Court convicts French state for failing to tackle climate crisis | Climate change

A court in Paris has condemned the French state for failing to address the climate crisis and delivering on its promises to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.

In what has been hailed as a landmark ruling, the court found the state guilty of “failure to comply with its obligations” aimed at fighting global warming.

Considering the “affair of the century,” the lawsuit was filed by four French environmental groups after a petition signed by 2.3 million people.

“This is a historic victory for climate justice. The decision not only takes into account what scientists are saying and what people want from French government policy, but it should also inspire people around the world to hold their governments accountable for climate change in their courts, ” said Jean-François Julliard, the executive power. director of Greenpeace France, one of the plaintiffs.

He said the verdict would be used to push the French state to act against the climate emergency. “No more blah blah,” he added.

Cécilia Rinaudo, the director of Notre Affaire à Tous (It’s Everyone’s Business), another prosecutor, said it was an “immense victory” for climate activists around the world.

“It is a victory for all those who are already facing the devastating impact of the climate crisis that our leaders fail to address. The time has come for justice, ”said Rinaudo.

“This legal action has brought millions of people together in a common fight: the fight for our future. The historical decision of the judge proves that passing France without climate is no longer tolerable, it is illegal. But the battle is not over yet. The fact that the state is not doing anything is only a first step towards the implementation of concrete and efficient measures to combat climate change. “

The court ruled that compensation for “environmental damage” was permissible, stating that the state “should be held liable for some of this damage if it had failed to fulfill its obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”.

It did not uphold a claim for token compensation and said compensation should be made “in kind”, with compensation “only if remedial action was impossible or insufficient”.

However, the court ruled that the applicants were entitled to compensation in kind for the “ecological damage caused by failure to meet France’s targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It said this needed further investigation and gave the state two months to respond.

It awarded each organization a symbolic € 1 for “moral bias”, saying that failure to meet the state’s climate commitments is “detrimental to the collective good”.

Wednesday’s verdict was labeled ‘revolutionary’ by the four NGOs – including Greenpeace France and Oxfam France – who filed the formal complaint with the French Prime Minister’s office in December 2018. in March 2019.

The Paris Agreement signed five years ago aimed to limit global warming to less than 2 ° C above pre-industrial levels. Donald Trump withdrew the US from the deal in 2017, although Joe Biden plans to participate again. Environmentalists say governments, including the French government, have failed to fulfill their obligations.

The French government has pledged to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 and to be carbon neutral by 2050.

NGOs say the state is exceeding its carbon budgets and is not moving fast enough to renovate buildings to make them energy efficient, or develop renewable energy. They claim that this has a serious impact on the daily quality of life and health of people in France.

In a report last July, France’s High Climate Council seriously criticized government policy. “Climate action is not suited to the challenges and goals,” he said.

Greenhouse gas emissions in France fell by 0.9% in 2018-19, when the annual decrease needed to reach the targets is 1.5% until 2025 and 3.2% thereafter.

In a written defense, the French government dismissed allegations of negligence and asked the court to dismiss any claim for damages. It argued that the state could not be held solely responsible for climate change, while it was not responsible for all global emissions.

Source