Climate Change Violates Human Rights, Court Finds
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 тра 2024
- Want to restore the planet's ecosystems and see your impact in monthly videos? The first 500 people to join Planet Wild with my code will get the first month for free at planetwild.com/sabinehossenfe...
If you want to get to know them better first, check out their latest video: Transforming power lines into thriving ecosystems planetwild.com/sabinehossenfe...
An increasing number of people and organizations have sued their governments into acting on climate change, a emerging field of law known as "climate litigation". Are their cases successful? What are the potential consequences? Let’s have a look.
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #sciencenews #climatechange #climate - Наука та технологія
SouthPark already did an episode about this. Everyone v. Everyone. All motivated by greed.
Every time it was the hottest year on record or a record snow storm 🌨️ was after carbon admission were reduced
@@osmosisjones4912”emission” not “admission”. The reductions on specific years you are talking about are minuscule compared to the overall trend of growth. Even a year that might have seen a few million metric tons less emission than the year before is still registering many billions of metric tons more than pre-industrial levels. Not that saying this to a denier is going to change anything.
@@samkeen why did scientist have move goal to account for when colder as if thinner atmosphere leads more extremes in hot and cold. Why do cars heat up when no animals are in the car. . Is even green house GAS? Or the 5 magnifying glasses facing each other .
Either everything is a green house gas or solid or fluid because all matter affects temperature. Or theres no such thing as green house gas orhow come 100 year old pictures of Beaches and harbors and statue of Liberty. Compared to recent pictures Show no evidence of rising sea levels
@@osmosisjones4912CO2 emissions per year have never been reduced since 1850.
@@samkeenIf you are trying to have a conversation branding people deniers does not help.
"There isn't all that much one can do in a democratic system to force a government into action."
Oh, the irony . . .
That's how it works. The demokrazy makes people think they have power, but it's actually "more dollars, more votes".
Or, what this could also mean 'in a democracy, you cannot really force the majority of people to agree with you'
In reallity, both is probaply true.
Environmentalists r either corrupt or useful idiots 😒
@@DornigeChance I agree, its mental, but that's actually the case, even if it makes sense or not
That's why we need a Dictator like Trump. Oh, wait a fracking minute, Trump doesn't believe in manmade climate change and thus doesn't give a damn. Oh well.
Switzerland is not a member of the EU and the the European Court of Human Rights is not a EU institution.
It is still a European body with a tight relationship with the EU. Most aren't so naive to think there isn't an unhealthy relationship there.
I´m sure she is aware of it and she did not claim that
@@WideCuriosity Yes, that is why the Brits want to leave the humans rights, the European councial and the the UN because they are all too EU friendly. And do not pay the Brits enough interest. If at all. Poor Brits.
@@Thomas-gk42 She said "in the European Union" and then talked about Switzerland.
@@wolfgangpreier9160 A not very accurate description of us British. We HAVE already left the EU and so obviously its European Council. I'm surprised you did not know one was an institution of the other. We recently signed up to the European Court of Human Rights again but being a sovereign nation can not accept that it takes full precedence over our own law (in fact it does not when we decide so). In the UN we have a very privileged position and there is no desire to change that: surprised you did not know that also. Poor Europeans run by corrupt bureaucrats all in the interest of the German elites (and forced to obey out-of-touch woke foreign judges). Has that ever happened before?
This is not going to help. They need to be suing individual officials. Government officials in charge don't care that the government loses the case since they don't personally experience any punishment. These people need to face personal liability in order for them to change their ways.
Let's assume that the law can force a change in the atmosphere resulting in cooler temperatures and lower CO2 levels. Who will sue over the deaths of tens (hundreds?) of millions by starvation because the planet is now unable to produce enough food? Because that would be the inevitable, unavoidable result.
@@ScubaDude1960 You don't seem to know how the law works. To hold someone responsible, you have to prove ill intend.
@@magnetospin One of us doesn't understand how the law works. Would you like me to cite a hundred or so cases where someone was held responsible for something despite a clear, unarguable lack of ill intent? How about a thousand or so?
