An international court in France on Tuesday ruled Switzerland’s failure to adequately tackle the climate crisis was in violation of human rights, in a landmark climate judgment that could have a ripple effect across the globe.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, France delivered its ruling in a case brought by more than 2,000 Swiss women, the majority of whom are in their 70s, against Switzerland’s government. They argued that climate change-fueled heat waves undermined their health and quality of life, and put them at risk of dying.
The court ruled that the Swiss government had violated some of the women’s human rights due to “critical gaps” in its national legislation to reduce planet-heating emissions, as well as a failure to meet past climate targets.
Those damn boomers at it again. Effecting actual change and… Wait…
If there’s one thing the boomers have always successfully managed, its leveraging their demographic overweight to their benefit.
Quite often that benefited following generations too, only when they got older they got more into the conservative ‘fuck you, got mine’ mindset.
However they show here that they can be quite irreverent and ideological too, like they used to be.
It’s almost like there’s no such thing as “the boomers” that all share the same characteristics based on their age group, but rather that they are a highly diverse and ideologically varied group of people like any other.
Well the one thing that unifies them is said demographical overweight.
And if they were a single ideologically aligned block that would mean something.
It’s time to give up the idiotic ageist boomer hate and focus on the real enemy: large capital.
From the first link, that’s unexpectedly about last autumn:
It makes us worried about our future. How could we not be scared?
So very true, but the hypocrisy of the defendants is overwhelming:
The government in Greece – a country which has just experienced a deadly summer of heat, fire and storms – said in its response: “The effects of climate change as recorded so far do not seem to directly affect human life or human health.”
Edit: it was a bit hard to find the outcome of Portuguese claimants’ case, but it appears to be rejected:
The European Court of Human Rights rejected two other, similar cases on procedural grounds — a high-profile one brought by Portuguese young people and another by a French mayor that sought to force governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
So, the same court that gave the case to the Swedish woman, denied countries that are worse off.
Makes sense.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, France delivered its ruling in a case brought by more than 2,000 Swiss women, the majority of whom are in their 70s, against Switzerland’s government.
The court ruled that the Swiss government had violated some of the women’s human rights due to “critical gaps” in its national legislation to reduce planet-heating emissions, as well as a failure to meet past climate targets.
“Today’s rulings against Switzerland sets a historic precedent that applies to all European countries,” Gerry Liston, a lawyer at Global Legal Action Network, which supported the Portugal case, said in a statement.
Vesselina Newman, from the environmental lawyers organization ClientEarth, said this result “from one of the world’s highest courts sends a clear message: governments must take real action on emissions to safeguard the human rights of their citizens.”
The court also delivered judgments on two other claims, one brought by a municipal mayor against the French government and a third, the largest and highest-profile, by six young people in Portugal against 32 European countries.
Tuesday’s judgment in favor of the Swiss women sets “a precedent for other international courts to follow,” Liston, from Global Legal Action Network, told CNN.
The original article contains 689 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Dear Greta, this is what real climate activism looks like. Not smiling to the cameras as you get arrested, working thanklessly behind the scenes to create real awareness and enact real change.
A sustainable climate absolutely needs to be regarded as a human right. And this is an excellent step in that direction.
The fact that you mentioned her name when speaking about climate change counters your bullshit first paragraph.
She’s part of the discussion, but no longer for the right reasons.
And she’s not Voldemort. It’s okay to say her name.
And it’s you who decides which reason is right and which reason is wrong? She chose a way to protest. She is extremely successful at bringing awarness to what she wants to be seen.
Greta’s function is to draw attention to the issues. That is fine. What these 2000 women are doing is neat too.
“neat too”? It’s a lot more than neat. It’s critical. And, hopefully, hasn’t come too late.
But, it has, it’s all too late. So anything working toward climate change reform is good. There’s no room for camps. One step is good, one thousand steps is good, one million steps is good.
In the span of any given week, Greta will do more to fight for meaningful action on the climate crisis, than you will accomplish over the span of your lifetime.
Maybe sit this one out.
This given week, Greta is in out-processing (assuming she’s being released immediately). So all have to do is take out the recycling.
