On June 24, 2015, the Hague District Court ruled that the
government of the Netherlands must reduce the country's
greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent compared to 1990 levels by
2020.
The Urgenda Foundation, a nonprofit organization focused on
preventing climate change, brought suit against the Netherlands on
its own behalf and on behalf of almost 900 individuals, arguing
that the Dutch government has a legal duty to protect its citizens
from
climate change. In its suit, Urgenda claimed that the
government's climate policy was inadequate and breached its
duty of care to Urgenda, the other plaintiffs, and Dutch society
generally.
In addition, Urgenda argued that, considering the
Netherland's high
greenhouse gas emissions, the country was unlawfully exposing
the international community to the risk of climate change and
attendant damage to human health and the environment. On these
grounds, Urgenda sought a declaratory judgment that (i) greenhouses
gases, to which the Netherlands is one of the largest contributors
in the world, are causing damaging temperature increases that
threaten humans and the environment; and (ii) the government of the
Netherlands is liable for the country's unlawful volume of
emissions if it does not reduce national annual greenhouse gas
emissions by 25 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2020 or,
alternatively, by 40 percent by 2030. Urgenda also asked the court
to order the government of the Netherlands to make these
reductions.
In response, the Netherlands first argued that Urgenda did not have
standing because it was bringing the action in the name of current
and future generations of individuals in other countries and
because the country had not taken any unlawful actions toward
Urgenda. The Netherlands agreed that global temperature rise must
be constrained but argued that (i) its current and future climate
policies, including international agreements and European Union
standards and targets, were aimed at meeting this objective; (ii)
it had no legal obligation to take the specific measures requested
by Urgenda; (iii) Urgenda's claims were inimical to the
Netherlands' discretionary power; and (iv) Urgenda's claims
interfered with the Netherlands' system of separation of powers
and its international negotiating position.
The court agreed with Urgenda. It found that Urgenda had standing
to bring the action on its own behalf because, under Dutch law, an
environmental organization has standing to bring a claim to protect
the environment. The court, however, concluded that it had
insufficient detail regarding the individual plaintiffs and left
the question of their standing unanswered. Substantively, the court
ruled that (i) the government of the Netherlands has a duty of care
to mitigate the impact of climate change; (ii) the Netherlands
target of 14 to 17 percent reduction by 2020 is below the standard
that has been scientifically accepted for harm reduction and would
cause harm to humans and the environment, and that such harm would
be attributable to the Netherlands; and (iii) reductions of 25
percent compared to 1990 levels by 2020 are within the
Netherlands' discretionary authority and would not be
burdensome. Accordingly, the court ordered the government to reduce
the nation's greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent compared to
1990 levels by 2020.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.