@@ScubaDude1960 No, I want you to explain the millions of them who face no consequences.
@@magnetospin Face no consequences for what? Every government action helps some and hurts others. Are you saying that every government official should be sued for each and every action he takes?
I don't see how redirecting tons of money to lawyers is going to help anyone building nuclear power plants which has been the answer to this problem for a long time now
Zero point energy technologies is the answer, not nuclear. With nuclear you have toxic waste and all that technology does is turn a steam turbine like from the 1800s
Its not the answer... Energy "only" makes 40% of our carbon output.
@@waveril5167it IS the answer as you need to replace other sources of energy with Electricity.
Energy = life.
@@dwwolf4636 No, its not the answer to climate change.
@@waveril5167 a lot better than doing nothing or giving money to lawyers or arguing
Whenever I hear a politician say "it's for the children" I immediately believe it's a lie until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it isn't.
So, the same as when they don't say "it's for the children".
Rember what Aldous Huxley had to say about knee jerk reaction of animalistic beastly carnal mammalian nurturing since sunlight causes poverty of herded by rail transit.
Do you apply that criteria to every claim?
@@Chris-hx3om Claims like "it's for the children", or "if it saves even one life", resonate like the brown note. Plausibility of a political argument is inversely proportional to the number of appeal to emotion fallacies employed.
@@mjmeans7983 that's not what I asked.
Do you apply 'it's a lie until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it isn't' to every claim? (A simple 'yes/no' question)
This is getting ridiculous. Rome is burning and everyone is more focused on hot button issues than what matters.
I genuinely believe big oil/ natural gas companies have deliberately politicized carbon emissions as a whole and muddied the waters of anthropogenic climate change in the media. Follow the money, there’s been no change in polluting energy mediums due to greed. That’s all.
yes, while the ship is sinking, we discuss the color of the paint
What matters? Climate change.
what issues, please?
Not even close to what is ridiculous, or of primary concern. The suns attacks upset Campi Flegrei, the worlds most dangerous Super Volcano so badly that they had to evacuate due to the quakes. IF that pops off? Its going to change the world. As well as being just one of many such massive effects from the sun that the world is COMPLETELY ignorant to, by design.
The insanity is unbearable.
When all CO2 emissions reach zero I'll be long gone and won't care when "be careful what you wish for" reality strikes.
@@Wee_Langside Glad you're on such sure moral ground.
@@Wee_Langside You're on your deathbed and wasting time on UA-cam comments?????
@BarderBetterFasterStronger I don't anticipate there being any change until I'm well past 4 score years at that point when the Fossil Fuel companies have shut up shop and what was wished for has come to pass. In the mean time I will continue to make comments on madness of crowds.
oh yeah? war on climate change is next
California, of course...
And that great liberal bastion Montana.
@@lavieestlenferyour comment indicates you aren't familiar with the migration of many Californians to places such as Montana, Texas, Colorado, and Arizona and the impact that's had on politics in those states.
@@FrancisFenderson Google the population of Montana and the number of people moving there from California. Check out the R-D spread in the state legislature. Stop making stuff up.
Take it from a resident of California…this State I’d going right down the toilet, and the decline is accelerated by all the nonsense “climate change” rules, regulations, laws, taxes and fees. Most of what I see is political cronyism and scams. I wish all the North American and European kool-aide drinking mindless dolts would go somewhere where their activism would make a real difference, like China or Russia. I’d love to how quickly they would be imprisoned for shutting down public roads or vandalizing art museums in those countries.
California: A turd in every punch bowl, a crime on every street, a tax on every wallet, an $8000 French Laundry lunch for every legislator's expense account.
Cash grab. It’s crazy how the courts can quantify “not enough.”
I think the court is the only place where "not enough" can actually be quantified. The problem is when they are too political or too inept to see the big picture.
@@msromike123What court quantifies politics?
@@bartsanders1553 That depends on the politics, who or what is being judged, and which court system.
Environmentalists r either corrupt or useful idiots 😒
Very scary.
Once you call something a “right” all sorts of enforceable actions become justifiable in protecting that “right.” This is how making something a “right” can paradoxically reduce human freedom.
