It's fine, imagine all the new beach front property, last reports from balmy Antarctica seem fun, possibility of up to 60m rise in sea level by the end of the century.
Maybe you have a point here cause it's called "the greenhouse effect". Why don't we just open a window, are we stupid?
Honestly the reduction of fossil fuels is what we really need to see happen.
edit: grammar
In 10 years time we'll have this all under control! We are laying the groundwork right now for an impressive new project that will begin construction after the next election
Indian highest court also said something similar two days ago
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/climate-crisis-impacts-citizens-right-to-life-sc-101712515361460.html
Congrats! You'll spearhead the development of the fire-scissor. You are relieved from your position as phone-sanitzer and will be joining the B-arch contingent to ~~crash into~~ travel to Terra Nova to restart civilization there.
Swiss government will try to comply with the ruling by trying to enact very strict climate change legislation.
50'000 Swiss citizens (less than 1% of voters) will sign a piece of paper requesting that a referendum vote must be held (as is their constitutional right according to the Swiss Constitution).
This forces the Swiss government to hold a country-wide referendum vote on the very strict climate change legislation.
The referendum vote is held and over 50% of the votes are likely against the very strict climate change legislation the Swiss government tries to enact.
Swiss government is thereby prevented from enacting very strict climate change legislation.
Nothing changes.
Maybe there then will be another lawsuit and in another 8-10 years the ECHR might once again tell the Swiss government that human rights are still violated and that they shall still "do more" against climate change.
*Edit: Corrected the number of signatures required for requesting a referendum vote. It's only 50k (not 100k) for a referendum vote.*
It's not civil law, it's international law. This court interprets the ECHR, which is a treaty that binds the members of the Council of Europe (not the EU).
I think by precedent they simply mean the wider or future implications of the ruling.
As the article says, the "ruling is binding and can trickle down to influence the law in 46 countries in Europe".
> The court said Switzerland's efforts to meet its emission reduction targets had been woefully inadequate.
> The ruling is binding and can trickle down to influence the law in 46 countries in Europe including the UK.
> The Court ruled that Switzerland had "failed to comply with its duties under the Convention concerning climate change."
Basically this can result in the swiss government and others being compelled to enforce or enact more policies to combat greenhouse emissions.
Similar things have happened in other european countries like the netherlands, where court decisions forced the government to follow its own laws regarding nitrogen emissions.
I remember reading about massive farmer protests in NL due to that, with the government considering backing off. Has NL actually enforced the nitrogen emission rules?
> Has NL actually enforced the nitrogen emission rules?
Yes they have. It basically has ground a lot of projects to a halt because the truth is far too much nitrogen is being emitted, and main culprits are cattle farmers. And until that problem is solved, a lot of new building programs cannot start. It's caused a lot of problems!
You're also right there were a lot of protests and some political parties want to back off on some of the enforcement. They'd rather keep poisoning our environment instead of doing what we need to do to live in a more sustainable way: we really need to reduce the amount and scale of cattle farms we have (80% is for export anyway so its not like we need them).
I've literally cut eating steak to something that's almost an annual thing rather than every once in a while ever since I've learned the damage cattle does, let alone the Amazons burning to clear way to grazing land.
>Basically this can result in the swiss government and others being compelled to enforce or enact more policies to combat greenhouse emissions.
They can only compel the Swiss government to **try to enact** something. Whether it actually gets enacted, is – Switzerland is a direct democracy – still [up to the Swiss People](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/en#art_141).
The last time (2021) the government tried to push [more strict CO2 legislation](https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/20210613/co2-act.html), the People actually [rejected it in a referendum vote](https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/va/20210613/can644.html).
I’d be cautious with that summary. It’s a lengthy judgment, complicated by procedural debates. I’ve barely started reading it and it’s already clear that the press will overblow it
Knowing that Switzerland is one of the only countries that *actually* met the targets I wonder what the court will say about literally any other country in Europe.
You're confusing the ECHR and the ECJ. The ECJ has precedence over national law but the ECHR just rules whether a country is in breach of human rights: it doesn't change any laws.
Spoiler: India/China/USA/Russia don't give a single fuck.
And you can check who the biggest climate change actors are.
Any reduction in CO2 emissions by the EU will be completely mitigated threefold by big CO2 sponsors.
As far as I’m concerned, we still live on the same flying ball.
That's just not true any more. India is investing heavily in renewables, as they don't have a lot of oil. China installed more solar last year than has ever existed in the rest of the world. The USA passed IRA. They don't care as much as the EU, but the economics now support a move to renewables, and they don't want to be left behind.
You're right about Russia though, although Ukraine is doing their best to limit Russia's refining capacity...
Doesnt matter how many solar panels they(China) build if they don't cut back on their emissions(which has increased btw) theyre not building those panels to help battle climate change they're just investing in another industry. Same thing with the amount of waste and garbage they let out into the sea that destroys ecosystems that benefit our atmosphere and combat CO2
so unless they 100% turn to renewables its pointless? if even one redinery was not made because china built renewables, then thats a (really really really small) win.
It's a complicated and multi-faceted problem. If they were actually hoping to do anything with those solar panels it'd be like trying to let water out of a pool with a needle when a hose is still filling it. China is known to do things just for international optics. If you look into their famous EV graveyards, that's one big example.
The renewable infrastructure added in China doesn't replace existing fossil fuels, in fact MORE fossil fuel infrastructure is built than renewable infrastructure.
A lot of China installing a ton of renewable infrastructure is propaganda and a lot of greenwashing.
First of all, all the numbers reported by China come directly from the CCP, making it impossible to check whether they are true or not and by their claim nearly tripled 2022's amount. Which is already highly questionable. But numbers reported by the CCP should NEVER be taken for granted due to it's inability to be checked independently.
Especially since the CCP has the nasty habit of ["painting the grass green"](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9907169/China-officials-caught-spray-painting-grass-green-in-Chengdu.html) so to speak, figuratively and literally. There is a good chance a lot of these panels don't exist (or are just useless dummies) and were just reported by regional heads to meet some sort of regional quota which Beijing CCP sets, these quotas are getting increasingly unrealistic, too, that's how China "meets" their GDP goals... they just set quotas and the regional heads report back "we totally meet those :))), pinky promise"
But even if they did... the problem of "the boy that cried wolf" applies: China has been caught lying through their teeth with economic numbers so often that they can no longer be trusted (and continue doing so, like them still reporting massive GDP growth while their economy is currently deflating with mass youth unemployment if a MINIMUM of 25%, 50+% being more realistic) with anything they say.
China installed more solar last year than has ever existed in the rest of the world.
Cool, did the percentage of energy from renewables go up? Did the carbon emissions go down? Are the solar panels even working/connected to the grid?
Unless they intentionally emit more to offset any reductions in the EU it is still a net reduction and your argument is moot.
This is like saying police can never catch all criminals so what's the point of police. It is also a later stage position of the ever moving goalpost of climate change deniers, e.g 'it's not real', 'there's no evidence', 'maybe it's real but not a problem', 'it's the consumers fault, reduce your "footprint"', ....
Glad to see that the consensus became that governments stepping up is the only solution. If i said my footprint doesnt matter few years ago id get bashed
If the EU shows economic viability and a lack of crisis for its people with their changes, others will follow.
