Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders Dutch Government To Finally Take Action On Climate Promises
New submitter Errol backfiring writes: Although the Dutch government has promised to make sure carbon emissions are lowered considerably, they have consistently failed to take action. Dutch climate group Urgenda and Dutch citizens have gone to court to force the government to take action, and the verdict (linked page is in Dutch) is that the government must reduce emissions by at least 25% compared to 1990 leves.
This 25% cut is seen as the minimum effort needed to keep the people safe from climate change dangers. 25% to 40% is the norm in international climate policy. The verdict is also important for similar climate groups in other countries.
This 25% cut is seen as the minimum effort needed to keep the people safe from climate change dangers. 25% to 40% is the norm in international climate policy. The verdict is also important for similar climate groups in other countries.
You're at least 15 years behind the times. Long ago the oil companies figured out that they could profit from the whole climate change alarm-ism.
a) In the future they expect to be able to sell half the oil for twice the amount, thus increasing their profit margins and making a limited resource last much longer. Any taxes levied on oil will be paid by consumers, not the oil companies. Any claims that we could stop using fossil fuels ignores the fact that less than half of the oil is used as fuel.
b) The oil companies are receiving billions of dollars in grants and tax credits for their research into alternatives. This is happening even though they are unlikely to actually let the alternatives advance to a usable state unless they can totally control them.
BS. Oil companies fought scientists for years and still are. They want us to do nothing about climate change. Only recently they stopped saying that climate change didn't exist.
Nothing was pulled from the court's rectum. The ruling is based on Dutch human rights legislation, which implements the European Convention on Human Rights that they signed up to, and so which likely can apply in other European countries too.
The argument is that severe climate change will harm many people, violating their human rights. It's similar to how severe pollution by the state would violate their human rights, only over a longer period. Since the state must consider the human rights of all human beings (it's not like the US where only US citizens count, European human rights are universal) it must act to avoid violating those rights by altering the climate beyond a certain level.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Here's a clue - corporations that damned large and powerful have already figured out how to profit from the whole AGW debate no matter which way it ends.
How? Well first off, they know full well that the world's appetite for plastics, kerosene, gasoline, and nearly all of their products will not slacken in the slightest, so they have plenty of time to adapt to any changes that may come. Meanwhile, these same companies are doing what large corporations all around the planet do: they Greenwash the hell out of their image, and pass the costs of doing so onto the consumer. Carbon tax? Hah! They've got that figured out as well, and again, guess who gets to pay for that? (hint: Not Them. It'll be passed on as a cost of doing business.)
To top all that off, you may want to look into who the biggest investors and shareholders in the Green Energy sector actually are... those same petroleum companies are right there, holding stock and encouraging the whole shebang, because they're more than poised to buy up the first one that actually makes enough headway to be a threat (mind you, not to squash the company, but to profit like hell off of it.) I wouldn't be surprised if many of these alternative energy enterprises are owned in whole or in part by a petroleum corporation, with the alt. energy company being a shell or 'independent' division. Again, no conspiracy or tinfoil involved; it's just a bit of pre-positioning for future profits.
You're more than welcome to disagree, but consider that these same corporations are looking decades ahead, and know full well that they have to hedge their bets against diminishing/expensive supply, rising political instabilities (read: Venezuela and the Mideast), and no-longer-rare governmental money-grab attempts. Only a total idiot would run his company any other way.
So tell me - given the fact that the eeevil petroleum corporations are happily and quietly positioned to profit from this thing no matter which way it goes, why do you think they would bother?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Well, the court says that: 1) Article 21 of the Dutch constitution requires the government to protect the environment; and 2) the government has signed treaties (which are legally binding) committing the Netherlands to reducing CO2 emissions. So arguably the court is just telling the government to obey the law. Which is not on the face of it unreasonable.
Now, it may not be a great idea if courts start setting specific emission targets, but the 25% is actually the bottom end of what the IPCC considers necessary. (The plaintiffs demanded 40%.)
If the executive branch of government breaks the law, they will be judged. The legislative branch has the power to change the law, but that requires a majority in both houses. The current Dutch executive branch does not have a majority in both houses, so they are shit out of luck. The elected government is formed by the two houses, so I guess I would say that the elected government is not entirely in sync with the executive branch here. There are many subtleties here that have to do with how Dutch government is constructed, but the situation is by no means outrageous. It seems that Trias Politica is working here.