Interesting point. Presumably there are mechanisms that help redress those unintentional effects?
You know you're right. 😅
the only "rights" you actually have, are the ones the people in power allow you to have and then its only begrudgingly . you have no god given rights. thinking differently is a waste of time and naive.
Exactly, thank you. Human rights need to be precise because they are pretty much absolute, and they often have some exceptions for that reason. EVERY human right needs to have the phrase "whatever the consequences" attached to it, because ultimately that is what they imply. If a judge rules that climate change violates human rights, there is the "whatever the consequences" implied. What does that actually mean? What if a judge rules the government is not doing enough and missing the targets? Can the government be forced to repossess all IC cars, be forced to engage in a nuclear power plant building frenzy, or (not to sound crass, but this is included in the consequences) impose a limit on the number of children being born?
@@samkeen well, in a normal country, you might have a constitution that enumerates certain rights, an amendment process that makes it possible (but not easy) to change it, and a separation of powers via government and judiciary with checks and balances to keep things from changing too quickly and radically. There are good reasons the US has been a mostly stable country for 250 years. However, I dunno how it is with these supranational institutions the EU seems fond of these days.
Economic collapse also violates human rights.
That is true, but climate change WILL lead to economic collapse. If you really cared for preventing economic collapse, then curtailing climate change needs to be part of the strategy.
The only collapse would happen from climate change, not from green economy. Perhaps you are not familiar with how many jobs are created by all new energy industries etc.
Its war fools, you really think Russia stepped into Ukraine not wanting the fight?
You know full well Russia had a hand in Covid (loosed near a US germ center huh?), misled half the world etc.. If you find yourself torn from the inside they seated here too.
Listen, the free world the good guys must maintain of position of pre-imminence. Else the world order could be used for ill/evil and we would no longer be able to decide our own fates. It is not exceptionalism, it is pure survivalism.
Lest you forget even as the allies closed on Berlin the politicians continued to line their pockets.
Criminality breeds more its been well known for thousands of years. San Franciso spent enough to build modern housing for every homeless person in California but has nothing but more tents to show for it.
It is that bro criminal, contempt and corrupt, and its coming your way too. All before gaius caesar was laid bare, crops cut with not a single stalk left standing. People affected faced a choice death or slavery. Thats long before they got to England. Slavery fueled all conquest even that of your beloved Alexander the Great.
Thats what's at stake. I know its hard to own but its very real. The world happens to full of folks who would love to rule by an iron fist. It will be said, it had to be this way to save the planet, but that's nonsense, the truth is they have enough nuclear waste on hand no mining required to fuel fast breeders for thousands of years. Servitude is the modern slavery and escapes and realizations of the American dream will be rare. All those windmills and solar panels are one bad storm away from collapse.
You don't have to plan ahead of time to know what dictators in a land of free men means in the long term. The folks in cali have no solutions and have love affairs with whales and porpoises. If LA had not laid on tops of huge oil deposits there would be no LA or southern California to speak of. It would be desert or farm lands. We are the petro dollar you fools, any who step away form that are traitors my man.
Russian agents and or harm one in the same!
@@geraldalbe6899If you really cared about climate change, curtailing the human population needs to be part of the strategy. Remember - you can be part of the solution. 🤣
There is also profit in shackling the people in debt, though… look at who profits and you’ll see who pulls the strings
Never a fan of legislation via the courts, which is how I view this trend.
What do you mean? In each example given there's a clear reason for the lawsuit where they broke some law or agreement. Courts are made exactly for the purpose of making sure the laws and agreements are followed. It's not enough to pass a law. If no one follows it then its useless.
get your head out of your arse?
The UK and US’s whole legal order is based on Courts essentially making new law all the time. Whole arguments and new rulings are based on older rulings. If anything continental Europe is far more strict when it comes to following the letter of the law. This is the main difference between common law and continental law. One is more dynamic and moldable by arguments, the other is more sequential and conservative.
