

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
In a landmark ruling that many hope establishes a new global precedent for a state's obligation to its citizens in the face of the growing climate crisis, a Dutch court on Wednesday said that the government has a legal duty to reduce carbon emissions by 25 percent by 2020.
The decision came in response to a lawsuit launched in November 2013 by the Amsterdam-based environmental nonprofit Urgenda Foundation and 600 Dutch citizens. The lawsuit argued that the government was violating international human rights law by failing to take sufficient measures to combat rising greenhouse gas emissions.
"The state must do more to avert the imminent danger caused by climate change, also in view of its duty of care to protect and improve the living environment," read the Hague District Court statement.
Marjan Minnesma, Urgenda Foundation's director, called the ruling a "great victory" and said that the judge had the "courage and wisdom to the government, 'you have a duty of care toward your citizens.'" Minnesma also said that she hoped the ruling would spur similar court cases against governments worldwide.
According to Urgenda, it marked the first case in Europe in which citizens attempted to hold a state responsible for its potentially devastating inaction and the first in the world in which human rights were used as a legal basis to protect citizens against climate change.
Now, with similar suits pending in Belgium and elsewhere, environmentalists are celebrating the victory as a potentially precedent-setting moment in the climate fight.
Columnist Nick Meynen, who is one of 10,000 Belgians who on April 27 launched a similar case against their government, explained in a piece published by This Changes Everything on Tuesday: "[I]t's hard to find any country in the world with climate legislation in place that is in line with what the science requires. Somehow, governments have so far managed to get away with that. But the days of empty promises are over."
Meynen spoke with Roger Cox and Nic Balthazar, the "driving forces behind the Dutch and Belgian climate court cases," who say they are working with colleagues to launch similar suits in Australia, Brazil, Austria, England, Ireland, and Norway. "All of them are closely watching the Dutch court," Meynen wrote.
Meanwhile, in the United States, a youth-led movement is suing state governments and what they dub "the ruling generation" accountable for climate inaction.
As 350.org co-founder and communications director Jamie Henn wrote in a Twitter post after the ruling, "if Netherlands sets a precedent, it's a whole new ballgame."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
In a landmark ruling that many hope establishes a new global precedent for a state's obligation to its citizens in the face of the growing climate crisis, a Dutch court on Wednesday said that the government has a legal duty to reduce carbon emissions by 25 percent by 2020.
The decision came in response to a lawsuit launched in November 2013 by the Amsterdam-based environmental nonprofit Urgenda Foundation and 600 Dutch citizens. The lawsuit argued that the government was violating international human rights law by failing to take sufficient measures to combat rising greenhouse gas emissions.
"The state must do more to avert the imminent danger caused by climate change, also in view of its duty of care to protect and improve the living environment," read the Hague District Court statement.
Marjan Minnesma, Urgenda Foundation's director, called the ruling a "great victory" and said that the judge had the "courage and wisdom to the government, 'you have a duty of care toward your citizens.'" Minnesma also said that she hoped the ruling would spur similar court cases against governments worldwide.
According to Urgenda, it marked the first case in Europe in which citizens attempted to hold a state responsible for its potentially devastating inaction and the first in the world in which human rights were used as a legal basis to protect citizens against climate change.
Now, with similar suits pending in Belgium and elsewhere, environmentalists are celebrating the victory as a potentially precedent-setting moment in the climate fight.
Columnist Nick Meynen, who is one of 10,000 Belgians who on April 27 launched a similar case against their government, explained in a piece published by This Changes Everything on Tuesday: "[I]t's hard to find any country in the world with climate legislation in place that is in line with what the science requires. Somehow, governments have so far managed to get away with that. But the days of empty promises are over."
Meynen spoke with Roger Cox and Nic Balthazar, the "driving forces behind the Dutch and Belgian climate court cases," who say they are working with colleagues to launch similar suits in Australia, Brazil, Austria, England, Ireland, and Norway. "All of them are closely watching the Dutch court," Meynen wrote.
Meanwhile, in the United States, a youth-led movement is suing state governments and what they dub "the ruling generation" accountable for climate inaction.
As 350.org co-founder and communications director Jamie Henn wrote in a Twitter post after the ruling, "if Netherlands sets a precedent, it's a whole new ballgame."
In a landmark ruling that many hope establishes a new global precedent for a state's obligation to its citizens in the face of the growing climate crisis, a Dutch court on Wednesday said that the government has a legal duty to reduce carbon emissions by 25 percent by 2020.
The decision came in response to a lawsuit launched in November 2013 by the Amsterdam-based environmental nonprofit Urgenda Foundation and 600 Dutch citizens. The lawsuit argued that the government was violating international human rights law by failing to take sufficient measures to combat rising greenhouse gas emissions.
"The state must do more to avert the imminent danger caused by climate change, also in view of its duty of care to protect and improve the living environment," read the Hague District Court statement.
Marjan Minnesma, Urgenda Foundation's director, called the ruling a "great victory" and said that the judge had the "courage and wisdom to the government, 'you have a duty of care toward your citizens.'" Minnesma also said that she hoped the ruling would spur similar court cases against governments worldwide.
According to Urgenda, it marked the first case in Europe in which citizens attempted to hold a state responsible for its potentially devastating inaction and the first in the world in which human rights were used as a legal basis to protect citizens against climate change.
Now, with similar suits pending in Belgium and elsewhere, environmentalists are celebrating the victory as a potentially precedent-setting moment in the climate fight.
Columnist Nick Meynen, who is one of 10,000 Belgians who on April 27 launched a similar case against their government, explained in a piece published by This Changes Everything on Tuesday: "[I]t's hard to find any country in the world with climate legislation in place that is in line with what the science requires. Somehow, governments have so far managed to get away with that. But the days of empty promises are over."
Meynen spoke with Roger Cox and Nic Balthazar, the "driving forces behind the Dutch and Belgian climate court cases," who say they are working with colleagues to launch similar suits in Australia, Brazil, Austria, England, Ireland, and Norway. "All of them are closely watching the Dutch court," Meynen wrote.
Meanwhile, in the United States, a youth-led movement is suing state governments and what they dub "the ruling generation" accountable for climate inaction.
As 350.org co-founder and communications director Jamie Henn wrote in a Twitter post after the ruling, "if Netherlands sets a precedent, it's a whole new ballgame."