Basic agreed assumptions
- Climate change is man made and can be influenced by policy
- Current policy is not ambitious
- Holland has had twice the ambition but this is reduced by the right wing government
- Emissions Trading Scheme
- The scheme will retain a surplus of about 2 billion rights
- Many states have suplemantary carbon taxes to reduce CO2 This is allowed within the EU
- Emissions moving elsewhere due to measures
- Companies moving to less strickt countries
- Predicted that any reduction of emissions will be 82%-88%
- Carbonleaking to outside the EU is not observed
- The court can not argue that it can’t act because of ineffectiveness
- The state claimed it was tied to EU ETS, this is not true
- The economic crisis has caused an emissions reduction
- Emissions targets need to be independent of the economic situation
- The state will have to choose stronger targets to achieve their stated reduction goals
- Germany targets a 55% reduction in 2030 which is much more ambitious than the EU target
- English reports show that the EU target of 40% in 2030 does not suffice
- The EU economy will suffer 0,04% from more ambitious climate policy
- If the EU doesn’t stive for more ambitious targets the cost will have to be carried by emerging economies
- The EU talks about 80% in 2050, but 80-95% was originally required
- The EU target of 40% is not certain due to a ‘flexibility clause’ that requires all members to match the commitments.
- To achieve a 40% reduction in 2050 we need 25% reduction in 2020
The court should and has no reason to not dictate at least 25% in 2020 The court can dictate a faster trajectory, as is followed by Germany We have 1000 Gigaton emissions left, which will run out in 2035, meaning that we should be 100% carbon neutral in 2035. This means we have to do the maximum possible at the shortest possible terms. Current trajectory makes 2 degrees Celsius unavoidable. This drives citizen to demand the court to order the state to take stonger action. Remarks second lawyer
- What the state does is a matter of politics.
- The state has been locked up in a “You first” mentality.
- All negotiations have failed to meet the required targets.
- We are facing 4 degrees catastrophic climate change.
- Dutch government is aware it is not meeting targets.
- Binding reduction targets are no longer the goal of the climate conference.
- Holland doesn’t negotiate at the COP 20 meeting.
- Targets for the COP20 meeting are already set and for 2030.
- All emissions should stop asap
- CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years
- Warming is linear with emissions
- Zero emissions is expected to be reached in 2050-2070
Dutch State Defence Responses
- State is aware of climate change and the need for action
- Since 1995 governmental action was to keep below 2 Celsius degrees warming
- Holland can not do it alone
- Holland is pleading for climate action at the COP20 meeting in Paris
- There is no legal binding law telling Holland to reduce emissions
- The emission reduction target can not be checked on validity by the state
- Any decision by the judge should be to some advantage, what is that advantage? It has to be new law. And a judge can not order the creation of new laws.
- As long as Holland is acting on the climate threat a supplementary ruling by the judge is unecessary.
- With current targets extra measures are needed to achieve 40% reduction in 2030.
- Climate problem is a global commons problem, needs to be tackled together
- Limits should be widespread and pervasive in each industry plus monitoring.
- In 2014 Holland has -pledged- 100 mljn in the green climate fund.
- Human rights only valid within the participants of the human rights agreement
- It is not yet sure that the 2 degree targets are not going to be met.
- Risk will always remain
- EU court judges climate and other diseaster responsibility in terms of specific risks and victims.
- State considers itself to have a wide margin for action, so it can not be forced to specific constraints from Urgenda
- Judges should not talk about specific targets
- The conditions of the unjust act are not met, there is no clear causal link.
- Also the human rights act does not force countries to protect its citizen.
More details to follow..
Verdict will be delivered on the june 24th at 10:00 am.