Slight correction; European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is not an EU institution. It is set up by a separate treaty that has more members than the EU (46 in total, non-EU members include UK, CH, ...).
(The EU top court is called Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU))
All three need to be put out of business. Along with the UN and all NGOs.
...and needs to be disbanded and buried.
@@orsoncart802 Why?
@@MalloonTarka Their ultimate goal is to usher in a totalitarian superstate as they steadily go about destroying the member nation states whose destiny they see as mere “regions” or provinces. There is nothing democratic about any of this since there never was, nor will there ever be, a European demos (there’s barely one in Britain with the Scots). The existence of the unelected European Commission is a democratic abomination. There’s more but that’ll do for now.
@@MalloonTarka My reply to you was instantly deleted.
I think the cause-effect relation of world climate is so blurred with respect to a single small country or a company that eventually the courts can’t confirm those lawsuits.
One would hope that.
That's... not how anything works. The lawsuits aren't charging that Switzerland is unilaterally responsible for climate change so there's no need "prove" that they're "causing" climate change. You just have to demonstrate (not prove - this isn't a criminal case) that they aren't doing what they should be doing with respect to CO2 emissions or whatever other national or international commitments they've made.
The tricky part is not the suits - the suits are fine (despite the disappointment that they're necessary at all). It's the enforcement that's a problem. If you successfully sue a company and the company doesn't fulfill whatever the judgement requires, the government comes in and slaps them around until they do. If you successfully sue the government and the government doesn't fulfill the judgement requirements, there is no higher authority to slap them around. The only thing you can do in that case is try to sue them again - at your own expense - but they can just ignore the judgement again. Over and over until you run out of resources.
EPA is not an independent actor. It can only administer at the direction of Congress, and Congress has not authorized EPA to address climate change. So the kids have no case. Still, it's an interesting trend.
EPA is however responsible for regulating emissions in all industrial sectors of the economy, and those industries do listen or get fined by judges.
Those emissions directly affect climate.
Regulatory agencies in other countries also base their decisions on EPA’s, so if you’re trying to sell your products in the US or elsewhere, EPA does play into that.
That is the right wing narrative parroted over and over so as to give cover to the SC for gutting agency function by destroying the Chevron Doctrine. Placing ignorant politicians/congress in charge of every thing agencies do is little more than denying the value of expertise and substituting populism for it.
The EPA settles out of court to get around such limitations.
The radical right wing Roberts Supreme Court took away executive authority to control coal power emissions
i can see them young people happily living in their energy impoverished future
Let's sue Carbon Dioxide!
Nah, just oil companies.
@@NashHintonoil companies didn't design physics.
Indirectly hurting others is not human rights.
160 dB noise coming from a neighbor's house violates another's human rights, and so should all environments.
Direct democracy?
indirectly .. lol. Apologist bullshit.
@@rudolfsykora3505 What would you rate the situation of the el caballo mexican restaurant situation where there was an unknown dairy ingredient butter in the rice for months and had unknown symptoms like air hunger and deep breaths from it because of the incorrect response that there wasn’t any dairy?
@@redredred8408 I'm sorry but I'm not brave enough to rate that situation
@@rudolfsykora3505 I love millions of space heaters in the arctic!! So fun!!
Epa isn't responsible for climate. If it's global climate, it outside of the epa's authority anyway.
Everything exceeds the EPA's authority, because the Constitution doesn't authorize the existence of the EPA.
Excellent point, our biggest threats to climate come from outside of the US.
>valcaron : The Constitution DOES authorize Congress to create federal agencies, including the EPA. Your opinion to the contrary isn't widely shared, especially where it matters.
@@brothermine2292 Argumentum ad populum.
@@brothermine2292 it didn't say the epa can't exist. And it's not a viewpoint that the epa isn't a global agency.
And then they wonder why nobody takes the courts seriously anymore
No body in your college cult. Really it's your college indoctrinated most no longer take seriously
@@jacoa.imthorn8113 Yes, but in this very specific case it's the courts being the problem, which are the organizations that would be in charge of keeping the politicians in check
A key point being missed here is that political parties have said they would do something about climate if elected, they have been elected by the people at least partly because of those ambitions, and yet when in power they have not honoured those ambitions. They are therefore fair game for scrutiny by a judge and jury (made up of everyday people).
