French President Emmanuel Macron during the One Planet Summit, at The Elysee Palace, in Paris
Credit: Ludovic Marin /AFP
A French court has found the state guilty of inaction in fighting climate change in a landmark ruling that environmentalists have dubbed “the case of the century”.
The verdict is an embarrassment for President Emmanuel Macron as it suggests his administration is failing in its stated promise to "make our planet great again".
In what is seen as “the first major climate trial in France”, judges at the administrative court in Paris ruled on Wednesday that the state had displayed “culpable failure” by not meeting its climate goals.
The case is part of a lawsuit launched two years ago by four NGOs, including Greenpeace France and Oxfam France, following an online petition that gathered 2.3 million signatures — the largest in French history, according to the organisers.
Oxfam France in a Tweet hailed the ruling as a "historic victory for the climate".
"The state’s climate action has been recognized as ILLEGAL," it added.
A host of celebrities became involved in the French campaign, including actors Juliette Binoche and Marion Cotillard, who welcomed the court ruling in a video Wednesday, shouting "We won!"
Their plaintiffs’ aim was to "compel the State to take all necessary measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions" to meet the 1.5 degrees Celsius target set by the Paris Agreement, a 2016 pact signed by almost all the world’s countries seeking to limit global warming.
France has committed to reducing emissions by 40 per cent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels and to reach carbon neutrality by 2050.
The court ordered the state to pay a symbolic €1 to the NGOs behind the lawsuit for “moral prejudice” due to “culpable failure to respect its commitments in the fight against climate change”.
The landmark ruling in the first major climate trial in France blames the state for 'ecological prejudice' by failing to rein in green gas emissions
Credit: Francois Mori/AP
Experts say France is not on the right trajectory to meet its goals. In its annual report last July, the country’s higher climate council slammed the government’s climate policies, saying: “Acts in favour of the climate are not up to the mark given the challenges and aims.”
Greenhouse gas emissions in France fell by 0.9 per cent in 2019 whereas the annual fall to meet France’s climate goals should have been 1.5 per cent and 3.2 per cent starting 2025.
Clémentine Baldon, lawyer for the Fondation Nicolas Hulot, a Green NGO and plaintiff, called the ruling “revolutionary” in more ways than one as it recognised “the responsibility of the state” in the climate crisis and that its inaction was henceforth “illegal”.
Also, for the first time the administrative judge recognised that the state was partially responsible for the “ecological prejudice” caused by the harmful build-up of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere as it had failed to bring those emissions down.
However, the court rejected a request for financial compensation as the NGOs had not demonstrated that the ecological prejudice was irreversible in nature.
NGO l’Affaire du Siècle (The Case of the Century) called the ruling "a first historic victory for climate and a major step forwards for French law".
The verdict was also a "victory for truth," it went on.
"Until now, the state denied that its climate policies were insufficient despite growing proof (of their inadequacy)."
One telling example, it said, was a draft "climate bill" that the Macron government has already conceded is "insufficient to reach its stated goals".
The French environment ministry had denied that it failed to comply with its legal obligations to fight climate change and asked for the case to be dismissed. It argued that it could not be held "solely responsible" for climate change in France.
"France makes up around 1 per cent of the world’s population and emits around 1 per cent of the planet’s greenhouse gases each year," according to a legal memo.
"A substantial part of this pollution comes from industrial and agricultural activities," but also from "individual choices and decisions which it is not always possible to influence," it claimed.
Judges now have a further two months to decide whether to order the Macron administration to take extra measures to honour its commitments.
In a separate but similar case in November, France’s top administrative court gave the government a three-month deadline to show it was taking action on global warming.
That case was brought by Grande-Synthe, a low-lying northern coastal town that is particularly exposed to the effects of climate change.
Experts say governments around the world are far from meeting their climate pledges and anger is growing among younger generations over inaction, symbolised by the campaigns of Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg.
That has given rise to a string of climate lawsuits.
In December 2019, Dutch high court judges found their government had not done enough to protect its citizens from the dangerous effects of climate change, which can "threaten their lives and wellbeing". To live up to its obligations, the government needs to ensure that CO2 emissions are at least 25 per cent below 1990 levels by the end of 2020, the court said in a final verdict, upholding a 2015 decision by a lower court.
In the UK last January, the Court of Appeal ruled that Chris Grayling, then transport secretary, acted unlawfully by failing to consider the UK’s climate change commitments under the Paris Agreement when he gave the green light for a third runway at Heathrow Airport in 2018. The ruling was,, however, overturned by the Supreme Court in December.
It was thought to be the first such case in the world, an Australian student last July filed a lawsuit against her government for failing to make clear climate change-related risks to investors in government bonds.
Свежие комментарии