Alex Neufeldt, 28, one of seven young people taking the Ontario government to court over its greenhouse gas emission reduction target, poses by Lake Ontario in Toronto, Ontario, Canada June 27, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

The appeals court in Canada’s most populous province is set to rule on Thursday whether Ontario’s climate target violates young people’s rights, in a decision that could sway similar cases internationally.

The lawsuit, launched against Ontario by seven people aged 16 to 28 as of this summer, contends the province’s greenhouse-gas-emissions target is inadequate and violates the young people’s rights to life, liberty and security, along with their right to equality. The case hinges on government obligations to younger generations as the planet warms, whether Canada’s constitution recognizes such obligations and whether emissions targets have enough practical impact to affect individuals. In similar lawsuits in Alaska, Hawaii and Montana, as well as in Portugal, young people have sued governments alleging that climate inaction is jeopardizing their futures. In some cases, they have won. Hawaii agreed in June to decarbonize its transportation system by 2045 to settle a lawsuit brought by 13 youth activists.

This is the first Canadian human-rights-based climate lawsuit to be heard on its merits, and it could reverberate in Canada, where it could open the door to fresh litigation, and globally, where it could be cited in other cases, experts told Reuters.

“I’m hoping that will kick the door open for other cases to emerge and build on our successes,” said Alex Neufeldt, one of the plaintiffs. The lawsuit centers on a 2018 target set by Premier Doug Ford’s right-leaning Progressive Conservatives to reduce emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The plaintiffs are asking the court to order the government to set a more stringent target. A lower court dismissed the case last year, ruling the target did not deprive the plaintiffs of their rights and the government did not have an obligation to guarantee them in this context.

The judge concluded any disproportionate impact on young people was caused by climate change, not Ontario’s government.

But Justice Marie-Andrée Vermette also found the target “falls short and its deficiencies contribute to increasing the risks of death.”

In their appeal submission, the plaintiffs said Ontario is exacerbating climate change and “discriminating against youth and future generations on the basis of their age by forcing them to disproportionately bear the brunt of climate harms.”

Ontario argued its target does not violate Canada’s constitution and its climate-change plan is not a matter for the courts. It said the target is “a statement of the government’s policy aspirations” and not a regulatory scheme.

Asked about the lawsuit, the environment ministry said Ontario had made progress cutting emissions and supported electric-vehicle production.

The plaintiffs have a decent chance of success amid increasing public acceptance of the impacts of climate change, said Steve Lorteau, a doctoral student at the University of Toronto’s law faculty, who studies climate litigation.

A plaintiffs’ win “would add another victory to the small but growing list of cases where courts are coming out to recognize the right to a stable environment and the obligation of governments to take science-based climate action,” said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. But the case faces obstacles. University of Waterloo politics professor and constitutional law expert Emmett Macfarlane does not think the lawsuit will succeed, saying it expands its interpretation of Canada’s constitution to the point of rewriting it.

But if the case makes it to Canada’s Supreme Court and wins, that would “dramatically open the door to new litigation” in Canada, Macfarlane said.

“That would be explosive. It would have immediate ramifications for all governments.”

Alex Neufeldt, 28, one of seven young people taking the Ontario government to court over its greenhouse gas emission reduction target, poses by Lake Ontario in Toronto, Ontario, Canada June 27, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

The appeals court in Canada’s most populous province is set to rule on Thursday whether Ontario’s climate target violates young people’s rights, in a decision that could sway similar cases internationally.

The lawsuit, launched against Ontario by seven people aged 16 to 28 as of this summer, contends the province’s greenhouse-gas-emissions target is inadequate and violates the young people’s rights to life, liberty and security, along with their right to equality. The case hinges on government obligations to younger generations as the planet warms, whether Canada’s constitution recognizes such obligations and whether emissions targets have enough practical impact to affect individuals. In similar lawsuits in Alaska, Hawaii and Montana, as well as in Portugal, young people have sued governments alleging that climate inaction is jeopardizing their futures. In some cases, they have won. Hawaii agreed in June to decarbonize its transportation system by 2045 to settle a lawsuit brought by 13 youth activists.

This is the first Canadian human-rights-based climate lawsuit to be heard on its merits, and it could reverberate in Canada, where it could open the door to fresh litigation, and globally, where it could be cited in other cases, experts told Reuters.

“I’m hoping that will kick the door open for other cases to emerge and build on our successes,” said Alex Neufeldt, one of the plaintiffs. The lawsuit centers on a 2018 target set by Premier Doug Ford’s right-leaning Progressive Conservatives to reduce emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The plaintiffs are asking the court to order the government to set a more stringent target. A lower court dismissed the case last year, ruling the target did not deprive the plaintiffs of their rights and the government did not have an obligation to guarantee them in this context.

