News Trending

Swiss Women’s Climate Victory at European Court

By 171 0

Swiss women who won a landmark climate change ruling at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) are feeling shocked and betrayed by their parliament’s refusal to comply with the decision. These women, referred to as the “climate seniors,” had previously argued in Strasbourg, France, that the Swiss government’s inadequate response to climate change, particularly extreme heat events linked to global warming, was harming their right to health and life.

In April, the court sided with them and mandated Switzerland, which has yet to meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, to take more action. The court’s rulings are binding for member states, making this decision unprecedented. Climate activists had hoped it would set a precedent for using human rights law to protect citizens from health harms caused by worsening environmental conditions.

However, on Wednesday, the Swiss parliament voted against adhering to the ECHR’s ruling, claiming Switzerland already had an effective climate strategy in place. The parliamentary debate was emotionally charged, with right-wing politicians criticizing what they saw as overreach by “foreign judges,” while Green Party members condemned the discussion as “shameful” and “populist.”

Despite Switzerland’s struggles to meet its Paris Climate Agreement goals, which aim to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, opinion polls show many Swiss are concerned about climate change. The Alpine region is particularly vulnerable, with studies indicating that its glaciers, crucial to Europe’s water supply, could vanish by the century’s end if temperatures continue to rise.

The Swiss value their direct democracy system and prefer making decisions themselves, which explains why the “foreign judges” argument resonates with them. Recently, voters supported government proposals to increase renewable electricity production, though environmental groups argue these measures are insufficient to meet climate goals. Polls show a majority of Swiss voters oppose the ECHR’s involvement, believing the country is already doing enough to protect the environment.

Other nations, particularly the United Kingdom, are closely watching Switzerland’s rejection of the ECHR ruling. The UK government has faced pushback from the Strasbourg court over its plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, leading some British voters to suggest leaving the court. However, such a move is unlikely in Switzerland, at least for now.

The final decision on whether to comply with the ECHR’s climate ruling rests with the Swiss government, which will announce its verdict in August. The ECHR did not specify what Switzerland must do, only that it must take more action. In a typical Swiss compromise, the government might present a list of measures taken since the climate seniors began their case, hoping for acceptance. If not, the climate seniors may return to court.

Picture Courtesy: Google/images are subject to copyright

News Trending

European court rules human rights violated by climate inaction

By 204 0

A group of elderly Swiss women have achieved a significant victory in the European Court of Human Rights, marking the first climate case success in the court’s history. These women, primarily in their 70s, emphasized their vulnerability to the impacts of heatwaves associated with climate change due to their age and gender.

The court criticized Switzerland for its insufficient efforts in meeting emission reduction goals, deeming them inadequate. This ruling holds significance as it’s the first time the court has addressed the issue of global warming.

Greta Thunberg, the Swedish activist, joined in the celebration with other activists at the court in Strasbourg. One of the leaders of the Swiss women, Rosemarie Wydler-Walti, expressed disbelief at the victory, highlighting its magnitude.

The court’s decision carries legal weight and could potentially influence legislation in 46 European countries, including the UK. It found Switzerland in breach of its duties under the Convention concerning climate change, noting deficiencies in the country’s climate policies, such as failure to quantify reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

The group of Swiss women, known as KlimaSeniorinnen or Senior Women for Climate Protection, argued that they faced health risks during heatwaves in Switzerland and were unable to leave their homes. Data showed that March of the same year marked the world’s warmest, continuing a trend of record-breaking temperatures.

However, the court dismissed similar cases brought by Portuguese youths and a former French mayor, who also claimed that European governments were not acting swiftly enough to address climate change, thus violating their rights.

Elisabeth Smart, a member of KlimaSeniorinnen at 76 years old, highlighted her lifelong observations of climate change in Switzerland, having grown up on a farm. Despite the nine-year commitment to the case, she emphasized the innate drive within some individuals to take action rather than remain passive.

While governments worldwide have committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions significantly, experts and activists warn that progress remains slow, jeopardizing efforts to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C.