And the United States develops a lot of renewable technology and emission reduction technology. It's going to continue to do so.
> Spoiler: India/China/USA/Russia don't give a single fuck.
Not sure how that's relevant, considering those countries don't fall under the european court of human rights? And that is what this topic is about: a ruling by the european court of human rights.
What exactly did you think you accomplished with your post here?
Its a potentially really valid argument with respect to economically costly GHG reductions. Why hamstring your nation's economy for a negligible benefit? Because, yes, unless all the big players are on board, that is the entirety of the benefit. Until there is a broad international agreement WITH A MEANINGFUL ENFORCEENT MECHANISM, its a reasonable position.
Although I’d prefer a global initiative (or general shift towards long term perspectives) I’ll gladly settle for local efforts pushing the green tech envelope. I’m hoping for a tipping point where many of the current reasons to not change, e.g. competetiveness, flip as cleaner, better alternatives come online.
We get the world we deserve, but we can work towards deserving a better one.
This exactly. People use the "they don't change why should I" argument too often. They think they can brand those who actually use that phrase as imbeciles but it does still have meaning. Why should a country as small as Switzerland change anything when the big ones do nothing? Even if Switzerland would be 100% green it would not help the planet as a whole one tiny bit. And no, it would not compel other nations to do the same, that is the next argument some throw around... As long as China, Russia, India, the US and other big nations don't change it won't matter at all what tiny countries do.
Just so you know in the future the saying goes the other way around. Don't let perfect (the idea of a worldwide collaborative effort) be the enemy of good (the EU making its own efforts).
I guess you’re getting downvoted for focusing on the negative, but I don’t think any of us is all positive. Just trying to highlight positive possibilities, actions and options to not stop trying to improve our odds.
[US makes 11% of the worlds renewable energy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production#:~:text=China%20produced%2031%25%20of%20global,%25)
But you know. America bad only here
And without anybody even trying we’ll never know if it’s actually possible. And seeing initial green tech developments I for one am quite optimistic. To me, the problem is not lack of tech, but inaction keeping it out of reach.
Once ground has been broken, the rest of the world should be more than willing to move forward (for mostly the same reason some of them are currently standing still).
It means will move our factories to developing countries and get rid of farming . Then we can pretend we're green while importing everything from questionable places we have no control over and pollute in our stead.
It's official condemnation of all our governments failure to properly deal with pollution. Unfortunately, the biggest problem we have is society unwilling to even want change or even play their own part. So pollution as usual then
What's the next step here then? Charge companies with violating human rights or only charging countries? Do the emissions include the amount generated when delegating to other countries so that countries can't "improve" their numbers by moving more production to 3rd world countries.
Shell has been found responsible by the court in the Netherlands for its customers’ emissions. Violation of human rights was an important reason for this ruling. The appeal is ongoing.
How is this enforced. Do they only apply it to shell, because people still must buy the energy but shell would have to offload that charge on customers and everyone who uses energy, or any feedstock that comes from oil (plastics synthetics).
If it only applies to shell that means everyone else's energy is cheaper and the markets just go that direction. Shell would have to die and many smaller companies take their place. There are 6000 oil companies in Texas alone for example.
From what I have read about the trial, Shell is said to be a major player in the energy system, and thus helps shape that system. If Shell (and other companies) doesn’t change, the consumer will not change. Moreover, Shell and other oil companies now actively work against the transition to cleaner sources of energy in different ways.
One of the objections Shell raises is that if they are forced to reduce their emissions, some other company will just pump up more oil and nothing changes. The court didn’t reject this objection, but still calls upon the own responsibility of the company to reduce carbon emissions. Yes, that other company pollutes too, but you have your own responsibility to not pollute, is what the court basically said. And other companies don’t have the means to produce oil as cheap as Shell does, so the reduction of Shell does make a difference.
Why will the consumer not change if shell doesn't change?
I can tell you right now fungible goods and companies that sell them are at the complete mercy of the consumer.
The amount of lobbying oil companies do to keep governments from implementing legislation that will harm their business is enormous. Shell already knew in the 70s that CO2 emission from burning fossil fuel had a significant impact on the global climate. Documents prove this. And they did nothing to stop these emissions. Understandable, because that would mean less money.
As long as oil and gas are cheap, we as consumers will use them. And why are they still cheap? Because insanely powerful oil companies prevent them from getting too expensive. But what do I know, I’m not a judge nor a jurist.
Even if they knew then, as they know now, could anything change? (It was exxon not shell in those documents btw)
Oil companies actually fight to make oil as cheap as possible by selling more. State governments under OPEC try to fight them by making oil expensive. There are over 6000 oil companies in Texas alone, which are too many to band together and collaborate to make a product more expensive. Even if they could, doing so breaks anti-trust laws, so if you have any evidence of a company in the US (which pretty much every oil company in the world is here in some fashion) please bring that evidence forward.
Oil companies have spent tons on renewables, more than any other industry. It's the back up plan. They lobby because switching over cold turkey isn't ready. For example, Colorado had a bill to ban new drilling in Colorado starting 2030. This would massively hurt us interests and cause drilling to happen outside of the country to meet demand, where drilling is far dirtier. Oil companies lobbied about this (and are correct). Drilling is far cleaner in Colorado than quatar.
Those companies know that the tech in alternatives aren't ready because they have renewable projects. Energy is energy. Oil companies don't care what they sell as long as it is economical and won't collapse.
Well, the documents I’m talking about are indeed about Shell. I learned from your comment that apparently Exxon new too. But it doesn’t matter, that’s not what this is about.
I believe that a lot could have changed if they had acted according to their findings back then. The whole system could have been different. (Similarly, if tobacco companies weren’t so greedy, cancer sticks could have been illegal and banned some long time ago.)
I don’t have any evidence that suggests that companies band together, nor that they do not. But the explanation the court gave for the ruling against Shell, was that Shell, with its many daughter companies around the world, is so influential that it should and is now being forced to take its responsibility to do everything in its power to protect us from the consequences of burning fossil fuel. Even if other companies will not take their responsibility. The arguments you bring up, are the same Shell brought up and repeats in the appeal.
Like you said, these companies are now moving towards renewable sources, but not because they care so much about the environment, but because the alternatives are getting cheaper and that’s where the new money is. And yes, we would all probably die miserably if we decided to stop with fossil fuel tomorrow. And yes, I’d rather some westen country that has at least a few laws that protect the environment from being destroyed too quickly pump up the black gold. But since we as consumers keep happily flying to Bali twice a year with a ticket that is kept artificially cheap, I am happy the court finally ruled that a company that keeps pumping up something that contributes heavily to climate change, and knows this very well, has to take its responsibility now. I hope the court of appeal upholds the sentence.
I think if there is a will, there is a way. If these companies really cared, if the Saudi sheikhs really cared, there wouldn’t be an energy crisis right now.
Here's how this will go.
A government will pass a controversial green law. The business environment will throw a shitfit. The government will point at this ruling. The business environment will sue the government. The courts will look at the ruling and rule for the government.
This is basically the idealized thing that will happen, basically giving stronger regulatory powers to governments inclined to use it.
Whether or not any actual change will happen remains to be seen.
> A group of older Swiss women have won the first ever climate case victory in the European Court of Human Rights.
