abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

21 May 2015

Author:
Urgenda Foundation

Summons in the case: Urgenda Foundation v. Kingdom of the Netherlands

Because the Netherlands and the EU have not set the minimum reduction target of 25% and are therefore not taking the minimum required measures to prevent dangerous climate change, they subject society to the potential catastrophic consequences of dangerous climate change. At the least, they are contributing to the possibility of dangerous climate change becoming a reality...The relationship between climate change and the worldwide violation of human rights has been explicitly recognised by the UN Human Rights Council in Resolution 10/4 from 2009...Despite the agreement on the facts, the government nonetheless refuses to commit to taking the actions that are necessary...By taking this position, the government denies that the reduction of CO2 is primarily a national responsibility and obligation...The defence by the Dutch State is that, in the absence of international agreement, the Netherlands ought not reduce its emissions unilaterally...

Timeline