I’m not going to repeat your mistake of assuming someone I know nothing about doesn’t contribute to the fight against climate change. Apart from the change I make as an individual, my efforts are centered in education. Similar to the fight against climate change, the fight against ignorance is a fight that me and my kind are apparently losing. And comments like yours don’t offer any reassurance.
But I’m not going to give up just because it feels hopeless. I owe it to my children to fight for a world that isn’t run by idiots and will still hopefully be habitable when they reach my age. That’s not going to happen by standing outside a schoolhouse with a bullhorn or tying myself to a school bus. At some point you have to stop demonstrating and actually put in the hours, like the heroes in this article.
Maybe sit this one out.
Sit what out, exactly? Climate reform? Calling out the things that distract from the real issues? Supporting the things that actually do make a difference? I will sit none of that out. I’d rather be hated by stans who feel compelled to defend the honor of someone who will never know they even exist than shy away from issues that are making an already insurmountable problem that much harder.
Sit what out, exactly?
The smear campaign against Greta Thunberg.
If you understood optics, you’d understand how you yourself, and your specific angle of attack here is a net detriment to addressing the climate crisis.
I’d rather be hated by stans who feel compelled to defend the honor of someone who will never know they even exist than shy away from issues that are making an already insurmountable problem that much harder.
Absolutely none of this is useful to anyone.
Your “contribution” to the discussion here would be looked on fondly by the fossil fuel industry.
So far you have baselessly concluded that I personally do nothing to combat climate change, that I am attacking someone for pointing out that getting arrested over and over again is not a meaningful substitute for challenging government inaction on the international stage, and that I am (in)advertently some kind of ally to fossil fuel companies.
The very definition of a smear campaign.
Also, what’s the point of quoting something I wrote if you’re not going to address it?
Absolutely none of this is useful to anyone.
Then ignore it. Just like I’m ignoring all the personal attacks and actual hate that pointing out how climate change doesn’t need a pop star to be properly addressed is generating.
Environmental activist Greta Thunberg, who attended a demonstration, told reporters outside the court that “this is only the beginning of climate litigation.”
This was the only reference to Greta Thunberg that I could see attached to the CNN story. It appears as though she enthusiastically endorses the ruling, and is in favor of ongoing use of legal action for fighting the climate crisis.
So far you have baselessly concluded that I personally do nothing to combat climate change…
So far, on the basis of what you’ve said, I have concluded that you are a part of the drag coefficient on progress.
Quite literally, if this is you trying to be helpful, maybe sit this one out.
Environmental activist Greta Thunberg, who attended a demonstration, told reporters outside the court that “this is only the beginning of climate litigation.”
This was the only reference to Greta Thunberg that I could see attached to the CNN story. It appears as though she enthusiastically endorses the ruling, and is in favor of ongoing use of legal action for fighting the climate crisis.
…and that’s the definition of a non sequitur.
If it was your intention to have civil discussion about the court ruling or Greta’s (lack of) involvement in it, that’s what you would have led with.
you are a part of the drag coefficient on progress.
But you believe the way you’ve been treating me isn’t?
sit this one out.
No.
At least I can disagree and be critical without slandering other people.
At least I can disagree and be critical without slandering other people.
Dear Greta, this is what real climate activism looks like. Not smiling to the cameras as you get arrested, working thanklessly behind the scenes to create real awareness and enact real change.
Here’s you being smarmy and condescending as fuck. Greta endorsed the action and the ruling, and there is no signaling from the legal team stating that Greta Thunberg interfered or detracted from anything that they were striving for. They’re on the same page, and the same team. Meanwhile, you’re being divisive, and heavily implying that protesting is not an effective means of resistance.
Do you seriously not grasp why you’re getting no traction here?
Removed by mod
You have made zero difference here.
Climate activism can and should look in multiple different ways.
What a stupid argument to say to a recent teenager. You may think her methods are less effective, but action is action. Especially for a disenfranchised literal child.
Have you ever heard that “there is no such thing as bad publicity?” We have no clue if Greta helped bring attention of WHY this heat wave is occurring; they could have easily assumed it was natural to begin with.
Yay, gatekeeping.
