The Dutch Supreme Court forces the Government to reduce CO ₂ emissions in a historic sentence

The Dutch Supreme Court has ordered the Government to reduce greenhouse gases, because it considers that “it must protect the citizen from the deterioration of the environment, and the fight against climate change is a matter of general interest”. The case is a historic victory for Urgenda, a small environmental NGO that in 2015 set a global precedent by getting judges to demand from the Executive a reduction, by 2020, of 25% of CO2 emissions compared to those of 1990. In 2018, Urgenda passed the appeal filed by the Ministry of Economy and Climate, and its head, Eric Wiebes, then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the safeguarding of the environment is the responsibility of Parliament and not of Justice. Four years later, he has lost in all judicial instances and will have to abide by the ruling.

The decision of the Supreme Court has been received with great applause by the public that filled the room and has interrupted its reading twice. With the failure of the Climate Summit (COP25) held this December in Madrid – which could not regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) markets – very recent, the Dutch court stresses that “each country is responsible for its part in the fight against climate change”. And most importantly, “with the European Convention on Human Rights in hand, this court has found that the Government must reduce the indicated 25% of emissions, because the dangers of the climate can affect the right to life of the inhabitants of this country.”

For Marjan Minnesma, director of Urgenda and visible head of the demand, these words have turned the day “into a very emotional experience”. “There is no turning back: the government thought that all this was a joke and now it has to achieve in a year what it has not done in 20,” he told this newspaper shortly after the ruling. Minister Wiebes has been more restrained. “We face a great task and we will go step by step towards the 25% target,” he said.

According to the Central Statistical Office, the Netherlands today produces about 14% less greenhouse gases than in 1990. For its part, the Environmental Assessment Office, which advises the ministry, had indicated “that a reduction of 23% could be reached next year”, but this week it has adjusted the calculation “to 20%, even 19%”. “If something goes wrong, for example, a very hard winter there will be greater energy expenditure,” say their spokesmen. Before the ruling, Eric Wiebes had announced to Parliament “the presentation of new measures at the beginning of the year, because most likely we will not exceed 20% or 21%”.

Marjan Minnesma makes other calculations. He recalls what happened at the Madrid Summit, “where the industrialized countries spoke without agreeing, that is why we have behind us a coalition of 750 organizations with which he has drawn up a 50-point plan to help the Government reach next year’s goal. It’s not an impossible ideal,” he says. In January, authorities will shut down one coal-fired power plant, and she believes they could shut down yet another one. “Or reduce the rolling speed to 100 kilometers per hour; turn off the lights at the end of the working day; increase the budget to insulate houses from the cold; imposing traffic tariffs in cities; accelerate the closure of pig farms, more than 60% of which will disappear by 2030 [the Netherlands produces about 25 million heads of domestic pigs a year, according to the government]. In short, we have a battery of measures and a fund could be created to apply them. You just have to sit down and talk about it and Urgenda is ready,” she warns.

The National Climate Agreement, presented last June by the Dutch Cabinet, indicates a 49% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030. “But the Supreme Court has now demanded that they go faster, and we live in a state of law. A government cannot ignore court rulings by saying that they do not concern politics. The case of Urgenda appeals to human rights and can be an example for other countries,” insists the director of the NGO.

Shortly after the ruling, the reactions of the national political arc have followed. Green Left (Groen Links), the environmental party, has asked these three things to the rulers: “Stop making excuses, close the coal plants and reduce the whole of the cattle herd.” The left liberals, one of the four parties in power, has assured that “for us there are no taboos in this area, everything can be explored”. As for Geert Wilders, the xenophobic leader, he has been resounding in his rejection of the Supreme Court’s ruling. “What politicians need to do is cancel the UN Climate Treaty and the Paris Agreement. Environmental policy is not for the courts,” he said.

The “Climate Case”, as it is colloquially known, began in 2013 in the Netherlands when Urgenda, until then a foundation focused “on the transition to a circular economy using only renewable energy”, sued the Government supported by a thousand whistleblowers. It was the first time in the world that a group of civilians had used European human rights law to call for pollution to be contained. In 2015, the court of first instance in The Hague agreed with them. Against all odds, the ruling said that the authorities “have an obligation to protect citizens against harmful industrial activities, because if they do not, the current generation will see their lives and family lives endangered.”

Caught by surprise, the government appealed in the name of “the separation of powers, since environmental policy is the responsibility of Parliament, not the courts.” That argument did not convince the court, and in 2018 came the second defeat. Moreover, the judges considered that the Netherlands has signed international treaties on climate, “valid before the national courts without the need to invade other competences, and in case of danger to the population, the State must take preventive measures.”

What hurt Minister Wiebes the most is that the ruling described as “the minimum required the reduction of 25% of greenhouse gases compared to those of 1990”, but resolved to reach the Supreme Court. “We will do our best to abide by the ruling, but this is a case of principle: we want to know, at the highest level, if a judge can take the place of a politician, because democracy has been cornered,” he added. The Supreme Court has taken him out of doubt.

Source: The Country