Case Against the Dutch State to take Stronger Climate Action

Basic agreed assumptions

  • Climate change is man made and can be influenced by policy
  • Current policy is not ambitious
  • Furthermore
  • 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.

Why Zoe’s Action Against Shells Drilling Rig is Super Important

It is easy once you get to it. It is amazing how a capable team with a ship that can get close to the “Polar Pioneer” can enter it and cause it to be delayed. Even if it doesn’t kill of fossil fuels, at least it helps. It shows how vulnerable these companies actually are. The name of the rig alludes to some kind of adventure, but it is nothing of the kind, unless you think playing russian roulette with full chambers is an adventure..

“Attorneys for Royal Dutch Shell PLC on Tuesday sued in federal court to remove six Greenpeace activists who boarded a vessel carrying an oil-drilling rig leased by Shell across the Pacific.” (source)

The arctic has oil, gas below its surface. The bottom of the arctic ocean is littered with methane-ice called Clathrate (ice you can litteraly lite on fire). All that gunk and gas needs to stay where it is, and instead of exploring it we need to find ways to cool the ocean again, increase the albedo. It is not that these companies don’t know these risks exist, it’s just that they don’t give shit. See the quote about ‘Natural gas hydrates’ (clathrate) below, from an oil/gas industry expert.

Warning : Because clathrate gas was never fossilized, it is not spoken about as fossil fuels

Methane and oil needs to stay where they are or a runaway release of clathrate will follow which will easily double the current greenhouse effect. This will drive temperature higher and cause even more methane to be released from oceans and tundra. That in turn will kill a lot of life in the ocean and on land, and because the ocean has to be oxygenated and alive to prevent it turning super toxic. When the ocean dies, most things on land will die as well. That happened several times in our planets history.

Moksha Bybee of Mirtle Safari Beach

For Urang Utang updates : Follow Michelle Desilets

In our search for Urang Utang images we came across Moksha, who is one of the caretakers at Mirtle Beach Safari . It is heartwarming to see how the animal are being treated. Even though there are many protests against zoos, we think if they are managed right they can enable people to experience and believe in the right to life of species they don’t encounter on their own continent.

The unique combination of animals allows us to see how social they can be. Animal friendships seem conditional on not being to hungry, and perhaps one not looking to much like luch to the other and on the social nature of the species. But if those conditions are met there seems no reason why animals can’t get along.

Syria the Urang Utang learned to swim after having been fitted with a boyancy vest. Below the story of how Syria befriended a dog.

It is because we can experience animals like Syria and big cats we care about what happens to their habitat. Africa is facing major droughts, floods and other upheaval because because of climate change. The habitat of the Urang Utang is not in Africa, but Asia, where 5000 Urang Utangs are killed annually because of palm oil plantations. Even if some of the illegal ones are being destroyed it is still an industry that threatens these sentient beings and should not exist (for many reasons). Our ability to see these animals as equally capable of human emotions may help our resolve to prevent their extinction.


Democracy is being undermined by the influence of corporations, masquarading as foundations, rewarding our elected representatives beyond their normal wages. In some countries like the US this is super obvious, as it is allowed by law to 1. Fund election campaigns, 2. For senators to trade at the stock exchange with insider knowledge 3. Some parties to even fund without being named (NRA). The US is a corpocracy, which is reflected in the state of its population and war mongering.

In Europe this situation is less severe, but democracy is eroding. A good example of similar tactics is the recend departure of dutch liberal MP Rene Leegte, who earned 1000,- Euro per month ‘advising’ a foundation called Plantlab, who has a partnership with Syngenta, who, whith Monsanto, is after dutch seeds. Why would a corporation ever team up with a foundation. What does that add other than the illusion of selflessness or ideological motivation. It should be prohibited.

An example how you can get any item on the parliamentary agenda if you pay a lobbyist and have a fake foundation was show in the dutch program Rambam (in dutch).

We don’t know what our parliament does, really, we don’t know what drives many of the votes. When we have elections who do we support that is not involved in earning on the side for corporate fronts?

The choices our parliament makes can (and are often) be inspired by commercial initiatives, not by the needs of the population

One thing we can do to make the parliamentary process more transparent is show it to you and others and allow people to take positions as things happen. Tweetocracy is being constructed to do just that. In its first setup it will allow anyone (on twitter) to vote for or against a motion (proposal) in parliament. Votes are by party, but with Tweetocracy it will be possible to ask for individual positions of MPs.

Liquid Democracy

The  term often used for transparent democracy is Liquid Democracy. These systems allow citizen to lauch ideas and find support for them, so that they may end up being discussed in parliament. This system can work but it can (doesn’t have to but can) distract from boring but high impact votes that are actually happening. Unless the system is already open to introduction of proposals that result from a (basically) referendum style process, how are voters going to influence or know about that their elected reps do?

Tweetocracy takes the actual votes in parliament and allows you to show your opinion. It allows you to track who enables decisions you support and who enables ones you loathe. All through Twitter. One problem today is that votes are made en block, per party, even on detailed proposals. This has to be made more transparent, because not everyone agrees with every proposal. This transparency can be achieved by asking members of parliament to vote using Tweetocracy themselves.

