Climate Changes

Neubauer et al. v. Germany

A group of German youth filed a legal challenge to Germany’s Federal Climate Protection Act, arguing that the law’s target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 55% by 2030 from 1990 levels was insufficient and consequently violated their human rights as protected by Germany’s constitution. The applicants argued that the law’s 2030 target did not take into account either Germany or the EU’s obligation under the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise to the “well below 2 degrees Celsius” level. The applicants argued that Germany would need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70% by 2030 (from 1990 levels) in order to meet its international obligations. They argued that the government’s failure to take adequate action on climate change violated multiple rights guaranteed to them by the Basic Law, Germany’s constitution, including the principle of human dignity, the right to life and physical integrity, and the natural foundations of life in responsibility for future generations. The applicants asked the Federal Constructional Court to declare the 55% reduction goal a violation of the Basic Law, require the legislature to issue new reduction quotas, and prohibit the transfer of emissions allocations under the new regulatory regime. The Federal Constitutional Court struck down the parts of the Federal Climate Protection Act as incompatible with fundamental rights for failing to require sufficient emission cuts beyond 2030.

Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands

The Urgenda Climate Case against the Dutch Government was the first in the world in which citizens established that their government has a legal duty to prevent dangerous climate change. On 24 June 2015, the District Court of The Hague ruled the government must cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 (compared to 1990 levels). The ruling required the government to immediately take more effective action on climate change.