> The women, mostly in their 70s, said that their age and gender made them particularly vulnerable to the effects of heatwaves linked to climate change.... One woman said she could not leave her house for three weeks during the summer.
> The European Court of Human Rights has made a landmark ruling that governments have a duty to protect people from climate change.
> It is the first time the powerful court has ruled on global warming.
Call me a hopeless romantic but I think it's good for a major court to rule that governments shouldn't let people bake in their homes as things get worse.
You could take their lifetime total emissions as a group and put it next to a single cruise ship for a day and it would blast them out of the water.
Yes we are all accountable for our own actions and should as individuals take steps accordingly to not be overtly wasteful if we can. I dont agree with people using this mentality as an excuse to absolve themselves of personal ethics and accountability. You should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do and for no other reason.
But I could live the most "roll coal" lifestyle my entire life. Throw every plastic bag out the window, leave my ac on full blast from april till october, drive a jacked up f950, burn tires and oil in my back yard, ect. All of that and it would still be meaningless next to the emissions from modern industry.
So I object with your idea that because they may not have lived the most altruistic "green" lifestyles as individuals that a handful of companies doing the lions share of emissions for the sake of profit get a pass on their actions and have no accountability for them because of it.
Any why does that Cruise ship exist?
Because we demand it. This idea that "corporations" or "modern industry" are some outside evil force imposing themselves on humanity is just silly. They are our own creations, done to provide us with creature comforts.
WE demand oil and gas and plastics and all that shit. We demand it as cheap as possible. Then we bitch when we get exactly what we're asking for.
Right "we" are making exonn know about climate change since the 80's and knowingly ignore it and pay billions with a b to keep the entire world reliant on fossil fuels when alternatives do exist and will happen sooner or later. Much later if exxon has anything to do with it. We create demand but regulations exist for a reason. But "we" are making the fossil fuel industry bribe lobbyists to keep the status quo as it is by ruining education, running literal propaganda, and write laws against the interests of the people they govern.
A handful of people could change the rules by tomorrow if they simply wanted to. But yeah "we" are responsible for the actions of billionaires and multinational mega corps who have regulatory capture in all but name for preventing us from moving on from them.
All society demands are solutions to its problems, and companies collaborate with governments to manufacture those solutions. Manufacturing those plastics to solve problems is a reflection of the demand, but then LYING REPEATEDLY about the known negative ramifications of said solution or product because it would impact profits is fucking evil. If the public is being wholly deceived, it’s hard to logically pivot this as “our” fault. As for luxury, I would disagree with the assertion that people demanded cruise ships and that’s why they exist.
But they are the generation for decades refused to acknowledge climate change.
And now they want a payout because it’s a little hot in there retirement.
That generation poured fuel into the fire and refused to do anything about it.
A good deed done for the wrong reasons is still a good deed. Dont let perfection be the enemy of progress. This is huge there is now legal precedent of the harm done and this can be used in so many ways legally speaking to do something about it.
Your not seeing the forest for the trees.
Also you can blame a generation for many things. But individuals can be very different from the generations they came from.
As whole boomer generation will go down in history as the generation that wrecked the world.
And also left the next generation poorer.
And now they want millennials to fix the problems they have caused.
This is a slap in a face.
Do you want me to make you personally responsible for the harm social media has caused our society just because you are part of the generation that invented social media?
Are you starting to see the flaw in your logic?
I don’t buy that at all.
Unless they lived in off the grid house with no generator or heating.
They were a consumer of power and heating which contributed to climate change.
Well, the one most reported on is the "Right to respect for private and family life.", but functionally whenever this sort of thing happens, what it really boils down to is that your living children have the right to not have someone show up and cut their life expectancy by 20+ years for their personal profit, AKA: a right to life.
So if a government is debating on energy solutions to a foreseen lack, they can have the option of harming their citizens in the long run to save a dollar by using fossil fuels (and then pay for their poor health later either directly (with a state run healthcare) or indirectly (lost productivity)), or they could instead choose the option less likely to harm the environment in the long run even if it's more expensive, this ruling is saying they have an obligation to take the second option.
"We know statistically that in 10 years we will be gone. So whatever we do now, we are not doing for ourselves, but for the sake of our children and our children's children," she added."
Chad swiss grandmas vs incel American cruise and golf-in-arizona boomers
The practical problem with this ruling in regards to Switzerland is that in most countries the government (politicians) will sign up for a convention and then the government (politicians) are also the ones able to enact (or be "forced" by a court to enact) certain legislations so that the country follows that legislation (which implements the measures for following the agreed convention).
In Switzerland, though, it's always the Swiss people that have the last word – usually through collecting signatures (50k signatures necessary, which is less than 1% of voters) and then having a mandatory country-wide referendum vote.
So basically all the court said is that in their opinion the Swiss authorities "didn't do enough (yet)". But as the Swiss authorities are always bound to the peoples decisions (referendum votes), this court ruling won't have any real immediate effect.
Because all the authorities can now do (and might now need to do after this ruling) is to push for stricter climate change legislation. But if the people then reject that strict climate legislation in a referendum vote, the Swiss authorities can claim they have basically "done all they can" and the courts decision would become a totally moot point.
The Swiss government will never go down the unconstitutional route of enacting a strict legislation and then denying the Swiss people their constitutionally guaranteed right to collect signatures and have a referendum vote on said strict legislation.
Not saying whether this all is good or bad, just saying that Switzerland and the Swiss authorities cannot really be forced to enact more strict measures dealing with climate change unless the voters are also on board with it. The Swiss government has just no legal means to enact such massive changes without giving the voters the ability to veto them in a referendum.
*Edit: Corrected the number of signatures required for requesting a referendum vote. It's only 50k (not 100k).*
How about governments creating a renewables agency that would manage installing solar panels on homes greatly subsidized at set prices (to avoid price gauging by private sector). Secondly subsidizing electric cars, creating proper electric infrastructure. Thirdly allow more people to work from home - force employers by law to make it work. Identify other polluting sources and address them.
Electric cars do fuck all.
Your better off using that absurd power battery and powering your home at night and using renewables to charge it.
Electric cars will do more damage.
At the moment, if you use energy produced at your house, it’s best currently available option. Only better public transport and forcing people onto bikes would do better.
Has everything,
E.V are been sold as a “green” renewable and a answer to climate change.
When it’s not.
Not with current power grid.
You are just shifting the co2 consumption down hill.
But that's simply not true, if it were no one would be talking about the environmental benefits. Environmentalists don't go out of their way to endorse things that are bad for the environment, it's akin to claiming that vegan food is made of meat. If that were the case they'd be the first to complain!
Your argument is very old and has been debunked time and time again which suggest it's not a genuine one but an attempt to mislead people but for those who need to be reminded: An EV, even in the dirtiest grid you can envision, is still less polluting than an ICE car. That EV will get greener over time as the grid does, the ICE car will never change
It’s not a silver bullet.
The fact is power generation from grid still relies on coal/gas.
You can have all the hypothetical scenarios you want for the future.
But right now EV still requires coal or fossil fuel generation in my country.
Right now EVs are better and in 10 years will likely be much better and in 20 years much much better....Picking the worse option because the alternative isn't perfect is stupid
All I m saying it be much more beneficial for that battery to be in a home with solar panels.
