agreement imposed by the court on the respondents, requiring them to significantly step up their efforts to mitigate climate change.” “It would be a gamechanger in legal terms.” A favorable decision, according to Liston, will boost future domestic climate litigation by offering national courts direction.

The plaintiffs, who range in age from 11 to 24, and who do not want monetary compensation, must persuade the court that they have suffered enough harm to qualify as victims.

In order to achieve the aims of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, the organization will also need to persuade the courts that governments have a moral obligation to ensure that global warming is limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times.

In front of the court, Liston argued, “We have evidence that all of the respondents’ state climate policies are aligned to 3 degrees (Celsius) of warming within the lifetime of the applicants, or in the case of some states, worse than that.” “No state has presented evidence to refute that claim,” the statement reads. However, the head of the European Commission’s legal department supported the EU’s climate action in the case while appearing on behalf of the EU’s executive branch as a third party intervener.

Daniel Calleja Crespo claimed that “the EU is going beyond the obligations of the Paris agreement,” pointing to the EU’s targets of cutting net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 and achieving climate neutrality by 2050, where the majority of emissions are reduced and those that remain are cancelled out.

According to experts, current warming trends and plans to reduce emissions would cause global average temperatures to increase by 2 to 4 degrees C (2.6 to 7.2 F) by 2100, which is well over the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 C.

Climate scientists anticipate more frequent and severe weather occurrences as the planet heats, from more floods and rainfall to extended droughts and heat waves to more violent storms.

The activists said that the effects of climate change on their everyday activities, academic performance, and physical and mental health are detrimental. They began legal proceedings after a series of tragic wildfires struck central Portugal in 2017, where four of them reside.

The heat wave that rocked Portugal in May made it difficult for André Oliveira, 15, to do his homework. “It’s 43 degrees (109 F) one day, and the next it’s hail, and that’s dangerous because we can’t predict what’s going to happen,” he said.

Ricardo Matos, speaking on behalf of Portugal, questioned the “victim status” of the petitioners, claiming that they had not shown a causal connection between state emissions and the suffering caused by the flames in their nation. No one should be considered a victim of climate change, said Matos, since it affects everyone.

It is the first climate lawsuit that has been brought before the court. Since then, the court has heard arguments in two further climate cases, one filed by a group of elderly Swiss women against Switzerland and the other by a French politician against France.

The Swiss organisation sent representatives to Strasbourg to show their support for the young Portuguese. They joined a few dozens of other supporters in front of the courtroom before to the hearing.

Because they are so young, organization co-president Anne Mahrer stated, “I wish them a future.” “Everyone wins if we win, even though we probably won’t be there to witness it.” A conclusion won’t likely come for many months. It is yet unknown whether the court will rule on all three climate issues simultaneously.