The key point missing in this explanation that this quite a few times is also the case with other promises made by politicians.
The essence of democracy is that after a set period you can evaluate the actions taken (or not) by the politicians in power and the through elections you can either vote them again in power or not.
If judges decide about policies, one of the 3 separate powers takes hold of another power and this way eroding an essential part of our democracy.
@@mfversluis Nope, your response is a highly reductive and utopian view of "democracy" as if the government can do whatever it likes between elections (many years apart) and elections by themselves are enough. Not true. Democratic institutions, the justice system, and collective action by the people are a vital for maintaining a healthy democracy and preventing corruption by corporate influences. There is a limits on how much a government can lie and commit fraud until the people can speak out and let a jury decide. The only people who don't want that are corrupt politicians, ruthless corporations, selfish billionaires, and fascists.
@@mfversluis That's is reductive, naive, and eutopian view of democracy. Governments are not able to do whatever they want between elections (even if that's what the most corrupt ones would prefer). The justice system, democratic institutions, and collective action are vital for maintaining a healthy democracy. There is only so much a government can ignore it's own responsibilities before people can put a case together and let a jury decide.
@@mfversluis That's is reductive, naiv3, and eutopian view of democracy. G0vernments are not able to do whatever they want between elections (even if that's what the most c0rrupt ones would prefer). The justic3 system, democratic institutions, and collective action are vital for maintaining a healthy dem0cracy. There is only so much a g0vernment can ignore it's own responsibilities before people can put a case together and let a jury decide.
@@QT5656Using the justice system to enforce policies is a form of kritarchy.
Then a small group of people can influence policies against majority wishes.
If you find my statement naive, apparently you find democracy a naive form of government.
I don't close my eyes for its flaws, but using the justice system isn't a solution that strengthens the representation of the people.
Sure, Sabine. And the WEF violates my human rights.
Gov. violates our rights starting with taxation.
Every time it was the hottest year on record or a record snowstorm. Was after carbon admissions were reduced
Whatever you know about WEF is solely from UA-cam videso. That means, you don't know anythng but hype.
@@osmosisjones4912 omg really? i would assume i you watch this channel you have a tiny bit better undertsanding on how these things work ....
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 I suppose you have counted the polar bears personally and measured the force of the hurricanes and so on. What I can tell you for sure from the site of FAO is that in the last 2 years we had the largest wheat crops ever in our history and I suppose the largest in the last 10000 years or even more.
Do you they have to prove how they were harmed?
Yes, that's why the extreme event attribution business is getting more and more relevant by the day. I find that highly problematic.
The idea that no individual weather event, regardless of how unusual or severe, can be directly connected to climate change has been accepted as valid by most researchers in this field for decades. In most jurisdictions, that creates a major legal problem for activists trying to sue governments or industries for damages.
so, greta is too old, they have found another bunch of children
@@lawrenceksyahoocom In the Australian bush fires they refused to say it was due to climate change, however after A LOT of pressure they finally said "climate change may have had some impact, although it is not the cause" I saw that simple statement get transformed into "We are seeing fires like this because of climate change".
It's just shocking seeing how these things get pencilled in just to keep the peace, but if we can sue them for it they will just say nothing at all in the future.
Yes take cheap energy away from working poor so they can freeze and starve while wealthy folks can afford the new tech and take advantage of the lower classes weakened state, should work out great since the upper class has historically been very generous to the poor and always protected their "human rights".
Solar energy literally comes from a hide of a serf due to Planck's Constant
I'll consider this to be more than kabuki theater when China is sued, loses, and pays.
You have a point. On the other hand, the Chinese economy depends for a good part on the US / European. So if we tax any products that are made in a manner that harms the climate, we indirectly influence them too.
"National Geographic" 2004 March of how they saponified hands into soap of an Xmas Sweat Shop worthy of Charles Dickens.
Actually China isn’t a huge emitter if you measure emissions on a per capita basis.