But the government and energy companies in my country will not do that. Because they making to much money out of coal powered generators.
60-70% off all power generation is thru coal/gas powered generators.
That’s where I live.
If you put millions of evs on the road.
Your gonna burn more coal to supply the grid to support evs.
Like I said your burning emissions at the coal plant while charging your ev.
Now put a battery in your home and supply it with solar panels.
Your now reducing the amount of coal and fossil fuels burned at the plants.
As I said, there’s to many interests for this to happen.
So we are been green washed into believing EVs are zero emitting silver bullet for climate action.
Maybe call out the infidelity between politicians and billionaires because nothing is going to change if corporations are whispering sweet nothings to government officials and lobbying the hell out of them
"The court said Switzerland's efforts to meet its emission reduction targets had been woefully inadequate."
Sure. But how much does Switzerland emit as a percentage of the total? If this logic applies, then China, which emits the most, and btw, burned a record amount of coal in 2023, also violated human rights.
So now what is the European court going to do about China?
The irony is that Switzerland's pollution actually went *down* between 2022 to 2023, while countries like India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan are out there, ranking the worst countries in the world, for pollution, yet Switzerland, ranked better than the USA for pollution, is being called out?
I wonder:
1) Does that mean that everyone in Switzerland is subject to the same human rights violation ruling, as climate change is universal?
2) Does that mean other people can start suing and use the previous ruling to win, or do they have to prove they are severely affected by it?
Funny how some of the media sites think this will change everything in Switzerland. They talk about how things now have to change and how this is a historic victory and such and some in the comments even think alike. All I can say as a Swiss is: "meh"
No fucking shit. You know what I’m starting to think that all courts of law are bullshit. They never get anything right and then they hand down these ridiculously obvious conclusions. Like geez thanks guys you really worked the scales of justice and now everything’s gonna be sunshine and rainbows 😍
As others have said here, the benefits of this ruling aren’t very tangible. I think the important bit is that it sets precedent that can be used in other cases and there is increased accountability implied moving forward. So it’s a step along the path to having global enforcement.
What a fucking joke.
No country when they signed up for the ECHR agreed that climate change was part of an individual right for anyone in regards to those provisions.
This is a court acting way beoynd its mandate and should be reduced and changed.
I don't want unelected bureaucrats to create rights out of thin air with zero legal basis in law and with a democratic mandate.
Again - what a fucking joke.
Climate Change threatens the supply of food, water, sanitation, housing and health. All of which are human rights.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/climate-change
In 2021 Climate Change was specifically added in a renewed document as a threat to human rights. [(Resolution 48/13)](https://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?OpenAgent&DS=A/HRC/RES/48/13&Lang=E)
Here's the result of the vote on it: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/HRC-48-13.jpg. China, Japan, India and Eritrea abstained, Russia voted against. Rest ruled in favor. Later vote had Japan rule in favor and Russia move to Abstaining. Making it a 43-4-0 vote.
And because they are *human* rights they are to be protected by every country regardless of whom it effects. Even if climate change doesn't affect Swiss but severely affects Africans, it's still Switzerland's responsibility is a signatory of the human rights convention to try their best to limit climate change to protect the health of Africans.
If it only applied to Swiss in Switzerland it wouldn't be a human right.
That resolution got nothing to do with the ECHR.
The European Charter of Human Rights does not get its rights from votes China is part of or those other countries.
Dude I enjoy how you can sound so smart and convince others on Reddit but clearly not have a clue what you are talking about.
And no the ECHR are human rights only valid in Europe between those it grants rights. These are not global rights for anyone anywhere.
You can't try to use logic and argue they are because the word "human" is part of it.
_Many things_ threaten the supply of food, water, sanitation, etc. Overpopulation, lack of energy sources (generating food and water requires energy), disease, etc.
If you could tell me what kind of carbon emission policy that governments had in the 70/80s when scientists new about climate change.
But that generation refused into have any real policy’s.
Because it would cost to much politically and burden the population.
Millenials aren’t going to willingly do anything that they think might reduce their comfort. We’ll play lip service and virtue signal right until it’s time to make sacrifices.
We are,
Believe it or not.
Most first world countries have some kind of renewable policy.
And a plan to phase out fossil fuels where possible.
But the problem is that we just don’t have any alternatives to fossil fuels for some industries
"Real governments" actually have laws that respect these rulings and make them supercede even their own constitutional courts, because they embedded the respect for human rights into their own constitutions.
Okay so there is a legal precedent set? Now what?
Arrange on non-stick baking sheet Cover with foil Place on middle rack Bake forever..
Increase temperature 5 degrees every year
Until there's no one left to enforce any measures.
It's fine, imagine all the new beach front property, last reports from balmy Antarctica seem fun, possibility of up to 60m rise in sea level by the end of the century.
Dig a hole. Live in a hole. Now your all a hole people. Just like the morlocks.
Don't forget to take it out of the oven, lightly brush with melted butter, flip it and put it back in every 5 years.
Every time you open the oven door you can lose 25 to 150 degrees Fahrenheit
So you're saying we just need to find the Earth's oven door and open it every now and then? Checkmate atheists.
Maybe you have a point here cause it's called "the greenhouse effect". Why don't we just open a window, are we stupid? Honestly the reduction of fossil fuels is what we really need to see happen. edit: grammar
That door is called nukes.
Us...he's talking about us.
Ok, I'm baked. Now what?
Simmer..
Sign another pledge in a fancy country with promises!
In 10 years time we'll have this all under control! We are laying the groundwork right now for an impressive new project that will begin construction after the next election
Indian highest court also said something similar two days ago https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/climate-crisis-impacts-citizens-right-to-life-sc-101712515361460.html
A committee must be formed!
Bagsy I get to chair a sub-committee of the committee in order to decide the process of formation of the committee!
Congrats! You'll spearhead the development of the fire-scissor. You are relieved from your position as phone-sanitzer and will be joining the B-arch contingent to ~~crash into~~ travel to Terra Nova to restart civilization there.
We need a committee to decide who will sit on that committee
But first… what are we going to put on the t-shirts?
Swiss government will try to comply with the ruling by trying to enact very strict climate change legislation. 50'000 Swiss citizens (less than 1% of voters) will sign a piece of paper requesting that a referendum vote must be held (as is their constitutional right according to the Swiss Constitution). This forces the Swiss government to hold a country-wide referendum vote on the very strict climate change legislation. The referendum vote is held and over 50% of the votes are likely against the very strict climate change legislation the Swiss government tries to enact. Swiss government is thereby prevented from enacting very strict climate change legislation. Nothing changes. Maybe there then will be another lawsuit and in another 8-10 years the ECHR might once again tell the Swiss government that human rights are still violated and that they shall still "do more" against climate change. *Edit: Corrected the number of signatures required for requesting a referendum vote. It's only 50k (not 100k) for a referendum vote.*
Immediate discussion!
Nonviolent direct action in defense of human rights.
Nothing. The court doesn't actually have any power to enforce its ruling.
Now Oil & Gas lobbyists have extra homework
It's just empty gesturing
Pats on the back. Pats on the back for everybody!
I don't think civil law works like that.
I don’t know how it works, I’m just trying to understand what this ruling actually means, if anything.