Why Twitter

We use Twitter because it is a unique medium. It is hpertransparent. There is no service on the planet that 1. makes tweets visible to ALL who use it and 2. Records these tweets with a timestamp and makes them permanently searchable. It means that unless you delete a tweet, your vote stands and is visible to all.  This also means that even if Tweetocracy has a vote outcome for a proposal, anyone with a server or computer can recount the votes and be sure the count is accurate, in fact, that is what we hope will happen. In fact, the method of validation of tweets will be similar to that of the Bitcoin blockchain, without the need to encrypt because one can rely on the integrity of the Twitter stream. If Twitter would ever decide to quit, it is easy to set up the same system independently. Democracy is not that your opinion gets heard, but that it is certain to be the majority opinion.


Tweetocracy will start with making it possible to vote with parliament on proposals made in parliament. It will then develop to make it possible to track who voted for what proposal. It will allow users to see who is on their side the most.


#MaximizeLife Campaign

Climatebabes has kicked off its Maximize Life campaign, intended to promote the single most important way to fight climate change: By increasing the volume of living species on Earth. By maximizing life over profit in any activity we choose.

There is a flip side to the constant news of extinctions, news stretching from the oceans, the forests, the wildlife, soil fungi, polar bears. That is that conservation isn’t an adequate response. It doesn’t matter if we protect a few tigers or rhino’s, we need to increase their numbers. We can make a ocean sancturay, but that won’t stop the general necrosis of our oceans from heat and acidification.

Economics is about maximizing the utilization of fossil fuels. It drives the destructive exploitation of natural recources. We need to replace its goal of maximizing profits with something better in line with our needs

Instead of just hoping animal, fish, bird, insect, plant populations will recover (while fossil fuel companies are stil polluting at an incredible rate) is naive. It won’t help, but nobody in the current fossil fuel driven economy will make us clearly aware of it.

Food doesn’t magically appear, it is produced by killing off nature that protects our lives

Instead of trying to save a bird here, a dolphin there and a tree somewhere else, and be specific about the bug, turtle, bird or ape we try to protect, we need to cast a wider net. Life itself is under threat, we need to increase the amount and variety of living things on Earth, and if that is what we want we might as well maximize it. Keep it simple and understandable, that’s what this goal does.

Moving to sustainable agriculture of a wider variety of crops is a necessary and effective step to meet the challenges of climate change

There is another reason to maximize life on Earth. It is that evolution, natural selection, has to have something to select from. It needs variety in species or the chance any variety will survive goes to zero pretty fast. Not one Monsanto GM cotton crop, but many kinds that have different heat resistant qualities. Not one type wheat but many kinds, so one may survive the deceases that are more prevalent now that temperatures increase. Survival in the face of change depends on variety and abundance of species.

Steps to maximize life :

  • Consider the effect on biodiveristy and biomass of every activity, and make the balance positive at the cost of economic profit.
  • Replace low life process with more life involving processes
  • Restore biospheres, and bring to life oceanic dead zones and desert regions.  Create silvopastural or wild forests where possible, more than needed.
  • Stop doing things that kill life, including fracking, oil exploration, coal and ore mining, use of plastics. Being very strickt but not unreasonable about it though.

To fight climate change with life is both the cheapest and most effective way, and doesn’t exclude the use of technology at the same time. Robots to grow and harvest on land and at sea for instance. In fact, we probably can’t deal with the challenge without automated systems (hence our vision of the Roboeconomy). Maximizing life doesn’t exclude any technology, it just requires us to stop killing and start fostering life, so as to meet the challenge of climate change with good companions.


Girls in a Tesla Electric Car

Ok, it is not a Tesla, and it may even not be an electric car. But this is the kinds of images we should see from manufacturers of EVs. It is clean healthy pure fun. In fact, the Tesla comes with this song (free music streaming) so totally imaginary this isn’t. Let’s hope the company that makes the fastest and longest range EV and is about to turn electricity storage on its head does just that!

Wait! Below some women in an Actual Tesla! 

No Diesel Stickers

Update : France wants to phase out diesel fuel 

Diesel trucks are awfull sources of soot,  noise, NOx. They should be replaced by electric versions ASAP, and they can because their speed is low, their weight can be high (carrying batteries) so charging every now and then is really no problem. It would be cheaper, cleaner, more sustainable. Diesel cars are a problem as well, they pollute our environment more seriously even though in some countries soot filters are mandatory. Even ‘clean’ they waste more energy, emit more, while electric cars, even when they are powered from fossil fuel power plants, are much more efficient. We should get rid of any vehicle using heavy fuels, or allow them to replace them with NH3, ammonia, which burns without CO2 emissions and lower NOx emissions! 

You can order 5 stickers like the one above for 10,- by sending an email to By buying them you support our pormotion activities. Stick them where you want drivers to know you don’t appreciate their exhaust dumped in your street. We’ll have more on offer soon! ;-)

What is true for Equador, is true for the world

In Peru new laws now exempt police working for mining companies from persecution if they shoot protesters. In other middle and south american countries activist are killed on a regular basis. The lack of benefit to locals shows oil and mining are invasive criminal enterprises, executed by force against the will of locals. If a government doesn’t want to cooperate it is replaced. This won’t stop until either voters make a real choice for politicians that reduce arms sales and promote renewables, or demand for fossil fuel collapses due to sufficient renewables on offer. Both require us to make people aware of the problem, pinpoint it to fossil fuel and mining companies, pressure politicians about it and not forget to promote the solutions. Economics won’t stop unitl there is nothing left. It deals with the exploitation of what is there using the power of fossil fuels. Do you think it will stop when it threatens to affect you? Only if you own the industry you could be sure of that.