The judge concluded any disproportionate impact on young people was caused by climate change, not Ontario’s government.

But Justice Marie-Andrée Vermette also found the target “falls short and its deficiencies contribute to increasing the risks of death.”

In their appeal submission, the plaintiffs said Ontario is exacerbating climate change and “discriminating against youth and future generations on the basis of their age by forcing them to disproportionately bear the brunt of climate harms.”

Ontario argued its target does not violate Canada’s constitution and its climate-change plan is not a matter for the courts. It said the target is “a statement of the government’s policy aspirations” and not a regulatory scheme.

Asked about the lawsuit, the environment ministry said Ontario had made progress cutting emissions and supported electric-vehicle production.

The plaintiffs have a decent chance of success amid increasing public acceptance of the impacts of climate change, said Steve Lorteau, a doctoral student at the University of Toronto’s law faculty, who studies climate litigation.

A plaintiffs’ win “would add another victory to the small but growing list of cases where courts are coming out to recognize the right to a stable environment and the obligation of governments to take science-based climate action,” said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. But the case faces obstacles. University of Waterloo politics professor and constitutional law expert Emmett Macfarlane does not think the lawsuit will succeed, saying it expands its interpretation of Canada’s constitution to the point of rewriting it.

But if the case makes it to Canada’s Supreme Court and wins, that would “dramatically open the door to new litigation” in Canada, Macfarlane said.

“That would be explosive. It would have immediate ramifications for all governments.”

An activist from Youth 4 Climate Action Yoon Hyeonjeong looks on during an interview with Reuters in Seoul, South Korea, August 28, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Yoon Hyeonjeong, a 19-year-old South Korean activist, says the fate of her years-long fight for more action to tackle climate change hinges on what could be a landmark ruling by the country’s top court on Thursday.

Yoon is among about 200 plaintiffs, including young environmentalists like herself and even infants, in petitions filed to the Constitutional Court since 2020, which argue the government is violating its citizens’ human rights by not effectively tackling climate change.

Climate advocacy groups say it will be the first high court ruling on a government’s climate action in Asia, potentially setting a precedent in a region where similar lawsuits have been filed in Taiwan and Japan. In April, Europe’s top human rights court ruled the Swiss government had violated the rights of its citizens by failing to do enough to combat climate change.

“Picketing on streets, policy proposals, these campaigns weren’t enough to bring about real changes,” said Yoon, who is hoping the court ruling will help tear down bureaucratic hurdles on climate policy.

Lawyers for the government say authorities are doing everything possible to cut carbon emissions.

Han Wha-jin, who was environment minister, said in May the government’s emission reduction targets did not infringe on people’s rights, though the constitutional petition provided a public forum about the severity of the climate crisis.

In 2019, Yoon was in her third year of middle school when she watched a climate crisis documentary that she said shocked her into action.

Despite not being particularly outgoing, she decided to try and follow in the footsteps of the likes of Greta Thunberg, a Swedish climate activist who has inspired a global youth movement demanding stronger action against climate change.

Yoon wrote slogans with crayons to picket at schools, telling her elders to stop destroying the planet. She later dropped out of high-school and left her hometown to focus on the climate movement in the capital Seoul.

South Korea’s constitutional court does not award damages or order law enforcement measures but can rule existing laws are unconstitutional and request parliament to revise them.

Germany‘s constitutional court ruled in 2021 the country must update its climate law to set out how it will bring carbon emissions down to almost zero by 2050.

Scientists say a global temperature rise beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial average will trigger catastrophic and irreversible impact on the planet, from melting ice sheets to the collapse of ocean currents.

South Korea is seeking to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, but remains the second-highest coal polluter among G20 countries after Australia, data showed, with slow adoption of renewables.

The country last year revised down its 2030 targets for greenhouse gas reductions in the industrial sector but kept its national goal of cutting emissions by 40% of 2018 levels.

Calling for an end to the use of fossil fuel, Yoon said flooding and rising temperatures caused by climate change were having immediate effects on people’s lives.

“We already have tools to cut carbon emissions. That is, stop using fossil fuels,” she said.

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. looks on as he meets with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, at Malacanang Palace in Manila, Philippines, March 19, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

The Philippines has been chosen to host the board of the “Loss and Damage” fund created by U.N. talks, marking another step towards providing financial help for countries to recover and rebuild from the impact of global warming.

Last month, the World Bank’s board approved a plan for the bank to act as interim host of the fund for four years.

Some countries, however, voiced concern that allowing the World Bank to host would give donors, including the United States that appoints the World Bank’s president, too much influence.

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr announced his country’s election from a pool of seven contenders in a post on X on Tuesday.