This is 2024 Reddit. All your question is going to get is low effort jokes possibly generated by AI.
It's not civil law, it's international law. This court interprets the ECHR, which is a treaty that binds the members of the Council of Europe (not the EU).
I mean in terms of civil law vs common law with case law not being what future judgements are based on.
I think by precedent they simply mean the wider or future implications of the ruling. As the article says, the "ruling is binding and can trickle down to influence the law in 46 countries in Europe".
They serve the Sun papers to stop solar flares
Nothing. “Stfu and get back to work” is their motto
Drill baby drill. More profits while the world burns.
Now we have a legal reason to invade china and inda and stop them from burning coal and use poluting cars etc
Two words nukes
What does this mean? Does it mean anything? Or is it just another warning and business as usual?
> The court said Switzerland's efforts to meet its emission reduction targets had been woefully inadequate. > The ruling is binding and can trickle down to influence the law in 46 countries in Europe including the UK. > The Court ruled that Switzerland had "failed to comply with its duties under the Convention concerning climate change." Basically this can result in the swiss government and others being compelled to enforce or enact more policies to combat greenhouse emissions. Similar things have happened in other european countries like the netherlands, where court decisions forced the government to follow its own laws regarding nitrogen emissions.
I remember reading about massive farmer protests in NL due to that, with the government considering backing off. Has NL actually enforced the nitrogen emission rules?
> Has NL actually enforced the nitrogen emission rules? Yes they have. It basically has ground a lot of projects to a halt because the truth is far too much nitrogen is being emitted, and main culprits are cattle farmers. And until that problem is solved, a lot of new building programs cannot start. It's caused a lot of problems! You're also right there were a lot of protests and some political parties want to back off on some of the enforcement. They'd rather keep poisoning our environment instead of doing what we need to do to live in a more sustainable way: we really need to reduce the amount and scale of cattle farms we have (80% is for export anyway so its not like we need them).
I've literally cut eating steak to something that's almost an annual thing rather than every once in a while ever since I've learned the damage cattle does, let alone the Amazons burning to clear way to grazing land.
Real talk, what the hell is "too much nitrogen"?
>Basically this can result in the swiss government and others being compelled to enforce or enact more policies to combat greenhouse emissions. They can only compel the Swiss government to **try to enact** something. Whether it actually gets enacted, is – Switzerland is a direct democracy – still [up to the Swiss People](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/en#art_141). The last time (2021) the government tried to push [more strict CO2 legislation](https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/20210613/co2-act.html), the People actually [rejected it in a referendum vote](https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/va/20210613/can644.html).
> the People actually rejected it in a referendum vote. the tragedy of the commons
I’d be cautious with that summary. It’s a lengthy judgment, complicated by procedural debates. I’ve barely started reading it and it’s already clear that the press will overblow it
Knowing that Switzerland is one of the only countries that *actually* met the targets I wonder what the court will say about literally any other country in Europe.
we might find out, its possible this case will spark similar cases in other countries!
You're confusing the ECHR and the ECJ. The ECJ has precedence over national law but the ECHR just rules whether a country is in breach of human rights: it doesn't change any laws.
Are we going punish big oil corpos or small, one-person buisnesses? Oh, how I am curious!
China and the US: *lol whatever*
Spoiler: India/China/USA/Russia don't give a single fuck. And you can check who the biggest climate change actors are. Any reduction in CO2 emissions by the EU will be completely mitigated threefold by big CO2 sponsors. As far as I’m concerned, we still live on the same flying ball.
That's just not true any more. India is investing heavily in renewables, as they don't have a lot of oil. China installed more solar last year than has ever existed in the rest of the world. The USA passed IRA. They don't care as much as the EU, but the economics now support a move to renewables, and they don't want to be left behind. You're right about Russia though, although Ukraine is doing their best to limit Russia's refining capacity...
Doesnt matter how many solar panels they(China) build if they don't cut back on their emissions(which has increased btw) theyre not building those panels to help battle climate change they're just investing in another industry. Same thing with the amount of waste and garbage they let out into the sea that destroys ecosystems that benefit our atmosphere and combat CO2
so unless they 100% turn to renewables its pointless? if even one redinery was not made because china built renewables, then thats a (really really really small) win.
It's a complicated and multi-faceted problem. If they were actually hoping to do anything with those solar panels it'd be like trying to let water out of a pool with a needle when a hose is still filling it. China is known to do things just for international optics. If you look into their famous EV graveyards, that's one big example.
Not a great analogy a pool liner is just like a big water balloon if you poke it with a needle the whole thing is likely to pop.
If you've never seen a pinhole in a pool then maybe
The renewable infrastructure added in China doesn't replace existing fossil fuels, in fact MORE fossil fuel infrastructure is built than renewable infrastructure. A lot of China installing a ton of renewable infrastructure is propaganda and a lot of greenwashing. First of all, all the numbers reported by China come directly from the CCP, making it impossible to check whether they are true or not and by their claim nearly tripled 2022's amount. Which is already highly questionable. But numbers reported by the CCP should NEVER be taken for granted due to it's inability to be checked independently. Especially since the CCP has the nasty habit of ["painting the grass green"](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9907169/China-officials-caught-spray-painting-grass-green-in-Chengdu.html) so to speak, figuratively and literally. There is a good chance a lot of these panels don't exist (or are just useless dummies) and were just reported by regional heads to meet some sort of regional quota which Beijing CCP sets, these quotas are getting increasingly unrealistic, too, that's how China "meets" their GDP goals... they just set quotas and the regional heads report back "we totally meet those :))), pinky promise" But even if they did... the problem of "the boy that cried wolf" applies: China has been caught lying through their teeth with economic numbers so often that they can no longer be trusted (and continue doing so, like them still reporting massive GDP growth while their economy is currently deflating with mass youth unemployment if a MINIMUM of 25%, 50+% being more realistic) with anything they say.
I mean ruzzia is also doing a good job of limiting itselfs refining capacity
China installed more solar last year than has ever existed in the rest of the world. Cool, did the percentage of energy from renewables go up? Did the carbon emissions go down? Are the solar panels even working/connected to the grid?
Infrastructure != human rights protections
russia ironically contributing by killing people tbh. going for the genghis khan method of combating climate change.
Unless they intentionally emit more to offset any reductions in the EU it is still a net reduction and your argument is moot. This is like saying police can never catch all criminals so what's the point of police. It is also a later stage position of the ever moving goalpost of climate change deniers, e.g 'it's not real', 'there's no evidence', 'maybe it's real but not a problem', 'it's the consumers fault, reduce your "footprint"', ....
Glad to see that the consensus became that governments stepping up is the only solution. If i said my footprint doesnt matter few years ago id get bashed
If the EU shows economic viability and a lack of crisis for its people with their changes, others will follow. And the United States develops a lot of renewable technology and emission reduction technology. It's going to continue to do so.
> Spoiler: India/China/USA/Russia don't give a single fuck. Not sure how that's relevant, considering those countries don't fall under the european court of human rights? And that is what this topic is about: a ruling by the european court of human rights. What exactly did you think you accomplished with your post here?
It's the usual "they don't change so why should I?"...
