Thread by @Sustainable2050

NL's PBL agency made a fresh forecast of national GHG emissions in 2020, and found they'll probably be only 20-21% lower than in 1990.
In its 2015 @urgenda verdict, later upheld in govt's appeal case, the court ruled that this should be at least 25%.
nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/12…

@urgenda This means there's a gap of 8-10 million tonnes of CO₂eq to be closed next year. That's a lot, since the clock will start ticking 14 days from now. But govt was warned many times, and has already had 4.5 years to take measures.

@urgenda Kicking the can down the road led to NL's current "nitrogen (deposition) crisis".
Sudden drastic CO₂ emission reductions could trigger a similar uproar. Not complying would lead to a rule-of-law crisis.
Not the way to take society along, in the middle of a climate crisis.

@urgenda And then there's the Supreme Court, ruling on Friday:

https://twitter.com/DennisvBerkel/status/1207243898965364738?s=20

@urgenda And.. the Supreme Court case was again won by @urgenda! NL government must reduce emissions to at least 25% below 1990 levels, as it has known since original verdict in June 2015.

https://twitter.com/Patagorda/status/1207965628587544576

You can find the complete and motivated verdict of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in the @urgenda climate case here: uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument…

@urgenda "The (NL Supreme) Court has ruled, based on articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that the State (NL) has the obligation to achieve a reduction of GHG emissions by 25% in 2020, ..

.. because of the risk of dangerous climate change that can (among others) hurt inhabitants of the Netherlands in their rights to life and wellbeing."

It's headline news here!
"Highest judge forces (NL) government to reduce CO2 faster"
@urgenda #klimaatzaak

NL Supreme Court: "The State evidently does not live up to its obligation to protect inhabitants against dangerous climate change. "

"Parliament recently demanded that govt presents additional measures to comply with climate verdict before April."
Does everyone realize that the verdict concerns NL emissions during the 12 months of 2020? After 4.5 years of delay, there's no time to lose.

It's striking that, after 4.5 years of attempts to overturn the original NL climate verdict, the Supreme Court ruling confirming it arrives in the middle of this (until now) unbelievably bad heatwave and bushfire crisis in Australia. #ClimateCase

https://twitter.com/Sustainable2050/status/1207904272970588160?s=19

NL Supreme Court verdict in the @urgenda #climatecase: "The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that countries in the Convention should take fitting measures if there's a ‘real and immediate risk’ to life or wellbeing of its inhabitants and the State is aware of it."

"The European Convention on Human Rights obliges countries to take measures that fend off the danger as much as is reasonably achievable."

"Art. 13 states that national law should provide the means to defend the citizens against not fulfilling this obligation, implying a role for national courts in protecting them."

"The Netherlands are party to the UN Climate Treaty. This is based on the principle that every country takes climate action according to its responsbilities and means."

"So every country is responsible for its own share of climate action. The argument that national emissions are only a small fraction of global emissions, and national action would only have a small effect on global climate do not relieve a country of its duty to take measures."

"The obligation of the State to do its fair share in climate action is based on art. 2 and 8 of the ECHR, because there's a serious risk of dangerous climate change threatening the life and wellbeing of many people in the Netherlands."

[NB Note how this whole reasoning applies to every country that is party to both the European Convention on Human Rights and the UNFCCC. That's practically all European countries!] #ClimateCase #Klimaatzaak

"Already in 2007, the IPCC concluded that keeping global warming below 2°C would require developed 'Annex I' countries to reduce their emissions by 25-40% by 2020, compared to 1990. This has been confirmed many times, incl. by the EU."

"The #ParisAgreement (2015) specifically emphasizes the need to pursue efforts to keep global warming below 1.5°C, which requires an even larger emission reduction."

"In conclusion, there is broad consensus on the need for Annex I (developed) countries to reduce their emissions by at least 25-40% by 2020. This should be taken into account in applying art. 2 and 8 of the ECHR."

"The urgent need to reduce emissions by 25-40% by 2020 applies to the Netherlands individually as well."

"Until 2011, the State (of NL) aimed to reduce emissions by at least 30% by 2020, stating this was needed to stay on a 2°C pathway."

"In 2011, it lowered its 2020 goal to -20%, in the framework of the EU, but it failed to explain that and why this would be enough, even though it deviates from an internationally accepted reduction of 25-40%, deemed necessary to stay below 2°C."

"There is broad consensus that delay of emissions reduction leads to more drastic and costly measures, and increases the risk of passing climate tipping points. The State should have explained how a post-2020 acceleration of emission reductions would suffice, but it didn't."

"This enabled the Court to conclude that, as a minimum, the State should comply with the internationally accepted goal of at least 25% emission reduction by 2020."

"The State has argued that it's not the judge's task to make political considerations needed for decision making on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions."

"In the state structure of the Netherlands, decision making on emission reduction belongs with government and parliament. They have a large degree of freedom in making the necessary political considerations."

"It is the judge's task to assess whether, in their decision making, government and parliament stayed within the legal limits to which they are bound."

"These limits follow, inter alia, from the European Convention on Human Rights. The Constitution prescribes that the Dutch judge applies the articles of this Convention following the interpretation by the European Court of Human Rights."

"This obligation for the judge to provide legal protection, including protection against the government, is an essential element of the democratic constitutional state (/ rule of law)."

"The Court's verdict is in line with this. It concluded that the State evidently lags behind in its obligation (art. 2 and 8 of ECHR) to protect its inhabitants against dangerous climate change."

"Moreover, the Court limited its order to meeting the lower bound of the internationally accepted (and considered necessary) minimal reduction target for 2020 of 25-40%."

"The order given by the Court leaves it up to the State to determine by which specific measures it will comply with the order. If that requires legislation, it is up to the State to determine what legislation is desirable and necessary."

"In summary, the verdict of the Supreme Court means that the order given by the court, and confirmed by the Court of Appeal, to the State of NL to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases by at least 25% by end-2020, is upheld."

"Based on art. 2 & 8 of the ECHR, the Court has concluded that the State has the obligation to achieve this reduction, because of the risk of dangerous climate change, which can (amongst others) badly infringe the right on life and wellbeing of the inhabitants of the Netherlands"

That's it!
You can find the NL Supreme Court's #climatecase verdict here:
uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument…
It's in Dutch, but an official translation will become available in January.

NB The original NL Climate Verdict (June 2015!) was 'provisionally enforceable' (uitvoerbaar bij voorraad), meaning that the court did not allow govt to await the decision on its appeals, and govt repeatedly confirmed it would comply with the verdict, regardless of its appeals.