LOL!!! When I was a kid I never imagined what a clown world I would end up living in as an adult...
And what else floats like wood?
A duck!
Yes, and so, if she weighs the same as a duck then she's a . . . .
A witch! A witch!
Seems similar.
Next the judge rules that Pi = 3 and e = 3.
All this does is allow big company's to continue and little mom and pop start ups to be bared from business. Because the gov hands out wavers to their political donors(big company's like opac/shell/ exon and so on
Gee, this “Law Fare” stuff seems pretty good-for lawyers.
In fact, I think my twenty-five-year-old truck was just rear-ended by climate change…
Better Call Saul???
This is a ridiculous approach to dealing with climate change and diluting human rights with issues like this is dangerous.
We need to innovate out of the problem, make green energy a better option than fossil fuels. Anything less will not work.
We've had alternatives to fossil fuels for decades, nuclear being a clear example (we've had the technology for decades and failed to implement it).
Innovation doesn't matter while fossil fuel lobbies obstruct transition away from their productsl.
But then how will the lawyers be able to make their private jet payments and be smugly holier-than-thou?
I’m pretty sure nuclear is safer than windmill energy, all things considered
Did centuries of improvements in the efficiency of combustion engines reduce the amount of pullution emitted? My fear personally is that a Malthusian catastrophe can be delayed by technology but not prevented, and more pessimistically that the delay may make the catastrophe worse.
Also I could probably argue some climate change measures to go against human rights, so....
At least, it provides lawyers a stable income.
We tried throwing away money, we tried suing people, nothing works
so give up or keep trying? What do you think? I think we should just keep trying if the alternative is a future in hell or smthn
@@deathsinger1192 :)) very well put. Hell, the end is nigh. Repent, repent i say. What you do is you ignore the crazy guy with the carboard sign. I would say or give him some money. but the rates of the church of global warming are a bit steep. Now what to do depends on consensus of what the problem and the cause is. Now i personally think it has to do with whaling and has little if nothing to do with our carbon emissions. However that is a conversation we never had. No alternatives will be accepted by the climate lobby because they are not there to find alternatives, they are are there to sell products. Until those people get out of the way, nothing can be done
I can offer some insight into individual company lawsuits. It's because we used to not be able to find point sources of pollution and now because of isotopes, etc. We can actually figure out where the pollution comes from.
Beyond really enjoying your videos Sabine, but I also love the thumbnail images you pick :) I love the faces you make :)
"Keep your calm and keep dusting your solar panels."
This will become an idiom in next 20 years.
Environmentalists r either corrupt or useful idiots 😒
Daff
If you want to erode the concept of human rights ... you make everything human rights
Absolutely. The American Bill of Rights was strictly limited for very good reason (like Magna Carta). Once you expand it, you weaken it.
The very concept of human rights is flawed: who grants these rights to any all human beings? No one, ergo no accountability, only mindless distraction.
The reality is you're right I determined by your willingness to use violence or the threat of violence to protect those rights . If I take the watch off your wrist and you do nothing then it becomes my watch but if you fight for your watch or call a cop with the judicial system being absolute violence then that watches yours . In other words you've used the threat of violence or violence to maintain your right @@aulusagerius7127
They long ago eroded the concept. by overriding rights with new privlages.
@@aulusagerius7127It doesn't follow that they don't exist just because there is nobody who can ensure and protect them for every single human on earth.
Our existence is a violation of human rights. Average persons life fucking sucks
What concern me the most is the working class and the proletarian being crushed down. As well as developing countries.
And it's not directly climate change related, but related to "actions" (meaning rules and taxes) presented to fight against it that won't be of any effectiveness but will destroy a lot of lives.
Helping developing countries to have access to relatively clean and affordable energy will save life, energy=life, and will be more impactful than impoverishing our own working and proletarian classes. On the humanist side this is the right move, the winning move.
Brilliant review of the law. First rate. Thank you ... again!
The older i get the more i realize that i need less gov.
Actually, Libertarians who advocate for shrinking the government claim more lawsuits is the _better_ alternative.
