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.
Yup, as another poster said: "cue libertarian outrage" alright.
This isn't pulled out of the court's ass. The Dutch government made promises and then tried to back out of them. Their own court has said, "No, you made binding promises, now keep them." Which is what most contract law is about, and what most sane courts enforce.
You know, given how much of Holland is below sea level (26%) ... you can kind of see that they might give a damn about rising sea levels.
Since when the hell is it shocking that a government has an "independent legal obligation towards their citizens".
As opposed to, what, an independent legal obligation to its fucking corporations?
This isn't an authoritarian dictatorship, it's a rejection of the stupid idea that government doesn't owe a duty of care and concern for its citizens. That's kind of the purpose of governments, despite all the delusional rantings to the contrary we see around here.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The Dutch government did not make legally enforceable promises to their own people. They made promises to other sovereign states. In other words, it is up to the other parties of the contract (the other countries) to force the Dutch government to follow through on the promises, not some activist judge.
In no sane system does a court have the ability to pull legal obligations out of its arse, as it seems to have done here.
In no sane economic system is anyone permitted to push the cost of cleaning up after them onto the rest of the world, but that's what we have here (on Earth.)
This is a very bad day for the Dutch people.
Why, because it's been determined that their government is beholden to them?
They are now officially an authoritarian dictatorship ruled by Judge Hans Hofhuis.
That is slightly funny, but nowhere near the truth. I smirked but did not lol, so you don't actually deserve even a +1 funny.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
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%.)