New strategies No Time To Loose
Marjan Minnesma
Background • • • • • •
Business, Philosophy & Law Shell & consultancy Novem: Agency for Energy & Environment Greenpeace campaigns director Several universities (oa Drift – EUR) Urgenda
Urgenda (foundation) • Making the Netherlands more sustainable as quickly as possible • Urgent & Agenda (Latin): The things that need to be done
• Based on a long term vision& transition theory • Want to stay small and move quickly, independent
• Urgenda started the Day of Sustainability, >100k people do sth that day, since 2009 • Introduced first electric cars produced in series; sold them to Amsterdam etc • Introduced first collective buying initiative: bought 50.000 solar panels+inverters etc: price went down 1/3. 10 Mw • We open and start new markets – help innovations to the market. Solutions oriented
Evaluation of strategy 2012 After 5-6 years: are we moving quickly enough? NO
More focus on climate and energy (and thus on housing, mobility, energy use in other sectors) Still solutions oriented, but different actions added
Urgency even higher
Report published 2014 •100% renewables in 2030 - Possible! - DE AGENDA -
NEDERLAND 100% DUURZAM E ENERGIE IN 2030
HET KAN ALS JE HET WILT!
HET KAN ALS JE HET WILT | 1
6
100% sustainable energy 2030 Is it possible? • Technically: yes (without innovations) • Financially: yes • People/work force: yes It is Possible, if we Want it! • Is it easy? No of course not.
And what does it give us? • Secure and affordable energysystem • 150.000 jobs & innovation • Our gas is gone in 20 years; we do not need to become dependent on Russia etc • Sust. energysystem in 2030 is 3 bln cheaper than BAU Costs: 1,5% GNP
Much wind & sun! + geothermal & rest
New strategies & actions • • • • • •
Work on solutions 2030 100% sustainable Mass movements Divestment movement We need everybody Business – Government – Citizens As voter, as buyer, raise your voice
Divestment Movement
New (mass) movements
www.revolutionjustified.org
First steps • • • •
James Hansen in NL nov 2012 Letter to the government Brought to Parliament Answer government: we agree with the urgency, but we do not want to be frontrunner (…. They are nr 24 on renewables in the EU-25, with 4%...) and we do not want to harm business
Crowd pleading • Any useful legal information? Let us know! • Do you want to be a co-plaintiff, either yourself or on behalf of your children? • Do you think the government needs to act? Let them know! • November 2013 Summons handed in with hundreds of people
Court procedures 1,5 years • • • • • •
Summons nov 2013 Government answered April 2014 Statement of reply Urgenda sept 2014 State answered February 2015 Hearing The Hague April 2015 Verdict 24th of June 2015
Civil law – Unlawful act • Heart of the case is civil law/tort law • Thus not directly environmental law, public law, international law, human rights law, nor fighting a decision or an act • NOT doing what is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change (hazardous neglicence) means breaching the duty of care towards Urgenda & citizens
This is a new legal question Is there breach of the duty of care for taking insufficient measures to prevent dangerous climate change? • Court: LEGAL question & NEW 1. Unlawful hazardous negligence? 2. Discretionary power? NOT unlimited! The State’s care may not be below a certain minimum: acting with due care twrds society
State: we have no legal obligation Conclusion of the court (4.52): there is no direct legal obligation based on - Art 21 Constitution - No harm principle - UNFCCC (Climate treaty) & protocols - EU law & ECHR BUT
Colouring open norms • Duty of care is a so-called ‘open norm’ • International law etc can be used to fill in or colour these norms • They have a ‘ reflex effect’ in national law • Acknowledged rule in the legal system • Thus international law can be a source of interpretation of open private-law standards, like the standard of care.
Principles to define the scope • • • •
Principle of fairness (current & future gen) Precautionary principle Sustainability principle EU climate policy: principle of high protection level No direct effect, but important viewpoint in assessing whether or not the State acts wrongfully
Important conclusions Court • Parties agree on irreversible and serious consequences of CC, and need for precautionary measures • Current global emissions and reduction targets of signatories UNFCCC are insufficient to realise the 2C target • Chances of dangerous CC: very high • Mitigation measures should be take expeditiousy.
Court is very clear • The faster the reductions can be initiated the more chance danger will subside • Taking into account State knows this since 1992, given the high risk of hazardous climate change, “ the State has a serious duty of care to take measures to prevent it” • State plays a crucial role, should take high level of care for statutory and instrumental F
Court follows Urgenda Onerousness: • State can afford the measures • Immediate action is more cost-effective • Until 2010 we had a goal of 30% reduction in 2020! State wanted 40% in 2030 and 17% in 2020 Court: there is no cost obstacle to adhere to a stricter target of 25-40% in 2020
Remarkable statements Court • Mitigation is the only effective tool • CO2 capture and storage (CCS) not plausible that they can be applied in short term and therefore in time. “ the State has a duty of care to mitigate as quickly and as much as possible” (4.72)
Discretionary power of the State • High discretionary power; not unlimited • “IF there is a high risk of dangerous CC with severe and life-threatening consequences for humans and environment, the State has the obligation to protect” • Only effective remedy is reduce emissions of GHGs, therefore the Sate has limited options: “mitigation is vital for preventing dangerous CC”
Small numbers, no argument • Dutch contribution worldwide is 0.5% • With a reduction target of 25-40%, this would mean additional reduction of 23-29 Mt CO2eq: 0.04-0.09% of global emissions • State: Urgenda has no interest • Court: does not agree. Global responsibility: all countries should reduce to the fullest extent possible. Exercise care. Per capita emissions are amongst the highest of the world
All arguments State slashed • NL can do more than what EU-requires (like other EU-countries do) • Waterbed effect/carbon leakage can not be proven (other countries show no signs) • It will not “ decrease the level playing field” as neighbouring countries do much more already. Some win, some loose…
THUS • Due to severity of the consequences • There is a duty of care to mitigate • The State does not meet the standard according to latest scientific knowledge & internat climate policy to stay below 2 C In case of a reduction below 25-40% the State fails to fulfil its duty of care. State has acted negligently and therefore unlawfully tw Urgenda Because discretionary power: 25%
Main argument State • Interference with distribution of powers However: • Trias Politica: not full separation of powers, but balance between state powers • Court has own task and responsibility based on the law (thus democratic!): must provide LEGAL protection, including protection citizens from government • No compelling other social interests
Finally • Urgenda was also acting on behalf of 886 citizens; • As the claims of the individuals cannot lead to a decision other than the one Urgenda can rely on for herself, therefore they do not have sufficient own interests. On practical grounds their claim is rejected (question of locus standi left unanswered)
24th of June • Judge stated climate change is a big and urgent problem • The State needs to protect its citizens • Judge used material of Urgenda and the state, did not “invent” things itself. All based on facts, science etc. • State has to reduce GHGs 25% in ‘20 (‘90) • Court made translation in English
More and more court cases • Can countries continue to jeopardize the future of next generations? Oslo Principles • Democratic – civil law protects citizens • Judge examines the facts • Same happened in civil rights movement in US and in NL in other difficult societal questions
It is up to us! – 20 years!