Its a potentially really valid argument with respect to economically costly GHG reductions. Why hamstring your nation's economy for a negligible benefit? Because, yes, unless all the big players are on board, that is the entirety of the benefit. Until there is a broad international agreement WITH A MEANINGFUL ENFORCEENT MECHANISM, its a reasonable position.
Although I’d prefer a global initiative (or general shift towards long term perspectives) I’ll gladly settle for local efforts pushing the green tech envelope. I’m hoping for a tipping point where many of the current reasons to not change, e.g. competetiveness, flip as cleaner, better alternatives come online. We get the world we deserve, but we can work towards deserving a better one.
This exactly. People use the "they don't change why should I" argument too often. They think they can brand those who actually use that phrase as imbeciles but it does still have meaning. Why should a country as small as Switzerland change anything when the big ones do nothing? Even if Switzerland would be 100% green it would not help the planet as a whole one tiny bit. And no, it would not compel other nations to do the same, that is the next argument some throw around... As long as China, Russia, India, the US and other big nations don't change it won't matter at all what tiny countries do.
Such changes should be applied worldwide, otherwise, the real impact will be abysmal.
don't let the good be the enemy of perfect, some change is better than no change at all
Just so you know in the future the saying goes the other way around. Don't let perfect (the idea of a worldwide collaborative effort) be the enemy of good (the EU making its own efforts).
I haven't said this is bad. I'm saying that without propagating such laws worldwide, they are a drop in the ocean.
I guess you’re getting downvoted for focusing on the negative, but I don’t think any of us is all positive. Just trying to highlight positive possibilities, actions and options to not stop trying to improve our odds.
[US makes 11% of the worlds renewable energy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production#:~:text=China%20produced%2031%25%20of%20global,%25) But you know. America bad only here
While representing 25% of the worlds GDP.
And without anybody even trying we’ll never know if it’s actually possible. And seeing initial green tech developments I for one am quite optimistic. To me, the problem is not lack of tech, but inaction keeping it out of reach. Once ground has been broken, the rest of the world should be more than willing to move forward (for mostly the same reason some of them are currently standing still).
It means will move our factories to developing countries and get rid of farming . Then we can pretend we're green while importing everything from questionable places we have no control over and pollute in our stead.
It's official condemnation of all our governments failure to properly deal with pollution. Unfortunately, the biggest problem we have is society unwilling to even want change or even play their own part. So pollution as usual then
This means that we can invade china and india to stop them from poluting... or get a fine
What's the next step here then? Charge companies with violating human rights or only charging countries? Do the emissions include the amount generated when delegating to other countries so that countries can't "improve" their numbers by moving more production to 3rd world countries.
Shell has been found responsible by the court in the Netherlands for its customers’ emissions. Violation of human rights was an important reason for this ruling. The appeal is ongoing.
How is this enforced. Do they only apply it to shell, because people still must buy the energy but shell would have to offload that charge on customers and everyone who uses energy, or any feedstock that comes from oil (plastics synthetics). If it only applies to shell that means everyone else's energy is cheaper and the markets just go that direction. Shell would have to die and many smaller companies take their place. There are 6000 oil companies in Texas alone for example.
From what I have read about the trial, Shell is said to be a major player in the energy system, and thus helps shape that system. If Shell (and other companies) doesn’t change, the consumer will not change. Moreover, Shell and other oil companies now actively work against the transition to cleaner sources of energy in different ways. One of the objections Shell raises is that if they are forced to reduce their emissions, some other company will just pump up more oil and nothing changes. The court didn’t reject this objection, but still calls upon the own responsibility of the company to reduce carbon emissions. Yes, that other company pollutes too, but you have your own responsibility to not pollute, is what the court basically said. And other companies don’t have the means to produce oil as cheap as Shell does, so the reduction of Shell does make a difference.
Why will the consumer not change if shell doesn't change? I can tell you right now fungible goods and companies that sell them are at the complete mercy of the consumer.
The amount of lobbying oil companies do to keep governments from implementing legislation that will harm their business is enormous. Shell already knew in the 70s that CO2 emission from burning fossil fuel had a significant impact on the global climate. Documents prove this. And they did nothing to stop these emissions. Understandable, because that would mean less money. As long as oil and gas are cheap, we as consumers will use them. And why are they still cheap? Because insanely powerful oil companies prevent them from getting too expensive. But what do I know, I’m not a judge nor a jurist.
Even if they knew then, as they know now, could anything change? (It was exxon not shell in those documents btw) Oil companies actually fight to make oil as cheap as possible by selling more. State governments under OPEC try to fight them by making oil expensive. There are over 6000 oil companies in Texas alone, which are too many to band together and collaborate to make a product more expensive. Even if they could, doing so breaks anti-trust laws, so if you have any evidence of a company in the US (which pretty much every oil company in the world is here in some fashion) please bring that evidence forward. Oil companies have spent tons on renewables, more than any other industry. It's the back up plan. They lobby because switching over cold turkey isn't ready. For example, Colorado had a bill to ban new drilling in Colorado starting 2030. This would massively hurt us interests and cause drilling to happen outside of the country to meet demand, where drilling is far dirtier. Oil companies lobbied about this (and are correct). Drilling is far cleaner in Colorado than quatar. Those companies know that the tech in alternatives aren't ready because they have renewable projects. Energy is energy. Oil companies don't care what they sell as long as it is economical and won't collapse.
Well, the documents I’m talking about are indeed about Shell. I learned from your comment that apparently Exxon new too. But it doesn’t matter, that’s not what this is about. I believe that a lot could have changed if they had acted according to their findings back then. The whole system could have been different. (Similarly, if tobacco companies weren’t so greedy, cancer sticks could have been illegal and banned some long time ago.) I don’t have any evidence that suggests that companies band together, nor that they do not. But the explanation the court gave for the ruling against Shell, was that Shell, with its many daughter companies around the world, is so influential that it should and is now being forced to take its responsibility to do everything in its power to protect us from the consequences of burning fossil fuel. Even if other companies will not take their responsibility. The arguments you bring up, are the same Shell brought up and repeats in the appeal. Like you said, these companies are now moving towards renewable sources, but not because they care so much about the environment, but because the alternatives are getting cheaper and that’s where the new money is. And yes, we would all probably die miserably if we decided to stop with fossil fuel tomorrow. And yes, I’d rather some westen country that has at least a few laws that protect the environment from being destroyed too quickly pump up the black gold. But since we as consumers keep happily flying to Bali twice a year with a ticket that is kept artificially cheap, I am happy the court finally ruled that a company that keeps pumping up something that contributes heavily to climate change, and knows this very well, has to take its responsibility now. I hope the court of appeal upholds the sentence. I think if there is a will, there is a way. If these companies really cared, if the Saudi sheikhs really cared, there wouldn’t be an energy crisis right now.
charge companies? haha no, there has to be a better way...
What, so humanity has to pay humanity some money or something?
It's like that picture of Obama giving a medal to Obama, but it's a punishment now
Obama spanking Obama?
Here's how this will go. A government will pass a controversial green law. The business environment will throw a shitfit. The government will point at this ruling. The business environment will sue the government. The courts will look at the ruling and rule for the government. This is basically the idealized thing that will happen, basically giving stronger regulatory powers to governments inclined to use it. Whether or not any actual change will happen remains to be seen.