@@brothermine2292 Those folks make grand claims but in the face of harsh tactics against citizens they don't exactly bat an eye. They also have ridiculous demands in the name of "voting with one's wallet". Still, their media will bring up things most news won't report on but should, which is useful.
Yeah, the early optimism that others are working hard to help you quickly disappears with age. Politicians are strictly in it for the kickbacks. The bigger the government the worst things get. Government is not supposed to be daycare for adults.
No actually less government makes america a lot of government makes China. An efficient government makes scandanivian countries
@@exosproudmamabear558 an efficient and large government makes Switzerland, an efficent but small government makes Sweden
One result is that lawyers get rich, and this has a cost to society, an amazingly high cost. So the only result of all these lawsuits is that we support poor, starving lawyers. We have UNICEF for children, we have WHO for people starving in African, but there are no organizations help the masses of poor desolate lawyers.
Someone should finally sue the European Union for insufficient climate action in eliminating animal agriculture and the meat/dairy industry, which together are responsible for approximately 17% of greenhouse gas emissions globally.
So far, attempts to regulate coal-fired energy and combustion transport are shamefully insufficient.
No
Do not breathe. They may sue .
What's that little emoji next to my name?
I think that it means that you are a supporter of this channel. You can breath! But when we drive a car too fast, or heat the house too much or eat too much meat, we disadvantage 8 billion people on this planet needlessly..
Yes, channel member get it, it changes with the length of your support.
@@carlbrenninkmeijer8925 Perhaps the government should place a speed limiter on your car and give you a BTU allotment based on home size (or better yet regulate how large your home is in the first place.) Then they can implement Central Bank Digital Currency and limit your purchases of animal protein at the point of sale. Isn't that the logical extension of your personal concern over how others live their lives?
@@carlbrenninkmeijer8925if you are truly concerned about humanity, why is it just fine for a handful of rich/celebrity grifters to live in luxury while their policies would have everyone else starving and freezing in the dark??
That's a planet... All channel members get an emoji next to their name, and I used planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth etc. It's hard to see though, they just look like colourful dots.
This probably won't make a difference in the obvious way, but don't count out any living thing that is backed into a corner and fighting for its existential cause. Desperation may not be precise but that's the point; all the obvious options have failed, that's why we're here.
"that's why we're here."
There is no WE. I am here to answer the stated question and the answer is "no".
It's easier for a cow, to play piano, then to teach lawyers in economics, politics and physics.
Since twenty years of suing people has done nothing to stop CO2 emissions I'll say the lawyers are winning.
As a matter of last resort, legal actions are completely understandable and don't deserve this scepticism.
It is also the prospect of further increase of legal actions that put wheels in motion. If not now, eventually it will.
Seriously….can I sue for the inconvenience of their protests that are infringing on my rights …..
Yes, you can, if you are rights are indeed infringed upon. What is the point of your question?
@@jorgis123 Well, protestors in germany have blocked roads without permission, that is indisputable violation of other peoples rights to use their property.
The same should be true on both sides:
you should not be able to sue if you can't prove direct individual infringement. Pretty hard to do with climate change, because the models aren't equiped to prove that and models are all we have.
Point in case: extreme weather is supposed to increase, but the amount of hurricanes and the amount of extreme hurricanes has been stable for the last decades, if even decreased slightly.
It is too late since generations were brainwashed by Political Correctness so industry collapsed from being Walter Pecked due to hysterias about "weapons proliferation" ignores how morality and justice are contrary to how Darwinian thermodynamics means there is no harmony in nature.
@@HedonisticPuritan-mp6xv bingo
@@thrall1342 People have a right to their property, not a right to use it.
And that tidbit about weather is false.
Fossil fuel companies were suing to prevent climate action long, long before climate activists started suing to try and provoke climate action. Companies have entire law departments - suing and defending against suits is part of "business as usual" as far as they're concerned. Activists on the other hand are usually small organizations or even individual for whom retaining just a single lawyer is financially difficult. Of course the companies have been taking advantage of the legal system far longer (and far more often).
