Tuesday complained Urgenda, with almost 900 co-plaintiffs, the State of the Netherlands on. The sus

Tuesday complained Urgenda, with almost 900 co-plaintiffs, the State of the Netherlands on. The sustainability organization wants to enforce through the courts Netherlands is going to do more to combat climate change. But is this so-called "business climate" is a good idea? If hetkanWel we put the pros and cons in a row. In short Urgenda plays for high stakes with a chance of a spectacular failure, but the importance of climate change is too big not to deploy any means. Climate Case is innovation in the law
The climate issue is a particular test case. This is the first time in the Netherlands, according to Urgenda even in the world that a state is sued because of climate change. Netherlands is in the eyes of Urgenda negligent and protect its own citizens is not enough. primary games "If a government fails to protect its citizens against all major future threats, the court may be invoked," said Marjan Minnesma, director of Urgenda. primary games "I see a tremendous interest in our approach and international attention and imitation. We share our plea to all international lawyers and concerned citizens in other countries such as Belgium and the United States. We are closely monitored. "
Urgenda relies on the Oslo principles. These are a number of legal principles formulated by prominent jurists. They argue that climate change fundamental human rights, including the right to security attacks. Climate change must therefore be addressed through the law.
The Oslo principles and the climate issue that is under it represent primary games an innovation in the law. This is a new argument which virtually no case law for. That should not be a problem: the law is not a fixed text, but anything that moves with the changing world. primary games And at a time when the threat of climate change is confirmed by more and more scientific studies, it is not a bad idea to also the right fit.
Once the Dutchman Hugo Grotius noted that no country seas and oceans may claim as its own territory, except for a small strip along the coast. We believe that now a completely normal idea and all countries in the world rely on this principle. But in the 17th century this was a whole new and controversial idea.
It is perfectly possible that the Oslo principles in a similar way in the future will be quite normal in the International and Dutch law. Not for nothing is there a lot of international attention to the case, such as the BBC and Al-Jazeera. The road through the public and political will to slow
The road to justice is also for Urgenda new. Until now, the environmental organization trying to bring change especially with actions aimed at citizens and politicians. Urgenda was one of the first with a joint procurement action caused massive solar Dutch aanschaften. Marjan Minnesma recent years has also kept a Sustainable Queen's Speech on Sustainable Tuesday. This throne speech was clearly aimed at politics.
But the road from consumers and politicians are going too slow. In politics seems to be an impasse. Successive governments deal not with schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. It is significant that Mr Kamp recently again cast a doubt over the netting scheme for solar energy. In the biggest party in the Netherlands, the VVD, it is absolutely accepted to make climate-skeptical statements. Citizens follow politicians. Because of the confusion surrounding the rules, consumers are more wary to invest in solar panels and other energy-saving measures. Also, it is absolutely accepted to drink on tables to debit the biggest nonsense about climate change. If all politicians do not listen to scientists, why ordinary citizens would do that?
First Urgenda try to achieve a political aim by using the law. The question is whether it is desirable democratically. There are just too many people in the Netherlands who vote on climate-skeptic parties like the VVD, PVV and CDA (which might not be climate skeptic, yet surprisingly does little to climate change). But if that is so, should we force ordinary citizens to adopt climate policies primary games in effect against their votes? Who is Urgenda primary games they may enforce it?
In addition, the lawsuit primary games does not contribute to solving the fundamental problem: primary games in the end it is the citizens themselves who must move. Chances are that the polarization is rather stronger, and then we may further afield. The United States here is a terrible example. In this country anyway be more political and social issues fought out in court. In the US, by party polarization opposite primary games each other, making bold klimaatmaatreg