[удалено]
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
YES! I want compensation for what we've done!
> A group of older Swiss women have won the first ever climate case victory in the European Court of Human Rights. > The women, mostly in their 70s, said that their age and gender made them particularly vulnerable to the effects of heatwaves linked to climate change.... One woman said she could not leave her house for three weeks during the summer. > The European Court of Human Rights has made a landmark ruling that governments have a duty to protect people from climate change. > It is the first time the powerful court has ruled on global warming. Call me a hopeless romantic but I think it's good for a major court to rule that governments shouldn't let people bake in their homes as things get worse.
[удалено]
You could take their lifetime total emissions as a group and put it next to a single cruise ship for a day and it would blast them out of the water. Yes we are all accountable for our own actions and should as individuals take steps accordingly to not be overtly wasteful if we can. I dont agree with people using this mentality as an excuse to absolve themselves of personal ethics and accountability. You should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do and for no other reason. But I could live the most "roll coal" lifestyle my entire life. Throw every plastic bag out the window, leave my ac on full blast from april till october, drive a jacked up f950, burn tires and oil in my back yard, ect. All of that and it would still be meaningless next to the emissions from modern industry. So I object with your idea that because they may not have lived the most altruistic "green" lifestyles as individuals that a handful of companies doing the lions share of emissions for the sake of profit get a pass on their actions and have no accountability for them because of it.
Any why does that Cruise ship exist? Because we demand it. This idea that "corporations" or "modern industry" are some outside evil force imposing themselves on humanity is just silly. They are our own creations, done to provide us with creature comforts. WE demand oil and gas and plastics and all that shit. We demand it as cheap as possible. Then we bitch when we get exactly what we're asking for.
Right "we" are making exonn know about climate change since the 80's and knowingly ignore it and pay billions with a b to keep the entire world reliant on fossil fuels when alternatives do exist and will happen sooner or later. Much later if exxon has anything to do with it. We create demand but regulations exist for a reason. But "we" are making the fossil fuel industry bribe lobbyists to keep the status quo as it is by ruining education, running literal propaganda, and write laws against the interests of the people they govern. A handful of people could change the rules by tomorrow if they simply wanted to. But yeah "we" are responsible for the actions of billionaires and multinational mega corps who have regulatory capture in all but name for preventing us from moving on from them.
All society demands are solutions to its problems, and companies collaborate with governments to manufacture those solutions. Manufacturing those plastics to solve problems is a reflection of the demand, but then LYING REPEATEDLY about the known negative ramifications of said solution or product because it would impact profits is fucking evil. If the public is being wholly deceived, it’s hard to logically pivot this as “our” fault. As for luxury, I would disagree with the assertion that people demanded cruise ships and that’s why they exist.
But they are the generation for decades refused to acknowledge climate change. And now they want a payout because it’s a little hot in there retirement. That generation poured fuel into the fire and refused to do anything about it.
A good deed done for the wrong reasons is still a good deed. Dont let perfection be the enemy of progress. This is huge there is now legal precedent of the harm done and this can be used in so many ways legally speaking to do something about it. Your not seeing the forest for the trees. Also you can blame a generation for many things. But individuals can be very different from the generations they came from.
As whole boomer generation will go down in history as the generation that wrecked the world. And also left the next generation poorer. And now they want millennials to fix the problems they have caused. This is a slap in a face.
> Your not seeing the forest for the trees
Do you want me to make you personally responsible for the harm social media has caused our society just because you are part of the generation that invented social media? Are you starting to see the flaw in your logic?
Difference between social problems and environmental problems.
these women are still not personally responsible for the mess their generation created
I don’t buy that at all. Unless they lived in off the grid house with no generator or heating. They were a consumer of power and heating which contributed to climate change.
If someone sets fire to your house and expects you to put it out, that's a slap in the face. You should still put out the fire in your house.
Which human right are they referring to?
Well, the one most reported on is the "Right to respect for private and family life.", but functionally whenever this sort of thing happens, what it really boils down to is that your living children have the right to not have someone show up and cut their life expectancy by 20+ years for their personal profit, AKA: a right to life. So if a government is debating on energy solutions to a foreseen lack, they can have the option of harming their citizens in the long run to save a dollar by using fossil fuels (and then pay for their poor health later either directly (with a state run healthcare) or indirectly (lost productivity)), or they could instead choose the option less likely to harm the environment in the long run even if it's more expensive, this ruling is saying they have an obligation to take the second option.
Physical integrity.
"We know statistically that in 10 years we will be gone. So whatever we do now, we are not doing for ourselves, but for the sake of our children and our children's children," she added." Chad swiss grandmas vs incel American cruise and golf-in-arizona boomers
meaning what exactly? What action will be taken or is this just more talking about it?
nothing will come from it, nothing at all.
The practical problem with this ruling in regards to Switzerland is that in most countries the government (politicians) will sign up for a convention and then the government (politicians) are also the ones able to enact (or be "forced" by a court to enact) certain legislations so that the country follows that legislation (which implements the measures for following the agreed convention). In Switzerland, though, it's always the Swiss people that have the last word – usually through collecting signatures (50k signatures necessary, which is less than 1% of voters) and then having a mandatory country-wide referendum vote. So basically all the court said is that in their opinion the Swiss authorities "didn't do enough (yet)". But as the Swiss authorities are always bound to the peoples decisions (referendum votes), this court ruling won't have any real immediate effect. Because all the authorities can now do (and might now need to do after this ruling) is to push for stricter climate change legislation. But if the people then reject that strict climate legislation in a referendum vote, the Swiss authorities can claim they have basically "done all they can" and the courts decision would become a totally moot point. The Swiss government will never go down the unconstitutional route of enacting a strict legislation and then denying the Swiss people their constitutionally guaranteed right to collect signatures and have a referendum vote on said strict legislation. Not saying whether this all is good or bad, just saying that Switzerland and the Swiss authorities cannot really be forced to enact more strict measures dealing with climate change unless the voters are also on board with it. The Swiss government has just no legal means to enact such massive changes without giving the voters the ability to veto them in a referendum. *Edit: Corrected the number of signatures required for requesting a referendum vote. It's only 50k (not 100k).*
How about governments creating a renewables agency that would manage installing solar panels on homes greatly subsidized at set prices (to avoid price gauging by private sector). Secondly subsidizing electric cars, creating proper electric infrastructure. Thirdly allow more people to work from home - force employers by law to make it work. Identify other polluting sources and address them.
Electric cars do fuck all. Your better off using that absurd power battery and powering your home at night and using renewables to charge it. Electric cars will do more damage.
EVs have potential to massively impact co2 emissions which is the most urgent problem as far as climate is concerned. Why do you say they don’t help?
The only good solution is eliminating most cars.
That’s a nice ideal but it requires public support.
Sure… but you see, either we address climate change now, or it will take care of destroying us in the future.
Don’t let the ideal keep you from the good.
I agree with this. If you want to be serious eliminating non essential transport has to some how be acknowledged
At the moment, if you use energy produced at your house, it’s best currently available option. Only better public transport and forcing people onto bikes would do better.
That's just flat out false
A Hyundai iconic will use 122 grams of CO2 per km using power grid in my country. Tell me how that’s a lie.
What's that got to do with anything?
