Environmental advocates say the decision will likely have ripple effects throughout Europe and beyond.<\/b>
\nA decision handed down by one of the European Union\u2019s top courts on Tuesday should signal to governments across the bloc and beyond that their time may soon be up when it comes to delaying climate action, as the panel ruled the Swiss government has violated the human rights of its senior citizens by refusing to abide by scientists\u2019 warnings and swiftly phase out fossil fuel production.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) announced its decisions in three separate climate cases, including one brought by the KlimaSeniorinnen, or Senior Women for Climate Protection, in Switzerland.
The group of about 2,400 women aged 64 and up argued last year that the Swiss government has violated their rights by failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to stop intensifying heatwaves and other climate impacts from affecting citizens.
The plaintiffs cited research showing that older women are particularly vulnerable to heat-related illnesses and death.
Switzerland has pledged to cut planet-heating fossil fuel emissions by 50% from 1990 levels by the end of the decade. In 2021 voters rejected a proposal to tax airline tickets and fuel to help the country meet its goal.
According to the Swiss Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology, Switzerland is warming at twice the rate of the global average.
The Climate Action Tracker has classified Swiss climate policies and actions as \u201cinsufficient,\u201d partially because it has implemented agreements with other countries to offset its domestic emissions in an attempt to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
Gerry Liston, an attorney representing another group of litigants from Portugal, told The New York Times that the ECHR\u2019s acknowledgment that Switzerland\u2019s policies are not based in science was especially significant.
\u201cNo European government\u2019s climate policies are aligned with anything near\u201d the Paris climate agreement\u2019s goal of limiting planetary heating to 1.5\u00b0C, Liston said, \u201cso it will be clear to those working on climate litigation in those countries that there is now a clear basis to bring a case in their national courts.\u201d
Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney for the Center for International Environmental Law, said the ruling \u2014 the first by an international human rights court on governments\u2019 climate inaction \u2014 is likely \u201cto influence climate action and climate litigation across Europe and far beyond.\u201d
\u201cToday\u2019s historic judgment\u2026 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,\u201d said Chowdhury. \u201cThe ruling reinforces the vital role of courts \u2014 both international and domestic \u2014 in holding governments to their legal obligations to protect human rights from environmental harm. It also affirms the power and courage of those who speak out and dare to demand a livable future for all.\u201d
The other two cases on which the ECHR ruled Tuesday, finding them \u201cinadmissable,\u201d were brought by a former mayor of a town in France and a group of six Portuguese children and young people, ranging in age from 12-25.
Damien Car\u00eame, former mayor of Grande-Synthe and now a member of the European Parliament for the Green Party, argued France had taken insufficient steps to protect the coastal town from flooding. The ECHR ruled that the case was not admissible because Car\u00eame no longer lives in Grande-Synthe.
The six Portuguese plaintiffs had argued that the effects of fossil fuel-driven planetary heating \u2014 including heatwaves and wildfires \u2014 have and will continue to affect their lives and wellbeing. The court ruled the group had not exhausted all its legal options in Portugal.
The Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), which represented the Portuguese group, said the court\u2019s decision was still \u201ca win for all generations,\u201d because the court made clear that \u201cgovernment failure to rapidly cut emissions is a violation of human rights.\u201d
\u201cThis ruling is a call to action for the climate movement \u2014 we will not stop demanding action from governments on their clear obligations, set out in this ruling, to prevent climate catastrophe,\u201d said GLAN.
The Council of Europe\u2019s 46 members, which includes all 27 E.U. countries, are bound by the ECHR\u2019s rulings, and the verdict opens the countries up to similar cases in national courts.
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the court\u2019s mixed rulings \u201cunderscore how difficult it can be for impacted communities to demonstrate in a legal setting what science has clearly shown for decades: the direct connection between heat-trapping emissions, climate change, and the extreme weather impacts they are experiencing such as heatwaves and wildfires.\u201d
\u201cThe uphill battle for climate accountability persists as vulnerable communities bravely challenge entrenched political, economic, and legal systems that have historically prioritized the fossil fuel industry and private interests,\u201d said Merner. \u201cThe courts still have a critical role to play in holding high-emitting entities accountable for their role in the climate crisis, helping to address historical responsibility for the release of heat-trapping emissions resulting in climate injustice, and protecting human rights for current and future generations.\u201d
The ECHR has had six other climate cases on hold pending the decisions handed down Tuesday, including one against the Norwegian government. Plaintiffs in that case argue Norway violated human rights by issuing new licenses for oil and gas drilling in the Barents Sea beyond 2035.
Scientists and the International Energy Agency have said in recent years that there\u2019s no place for new fossil fuel production on a pathway to limiting planetary heating to 1.5\u00b0C.
Courts in Australia, Brazil, Peru, and South Korea are also considering human rights-based climate cases.
Despite the ECHR\u2019s mixed rulings, Merner called the decision regarding Switzerland \u201cgroundbreaking.\u201d
\u201cThis ruling highlights the undeniable link between government climate policies and the fundamental rights to life and family,\u201d said Merner. \u201cWith extreme weather events like heatwaves becoming more frequent and intense due to fossil fuel exacerbated climate change, this landmark judgment sends a clear message: Governments must strengthen their efforts to combat climate change, not just as a matter of environmental policy, but as a crucial aspect of protecting human rights.\u201d<\/p>\n