[ad_1]
In Canada, young climate activists have turned to the courts for help to push the government to take its recent climate commitments seriously. If Germans’ experience can be used as a guide, then they may make a difference.
In two Canadian climate lawsuits, in a ruling closely watched by 22 young plaintiffs, the German Constitutional Court was established on April 29 double-sided Confronted the federal government with nine young Germans. The court agreed to the country’s landmark climate legislation passed in 2019, which has placed too much burden on future generations and has not yet assumed sufficient responsibilities.
The court ruled: “These regulations irreversibly shift the main burden of emission reduction to the period beyond 2030.” The court ordered the government to amend the legislation.
The plaintiff’s lead attorney Felix Ekardt told CBC News that his team “makes the court realize for the first time not only now and now, but also across times and across the world (i.e. across generations and cross-borders). ) Must ensure freedom”. “
The German Minister of Economy and Energy Peter Altmaier agreed, call It “is epoch-making for protecting the climate and the rights of young people.”
We feel that no one has heard…today’s legislators will not have to respond to the influence of their decisions with the wishes of our youth. “-Lauren Wright, accuser of Saskatoon
Soon after the court’s decision, the German leaders (already felt Green party surge In the polls) Draft new law This has greatly increased the emission reduction target at the end of this decade, reducing it from the 1990 level by 55% to 65%. They also advanced the zero net target date by five years.
German Environment Minister Svenja Schulze (Svenja Schulze) said the new law has a “huge” task. She said: “The hardest work of climate protection has not been delayed for the first time into the distant future.” “The Constitutional Court ordered us to do this, and the government quickly responded.”
Morale booster
Ekardt remains cautious about the performance of his legal team. He told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: “The government and parliament just adjusted the target. Whether real measures will be taken remains to be seen.” “In addition, even the target has not been properly adjusted.”
However, for 16 years old Lauren Wright of Saskatoon This is the plaintiff and a similar case of the Canadian government. The German ruling is an “important source of optimism.”
She told CBC News: “The fast turnaround time between the victory and the start of the achievable change is very, very happy.”
Wright is A lawsuit initiated by the David Suzuki Foundation and Our Children’s Trust in Oregon. The lawsuit aims to force the federal government to adopt stricter emission targets.Our UNICEF sponsored Similar litigation It has been targeting the U.S. government since 2015.
Another lawsuit based on youthThe government of Ontario Prime Minister Doug Ford (Doug Ford), sponsored by the Canadian non-governmental organization Ecojustice, has decided to lower the province’s climate targets in 2018.
Most affected, least consultation
Wright said: “Most of our plaintiffs cannot vote. We are not yet voting age.” “I cannot express my voice in a way that can elect people to positions of power.
“We feel that we have not been heard. We will be disproportionately affected by these issues. Today’s legislators will not have to deal with the impact and effects of their decisions in the way our youth do. It will be.”
Facts have proved that many courts accept this statement.first of all breakthrough The country came to the Netherlands in 2019 when the Supreme Court ordered the government to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25% from 1990 levels by the end of 2020.
Vancouver lawyer Chris Tollefson represented Wright and 14 other young plaintiffs LaRose v. Queen (HM) Queen.
He told CBC News: “In such cases, the results we are seeing are getting more and more encouraging.” “The courts are increasingly aware of the intergenerational rights issues here, and these young people should at least be heard. “
Government postponed
Both the Ford government and the federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are fighting to prevent these lawsuits from advancing in Canada. They have proposed a motion to prevent young plaintiffs from filing suits in the courts.
The federal government has achieved greater success.
Last October, Federal Court Judge Michael Manson (Michael Manson) indeed The government moved a motion for the LaRose lawsuit. Government lawyers argued that the case was too politicized, the alleged scope of conduct was too broad, and in any case, Canada did not violate the binding force of climate targets.
Wright said: “This is a very frustrating moment for us.”
This month, the young plaintiff’s lawyers appealed the decision, and they hope to hear it this fall.
Ontario strike
Only a few weeks after the federal government succeeded in court, Ontario tried to fail. Mathur et al litigation.
Attorney Fraser Thomson told CBC News: “Our client decided to file a lawsuit against Prime Minister Ford on this issue because the Ford government has done very little under the scientific consensus on climate change.” “They chose. Weaken our goal and regress.”
Ontario’s move to cut targets in 2018 has left the provincial government in a weakness that the federal government cannot share. Although the province believes that the case made the court “far beyond its institutional capacity,” High Court Justice Carole J. Brown took a different view.
Thomson said: “In any court case in Canada, the court has confirmed for the first time that my client has the right and ability to bring his government to court in accordance with the country’s highest law, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” “And they have the right to hear the whole story. Record of evidence.”
Next step
Carissima Mathen, a professor of law at the University of Ottawa, a constitutional expert, said: “I think this is a very interesting argument.” “This is a question that has obviously not been raised in the Canadian Charter before. It will depend on Accept many premises.
“One factor is that the current models we use to organize voting and participation are to some extent insufficient to provide benefits for those who cannot vote, and simply because of their age, they are structurally disadvantaged in making public policy decisions. …
“This is an elevator.”
Mars said that if the federal lawsuit is allowed, she hopes that everything will go on before the government accepts failure.
Go to the Supreme Court
Mason said: “I will be very surprised if any government responds to the decision of a court lower than the Supreme Court, because this is a novel argument, a deep argument that may involve the scope of the Canadian Charter.”
“Of course, you can win the debate. Then, the next step is the last step that really matters. What does the court do?”
Mathen said the court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiff in the federal or Ontario litigation will lead to a range of possible remedies-starting with only “declarative relief”, which will allow the court to determine that the right has (or may be). Violates and instructs the government to take these rights into consideration.
She said: “The courts can then invoke a series of more interventionist remedies, such as actually making certain orders.” “I think it’s less likely. In general, Canadian courts are reluctant to do so in this way. Intervention is actually instructing the government to make a decision, especially a very complicated decision.”
Ekkad said that the arguments he hopes to persuade German judges are equally persuasive here.
He said: “I am not an expert on the Canadian Constitution. However, we only discuss the typical core elements of a liberal democratic constitution, namely the basic rights of freedom and the basic prerequisites of freedom, such as the basic rights of life, health and survival.”
Although his plaintiff suffered legal setbacks, Tollefson said he agreed with Eckart’s optimism.
“We are very confident in this lawsuit.”
[ad_2]
Source link
