Climate protection as a human right: Senior women win in Strasbourg

The Human Rights Court agrees with a group of older women: their country is not doing enough to protect the climate. The verdict is considered groundbreaking.

Big cheers: The climate seniors on Tuesday after their success in front of the Strasbourg court Photo: Jean-Christophe Bott/dpa

BERLIN taz | It is considered a groundbreaking judgment: Switzerland does not protect its citizens enough from the climate crisis. It would have to do more to limit the rise in global temperature – i.e. ensure fewer greenhouse gas emissions. The European Court of Human Rights decided this on Tuesday in Strasbourg.

The Climate Seniors, a group of more than 2,000 Swiss women who are on average 73 years old, sued. They had already sued the authorities in Switzerland – without success. Their argument: They are particularly affected by the consequences of the climate crisis; for example, as older women, they are even more at risk than the average person during heat waves. In total, the Swiss authorities assume there will be 474 heat deaths in the summer of 2022; more recent data is not yet available. In Germany, too, a lot of people died from heat that year; according to the Robert Koch Institute, there were 4,500 cases last year.

However, the Strasbourg judges also dismissed two other climate lawsuits against governments on Tuesday: Six Portuguese young people had sued more than 30 European countries, including Germany, for more climate protection. And the former French mayor of the coastal town of Grande-Synthe, Damien Carême, called for more commitment from his government to protect it against global warming.

It’s just that the Portuguese hadn’t asked about their local dishes yet. And Carême is now an EU representative living in Brussels, so the Strasbourg court no longer considers her to be a victim of the effects of climate change in Grande-Synthe. In both cases, there were formal reasons against success before the Human Rights Court.

“A victory for everyone”

The disappointment among the failed plaintiffs is great. Initially, the court even gave the Portuguese case special priority. “I was really hoping that we would win in court against all the countries,” 19-year-old plaintiff Sofia Oliveira said Tuesday. “I am of course very disappointed that that didn’t happen.” But she is happy for her Swiss colleagues. “Most importantly, in the case of the climate seniors, the court made it clear that governments must reduce their emissions more to protect fundamental rights,” said the Portuguese. “So I really think their win is a win for us too. And therefore a victory for everyone.”

The European Court of Human Rights monitors compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights agreed by the Council of Europe. In addition to EU states, this also includes other countries on the European continent. In total there are 46. Russia was excluded as a result of the war against Ukraine, but the Human Rights Court continues to hear cases against Moscow.

The Human Rights Convention is from 1950, so it comes from a time when not much was known about climate change. Accordingly, it does not contain any guidelines or regulations, including those relating to other ecological crises. Nevertheless, the Human Court has already obliged states to maintain a “healthy environment”, with reference to the right to respect for private and family life, which is guaranteed by the Human Rights Convention. In this respect, it was considered uncertain how the judges would decide.

Future generations are particularly threatened

Climate researchers also emphasize what restrictions the climate crisis means for individuals and societies. “Heat waves, droughts, floods and forest fires are already threatening human lives,” said Johan Rockström, head of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, on Tuesday after the decision was announced in Strasbourg. “As climate change progresses, these extreme weather events are increasing.”

Future generations are therefore particularly threatened by climate change. “Governments must take urgent action to reduce emissions and prevent hard-to-avoid CO₂“To balance out emissions with negative emissions,” said the scientist. “The more we use the CO₂-Budget for which exceed 1.5 degrees, the more CO₂ must also be reduced through targeted withdrawals.”

Experts see the success of the Swiss lawsuit, which officially makes climate protection a human rights issue, as significant. For example, lawyer Catherine Higham from the London School of Economics: “We now know in black and white that governments have a duty to protect their populations when it comes to climate change.”