New Zealand is the latest country to be sued for its failure to act on climate
On June 8, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken observed, “I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.” With these words, a case brought by a group of 21 young people against the government for failing to protect their right to a safe climate was granted permission to proceed to trial. Her decision came nearly two years after the Urgenda Foundation sued the Dutch government and won – a decision which ordered the government to reduce emissions in line with scientific recommendations, by 25% from 1990 levels by 2020.
Although the governments of both countries are working to overturn these decisions, climate lawsuits are spreading rapidly around the world. Cases have been brought against the governments of Belgium, Switzerland, Norway, and Pakistan (not to mention countless others targeting corporate actors).
Next up is New Zealand, a country that is known for its ancient and spectacular natural landscapes and swaths of vast, untouched wilderness. But despite its pristine reputation, the country has a dirty secret: rising greenhouse gas emissions that make it one of the highest per capita emitters in the world, enabled by a woefully inadequate climate change policy.
That policy is about to come under sharp scrutiny in a court case being brought against the government by law student Sarah Thomson, which is due to be heard by a local court on June 26th. Sarah claims that the government’s inaction is completely out of step with the international scientific and political consensus regarding the steps needed to adequately respond to climate change.
Sarah Thomson
It will be hard for the government to argue against her position. After all, New Zealand is a part of this consensus: having accepted the findings of IPCC reports (the world’s leading scientific body on climate change whose final reports are approved by governments) and ratified the Paris Agreement under the UN climate convention.
Under the Paris Agreement, countries agreed to hold temperature rise to well under 2°C, with the aim of limiting it to 1.5°C. To do so, they committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades with the aim of reaching net zero emissions by the second half of the century. With those goals in mind, New Zealand’s commitment is laughable – a reduction of only 11% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.
This is irresponsible not only from an international perspective, but it is suicidal for New Zealand itself. As Sarah’s case points out, the IPCC has concluded that New Zealand will be hit with increasingly intense and frequent floods and wildfires if greenhouse gases continue to be emitted at current rates. And despite its relative isolation, the country can expect an influx of refugees from neighboring Pacific Island States as their islands ultimately disappear under the waves. Indeed the first climate refugees have already arrived: in 2014, a family from Tuvalu was granted residence in New Zealand on humanitarian grounds, taking into account the impacts of climate change. More requests are starting to come in, suggesting that this is only the tip of a melting iceberg.
If Sarah is successful, New Zealand’s Minister for Climate Change Issues will have to revise the government’s policy to bring it in line with the global consensus regarding the actions that developed countries must take to prevent dangerous climate change.
In the meantime, regardless of the outcome, Sarah has joined a powerful and growing global movement of citizens taking their governments to court for climate change. Lawsuits are costly, and are generally seen as a strategy of last resort. But with only a few short years remaining to bend the curve on emissions to stave off a full-blown climate catastrophe, we can expect many more to come.
Desperate times clearly call for desperate measures.