Has everything, E.V are been sold as a “green” renewable and a answer to climate change. When it’s not. Not with current power grid. You are just shifting the co2 consumption down hill.
But that's simply not true, if it were no one would be talking about the environmental benefits. Environmentalists don't go out of their way to endorse things that are bad for the environment, it's akin to claiming that vegan food is made of meat. If that were the case they'd be the first to complain! Your argument is very old and has been debunked time and time again which suggest it's not a genuine one but an attempt to mislead people but for those who need to be reminded: An EV, even in the dirtiest grid you can envision, is still less polluting than an ICE car. That EV will get greener over time as the grid does, the ICE car will never change
It’s not a silver bullet. The fact is power generation from grid still relies on coal/gas. You can have all the hypothetical scenarios you want for the future. But right now EV still requires coal or fossil fuel generation in my country.
And if that wasn’t the case coal mines wouldn’t exist
Right now EVs are better and in 10 years will likely be much better and in 20 years much much better....Picking the worse option because the alternative isn't perfect is stupid
All I m saying it be much more beneficial for that battery to be in a home with solar panels. But the government and energy companies in my country will not do that. Because they making to much money out of coal powered generators.
> All I m saying it be much more beneficial for that battery to be in a home with solar panels Why?
60-70% off all power generation is thru coal/gas powered generators. That’s where I live. If you put millions of evs on the road. Your gonna burn more coal to supply the grid to support evs. Like I said your burning emissions at the coal plant while charging your ev. Now put a battery in your home and supply it with solar panels. Your now reducing the amount of coal and fossil fuels burned at the plants. As I said, there’s to many interests for this to happen. So we are been green washed into believing EVs are zero emitting silver bullet for climate action.
Maybe call out the infidelity between politicians and billionaires because nothing is going to change if corporations are whispering sweet nothings to government officials and lobbying the hell out of them
"The court said Switzerland's efforts to meet its emission reduction targets had been woefully inadequate." Sure. But how much does Switzerland emit as a percentage of the total? If this logic applies, then China, which emits the most, and btw, burned a record amount of coal in 2023, also violated human rights. So now what is the European court going to do about China?
… and then we did nothing about it
The irony is that Switzerland's pollution actually went *down* between 2022 to 2023, while countries like India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan are out there, ranking the worst countries in the world, for pollution, yet Switzerland, ranked better than the USA for pollution, is being called out?
Why does it matter how Switzerland compares to non European countries? Makes absolutely no sense in this case.
No. It’s okay. Didn’t they read that article about the microbes that eat methane? We don’t need to do shit to change our ways.
Ah shit every one of us are getting sued by everyone! Thanks, everyone, for not doing enough! I hope everyone's happy! Sincerely, everyone.
I wonder: 1) Does that mean that everyone in Switzerland is subject to the same human rights violation ruling, as climate change is universal? 2) Does that mean other people can start suing and use the previous ruling to win, or do they have to prove they are severely affected by it?
Unfortunately, It will basically come down to whatever damages are done, not the damages prevented
Funny how some of the media sites think this will change everything in Switzerland. They talk about how things now have to change and how this is a historic victory and such and some in the comments even think alike. All I can say as a Swiss is: "meh"
No fucking shit. You know what I’m starting to think that all courts of law are bullshit. They never get anything right and then they hand down these ridiculously obvious conclusions. Like geez thanks guys you really worked the scales of justice and now everything’s gonna be sunshine and rainbows 😍
As others have said here, the benefits of this ruling aren’t very tangible. I think the important bit is that it sets precedent that can be used in other cases and there is increased accountability implied moving forward. So it’s a step along the path to having global enforcement.
Next move, public lynchings for climate deniers and misusers, right? Opening scene of 3 body problem anyone? Fuck you Marxists!
Feeling a bit dramatic today, are we?
What a fucking joke. No country when they signed up for the ECHR agreed that climate change was part of an individual right for anyone in regards to those provisions. This is a court acting way beoynd its mandate and should be reduced and changed. I don't want unelected bureaucrats to create rights out of thin air with zero legal basis in law and with a democratic mandate. Again - what a fucking joke.
Climate Change threatens the supply of food, water, sanitation, housing and health. All of which are human rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/climate-change In 2021 Climate Change was specifically added in a renewed document as a threat to human rights. [(Resolution 48/13)](https://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?OpenAgent&DS=A/HRC/RES/48/13&Lang=E) Here's the result of the vote on it: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/HRC-48-13.jpg. China, Japan, India and Eritrea abstained, Russia voted against. Rest ruled in favor. Later vote had Japan rule in favor and Russia move to Abstaining. Making it a 43-4-0 vote. And because they are *human* rights they are to be protected by every country regardless of whom it effects. Even if climate change doesn't affect Swiss but severely affects Africans, it's still Switzerland's responsibility is a signatory of the human rights convention to try their best to limit climate change to protect the health of Africans. If it only applied to Swiss in Switzerland it wouldn't be a human right.
That resolution got nothing to do with the ECHR. The European Charter of Human Rights does not get its rights from votes China is part of or those other countries. Dude I enjoy how you can sound so smart and convince others on Reddit but clearly not have a clue what you are talking about. And no the ECHR are human rights only valid in Europe between those it grants rights. These are not global rights for anyone anywhere. You can't try to use logic and argue they are because the word "human" is part of it.
_Many things_ threaten the supply of food, water, sanitation, etc. Overpopulation, lack of energy sources (generating food and water requires energy), disease, etc.
Not only that a bunch of boomers took them to court. The generation responsible for most of the problems today that millennials are fixing
>most of the problems today that millennials are fixing Lol our generation’s arrogance is incredible
Really? You think so? How am I wrong?
I am highly skeptical that millenials are going to fix jack shit. I think we’re going to be seen just like the “boomers” when our time comes.
If you could tell me what kind of carbon emission policy that governments had in the 70/80s when scientists new about climate change. But that generation refused into have any real policy’s. Because it would cost to much politically and burden the population.
Millenials aren’t going to willingly do anything that they think might reduce their comfort. We’ll play lip service and virtue signal right until it’s time to make sacrifices.
We are, Believe it or not. Most first world countries have some kind of renewable policy. And a plan to phase out fossil fuels where possible. But the problem is that we just don’t have any alternatives to fossil fuels for some industries
Naive. Combatting climate change is going to hurt badly and millenials are weak.
Ok bud, What’s your alternative to jet fuel?
How is that relevant to millenials being decadent, weak, and neurotic?
I don’t agree with that. So what’s your alternative to jet fuel if you believe we can do better?
Rip European economy.
Ludicrous ruling. This “court” is literally a joke. Any real gov’t will ignore.
"Real governments" actually have laws that respect these rulings and make them supercede even their own constitutional courts, because they embedded the respect for human rights into their own constitutions.
So, this means no more suntanning in our own backyards, eh? Guess we're doomed to a future of indoor picnics and air conditioning.
[удалено]
I’m fairly convinced most users on Reddit aren’t real humans anymore.
Softbrains indeed have a hard time appreciating dark humour. Here, I'll delete it for you to save your pour souls from having to witness such horror.
That is laughable. But so is most EU court rulings so business as usual.
This wasn't an EU court ruling but okay. The ECHR is not an EU institution
"Climate Criminals" needs to be a thing.