Picture Courtesy: Google/images are subject to copyright

Global Climate News Trending

Young Activists Sue 32 Nations Over Climate Change

By 400 0


Claudia Duarte Agostinho vividly recalls the fear she felt during the devastating heatwave and wildfires that swept through Portugal in 2017, claiming over 100 lives. The trauma of those wildfires left her and her siblings anxious about their future. Claudia, aged 24, her brother Martim, aged 20, and her 11-year-old sister Mariana are among a group of six young Portuguese individuals who have taken an unprecedented step by filing a lawsuit against 32 governments, including all European Union member states, the UK, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, and Turkey.

Their lawsuit accuses these nations of inadequately addressing climate change and failing to sufficiently reduce greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. This groundbreaking case is the first of its kind to be brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, potentially carrying legally-binding implications for the accused governments. The initial hearing took place recently.

These six claimants, ranging in age from 11 to 24, argue that the annual forest fires in Portugal since 2017 are a direct consequence of global warming. They assert that their fundamental human rights, including the right to life, privacy, family life, and freedom from discrimination, are being violated due to governments’ failure to combat climate change adequately. They have already experienced significant impacts, such as extreme temperatures forcing them indoors, restricting their daily lives, and causing health issues like eco-anxiety, allergies, and respiratory conditions. Remarkably, none of them seeks financial compensation.

The case’s proponents argue that the policies of these 32 governments are steering the world toward a catastrophic 3-degree Celsius global warming scenario by the century’s end. They demand urgent action to prevent unbearable heat extremes that threaten their health and well-being. In a 2021 study, the Lancet found widespread climate anxiety and dissatisfaction with government responses among children and young people worldwide, impacting their daily lives.

The governments, in their responses, contest that the claimants haven’t adequately demonstrated that their suffering directly results from climate change or Portuguese wildfires. They argue that there is no immediate evidence of climate change posing a risk to human life or health, and they question the ECHR’s jurisdiction over climate policy.

This David vs. Goliath case could have far-reaching implications, potentially binding these governments to increase climate action by reducing emissions and phasing out fossil fuels. It would also guide domestic courts dealing with climate change-related cases. A verdict is anticipated in nine to 18 months.

For Claudia, this case represents a glimmer of hope in an otherwise uncertain world. She contemplates the possibility of having children one day, but winning this case would mean that people are truly listening, governments are taking action, and a brighter future might be on the horizon.

Picture Courtesy: Google/images are subject to copyright

News Trending

Swiss court case ties human rights to climate change

By 359 0

More than 2,000 women are suing the Swiss government for allegedly infringing their right to life and health through its climate change policies.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) will consider the case as the first one involving the effects of climate change on human rights. It comes after six years of futile court fighting in Switzerland.

Switzerland’s temperatures are rising faster than the average for the world, and heatwaves are happening more frequently. The 73-year-old average age of the Swiss women claim that the threat of climate change puts their life, health, and even human rights in jeopardy. Their medical records were submitted as evidence to the court.

They urge Switzerland to make a bigger effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions by issuing an order from the ECHR. The Swiss government acknowledges that climate change can have an impact on health, but claims that it cannot be directly linked to the wellbeing of older women.

If the women prevail, the case might serve as a precedent for all 46 of the nations that make up the European Court. Human activity is causing global temperatures to rise, and climate change now threatens every aspect of human existence.

Unchecked global warming will have disastrous effects on humanity and ecosystems, including increased droughts, rising sea levels, and a mass extinction of species.

Globally, extreme weather events are already getting more and more dangerous, endangering lives and livelihoods.

Climate scientists believe that if we wish to prevent the worst effects of climate change, temperature rises must be curbed. They claim that by 2100, global warming must be limited to 1.5C.

If the increase in global temperature is not maintained to 1.5C, Europe will be at risk of flooding brought on by excessive precipitation, according to the UN climate organisation, the IPCC.

This was the case in Europe last summer, extreme temperatures can also raise the risk of wildfires. In comparison to the average, France and Germany burned nearly seven times more land between January and the middle of July 2022.

Picture Courtesy: Google/images are subject to copyright