Hosting the board, Marcos said, “reinforces our dedication to inclusivity and our leadership role in ensuring that the voices of those most affected by climate change shape the future of international climate policies”.

The Philippines must enact legislation before it can become host and Marcos did not say when it would take on its role.

An archipelago of more than 7,600 islands, the Philippines, which also has a seat on the fund’s board, is frequently hit by typhoons and other climate-change induced disasters.

As host, Manila could focus attention on the Asia-Pacific region, where many countries struggle with limited resources, hindering their ability to respond to the effects of climate change.

Who pays for loss and damage has been among the most intractable issues at U.N. climate talks, as developed countries blamed for producing the most emissions historically have been nervous about how much of the bill for redressing damage they might face.

COP27 in Egypt in 2022 however managed to establish a U.N. “loss and damage” fund dedicated to addressing irreparable climate-driven damage from drought, floods and rising sea levels, but did not decide on detail.

Lidy Nacpil, coordinator of the Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), said it was up to the Philippines to demonstrate political leadership.

They should demand developed countries “fulfil their historical, legal, and moral obligation to provide reparations for climate devastation,” Nacpil said in a statement.

Rosmarie Wydler-Walti and Anne Mahrer, of the Swiss elderly women group Senior Women for Climate Protection, attend the hearing of the court for the ruling in the climate case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, France April 9, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Switzerland for all its snow-capped mountains and crisp Alpine air has failed to protect its people from the ravages of climate change, as a top European court ruled this week.

Behind the picture postcard exterior, critics say, is a country that has done too little for the planet and acted as a business hub for some of the most powerful international corporations in fossil fuels and mining.

Political analysts and academics also say entrenched conservatism and a political system governed by popular referendums will complicate reform even after Tuesday’s ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

It found in favour of over 2,000 Swiss women – a third of them over 75 – who said their country’s inaction in the face of rising temperatures puts them at risk of dying during heatwaves.

The ruling cannot be appealed and the Swiss Federal Office of Justice, which represented the government before the court, said it must be implemented. It said it would analyse the ruling to determine the measures the country needed to take.

Immediately after the court decision, the Swiss Green Party called for climate targets for specific industries, including the finanical sector.

“People may have slightly beautiful dreams about Switzerland,” Lisa Mazzone, the party leader, said.

“Switzerland is the country of commodity trading, Switzerland is the country with a strong financial sector with a lot of investment in fossil fuels,” she added.

Swiss-based commodity trading companies handle 40% of all oil trades and 60% of the metal trading business, according to data published by industry association Suissenégoce.

The group of Swiss women known as KlimaSeniorinnen did not make Swiss trading central to their case, although their Greenpeace-backed campaign that lasted many years called for tougher regulation to curb transactions fueling global warming.

Referendums

A 2022 international study into environmental sustainability ranked Switzerland in the top 10, but government efforts to implement stricter climate goals have so far been limited by the country’s regular referendums.

Leading Swiss newspapers took a sceptical view of the ruling in editorials that said it could undermine democracy.

The largest party, the right-wing Swiss People’s Party, said Switzerland should withdraw from the Council of Europe, which seeks to promote human rights in Europe and beyond, calling the court’s judges “puppets for activists”.

Unlike most western democracies where central governments drive political change, Switzerland is governed by a cross-party consensus balancing the interests of its 26 cantons.

Dilara Bayrak, a Green politician in Geneva, said the ruling should still energise climate debate in cantonal parliaments.

Financial muscle and tons of carbon

The ruling is also likely to sharpen environmental campaigners’ focus on how Switzerland’s serves global industry through its network of traders and banks.

The financial sector, including the central bank, is already under pressure from environmental groups to curb the number of climate-damaging transactions it processes.

Data published last month by the Swiss National Bank (SNB) showed that its investments were linked to 12 million metric tons of carbon emissions in 2023.

Stakes in oil majors Chevron Corp and Exxon Mobil are part of its foreign reserves, which stood at 655 billion Swiss francs ($738.28 billion) at the end of 2023.

The SNB said it is reducing its own CO2 emissions, but would not change its investment policy. It declined to comment when asked whether the Strasbourg court ruling would lead to changes.

The actions the ruling say Switzerland must carry out include revising its 2030 emissions reductions targets to align them with the Paris Agreement’s aim to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.

It also determined that Switzerland had not complied with its own targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and had failed to set a national carbon budget.

But the country’s deep-rooted tradition of referendums is likely to make reform a slow process.

“It’s not going to happen overnight,” said Pascal Mahon, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Neuchâtel.

“Switzerland is a country that respects international law rather well,” he added. “Authorities will make sure to (respect) it, but by doing it through the Swiss political system, that’s still relatively slow and conservative.”