28
3 Climate Science in Courtrooms
3.1 Urgenda Foundation v. The Kingdom of the Netherlands
The landmark Urgenda case certainly stands out as the first successful attempt to
compel a State to enhance its climate policy’s ambition, in order to align the latter
with best climate science.
4
A Dutch environmental NGO (Urgenda Foundation) and
almost 900 Dutch citizens brought a lawsuit against the Dutch State before the
District Court in The Hague. Urgenda alleged that the State had violated its constitutionally imposed duty of care vis-à-vis their citizens, because the existing GHG
emissions reduction pledge of 17% by 2020 as compared to 1990 levels would be
inadequate to meet the State’s fair contribution toward the goal of achieving global
temperature increase within 2 °C of pre-industrial conditions.
5
According to
Urgenda, the overall State’s GHG emissions reduction threshold should amount to
25–40% below 1990 levels by 2020, consistently with the targets set for UNFCCC
Annex I Countries. This benchmark is also consistent with IPCC’s 450 ppm concentration scenario as designed in AR4 and AR5, which would allow a 50% change to
remain below the 2 °C pivotal global warming threshold.
Relevant, IPCC’s findings in AR4 (2007) and AR5 (2013) have been largely
relied upon by Urgenda, and eventually understood by the Court, as risk regulation
tools, since they “determine the desired convention and possible adverse effects” of
climate change (para. 4.19). The District Court recognized the widespread consensus both in climate science and at the international climate policy level on the need
to prevent certain detrimental consequences of climate change (para. 4.71). In view
of risk management and based on IPCC’s scientific evidence, utmost preference
should be given to the 450 ppm global warming scenario, which entails a lower risk
to face hazardous climate change (para. 4.22). And, by expressly endorsing the 2 °C
target and the relevant scenarios formulated by the IPCC, States parties to the
UNFCCC—including The Netherlands and the EU—have explicitly embraced the
same 450 ppm scenario as “the starting point for the development of climate policies” (para. 4.14). Thus, the 25–40% GHG emission reduction target by 2020 set for
UNFCCC Annex 1 Countries to achieve the 450 ppm scenario, was deemed by the
Court as the threshold to establish Dutch State’s duty of care to “make an adequate
[mitigation] contribution, greater than its current contribution, to prevent hazardous
climate change” (par. 4.89).
Importantly, the reasoning on scientific evidence, GHG emission reduction targets and trajectories underpins the reasoning on relevant legal tools to establish the
State’s duty of care vis-à-vis its citizens, namely: (1) Article 21 of the Dutch
Constitution (On the duty of the State to protect and improve the environment); (2)
4 Urgenda Foundation v. The Netherlands [2015] HAZA C/09/00456689 (June 24, 2015).
5 Notably, this GHG reduction target is more ambitious than those agreed at the EU level, as disaggregated among Member States—including The Netherlands, which indeed amounts to 16%
by 2020.
M. Fermeglia
3 Climate Science in Courtrooms
3.1 Urgenda Foundation v. The Kingdom of the Netherlands
The landmark Urgenda case certainly stands out as the first successful attempt to
compel a State to enhance its climate policy’s ambition, in order to align the latter
with best climate science.
4
A Dutch environmental NGO (Urgenda Foundation) and
almost 900 Dutch citizens brought a lawsuit against the Dutch State before the
District Court in The Hague. Urgenda alleged that the State had violated its constitutionally imposed duty of care vis-à-vis their citizens, because the existing GHG
emissions reduction pledge of 17% by 2020 as compared to 1990 levels would be
inadequate to meet the State’s fair contribution toward the goal of achieving global
temperature increase within 2 °C of pre-industrial conditions.
5
According to
Urgenda, the overall State’s GHG emissions reduction threshold should amount to
25–40% below 1990 levels by 2020, consistently with the targets set for UNFCCC
Annex I Countries. This benchmark is also consistent with IPCC’s 450 ppm concentration scenario as designed in AR4 and AR5, which would allow a 50% change to
remain below the 2 °C pivotal global warming threshold.
Relevant, IPCC’s findings in AR4 (2007) and AR5 (2013) have been largely
relied upon by Urgenda, and eventually understood by the Court, as risk regulation
tools, since they “determine the desired convention and possible adverse effects” of
climate change (para. 4.19). The District Court recognized the widespread consensus both in climate science and at the international climate policy level on the need
to prevent certain detrimental consequences of climate change (para. 4.71). In view
of risk management and based on IPCC’s scientific evidence, utmost preference
should be given to the 450 ppm global warming scenario, which entails a lower risk
to face hazardous climate change (para. 4.22). And, by expressly endorsing the 2 °C
target and the relevant scenarios formulated by the IPCC, States parties to the
UNFCCC—including The Netherlands and the EU—have explicitly embraced the
same 450 ppm scenario as “the starting point for the development of climate policies” (para. 4.14). Thus, the 25–40% GHG emission reduction target by 2020 set for
UNFCCC Annex 1 Countries to achieve the 450 ppm scenario, was deemed by the
Court as the threshold to establish Dutch State’s duty of care to “make an adequate
[mitigation] contribution, greater than its current contribution, to prevent hazardous
climate change” (par. 4.89).
Importantly, the reasoning on scientific evidence, GHG emission reduction targets and trajectories underpins the reasoning on relevant legal tools to establish the
State’s duty of care vis-à-vis its citizens, namely: (1) Article 21 of the Dutch
Constitution (On the duty of the State to protect and improve the environment); (2)
4 Urgenda Foundation v. The Netherlands [2015] HAZA C/09/00456689 (June 24, 2015).
5 Notably, this GHG reduction target is more ambitious than those agreed at the EU level, as disaggregated among Member States—including The Netherlands, which indeed amounts to 16%
by 2020.
M. Fermeglia