These law suits have as much to do about environmentalism as the tobacco suits had to do with people's health. Like the tobacco cases, lawyers will make tons of money, but otherwise nothing will change, as the only goal is for lawyers to make money.
"I don't care about climate change because where I live everything is fine" and "My contribution is so little, it doesn't make any difference". Those quite popular opinions must be discussed and changed. We all have to do our bit. And if the richer countries can push the envelope, they just must!
Climate change is not a problem that we can influence, it will happen with or without us, just like it has always done.
@@jdilksjr You're welcome to read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
Any narritive to advance totalitarian authoritism will surf the courts😂
If you for doing something about global warming and you are against nuclear power, then you are not serious. Of course, we need less expensive, more efficient technology, but the complete lack of public interest shows the people making an issue of it are full of manure. I should note that our lovely hostess is quite serious and a strong advocate of improving the technology that can take so many coal fired power plants out play.
4:15 Correction: There is no direct tie to the European Union as neither is Switzerland part of the EU, nor is the European Court of Human Rights an institution of the EU, as might one might assume from the statement. (Nevertheless, the physical location of the court is indeed in the EU and the decision applies to all of the EU as well)
This is insanity.
It's not the place of a juge to make political decision, determine priority and targets. Show how sick the system is.
In most of the cases, political decisions had been made in the way of individual laws defining e.g. reduction goals. Then there was no follow up legislation to actually fulfil these now mandatory goals. That is a violation of the law, and if you break the law, you can get sued.
It is the task of politics, to set forth the rights and duties of the citizens. Judges apply & interpret the given rules. If the rules given are incoherent or contradictory, that isn't the fault of the judge. However, he may then identify the discrepancies and suggest a solution. Either way (the laws allowing different solutions, or the law overdetermining with the result of a contradiction, which requires the judge to overrule one of the laws), the judge can't avoid, to be political.
After all, it isn't his fault, that some politicians are reckless selfish jerks.
@@Misophist It is not the judge's place to rewrite the law, but to determine if it needs to be rewritten, disposed of or accepted as is.
@@jdilksjr Agreed. Alas, this doesn't preclude him to influence it in cases of doubt. It isn't uncommon, that high court judges make law by setting guard rails on what is or is not considered constitutionally feasible. It is also not uncommon, that even lower courts actively create law by deciding in cases, where the law was ambiguous, especially in the Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions, where they have the word 'case law' for that.
It reminds me a sci fi film where a protagonist said "my ancestors where a great a space faring civilization called "Americans" who worshiped animal deities called "toons" where their chief deities were rodents called "Mickey or Bugs" with "ducks for deities of frustration" so they built swamps called "wetlands" to offer financial sacrifices.
Large political groups sue in politically aligned courts, to attack others over infantile fantasies.
This video entirely misses the point of the Swiss decision. The court decision overturned a Swiss referendum where the Swiss people voted that they were not interested in requirements for stricter CO2 emissions. Why rely on democracy when you can get a judge to do your bidding? This ruling is being challenged...
If a majority of the people vote to commit genocide, and the government passes a law to enact that, any country with a functional constitution guaranteeing human rights would block that.
There are checks and balances on what pure democracy can accomplish for a _very good reason._ Go attend a civics class.
@@MalloonTarka Since CO2 has nothing to do with genocide, because it is not the thermostat for the planet, but is the victim of liars and thieves, the court is wrong to interfere with the peoples decision.
There is no Constitutional right to be free of harm from externalities of government policy. The remedy to any perceived harm is....wait for it...election of candidates who support your preferred policy.
And even more effectively just don't vote for an incumbent, ever. Multiple political terms is an open invitation to corruption.
The point of those constitutional suits is, that
- there are rights defined in the constitutions, and the governments are obligated to protect those rights, and
- there is clear scientific evidence that the measurements implemented by the governments are not enough to mitigate climate change.
But the more important suits are those, where laws have been created defining emission reduction goals, and the current measures are not even enough
to reach these legally binding goals.
@@letofregar5410has there been any interest in national emission targets being met through outsourcing those emissions to other countries? Because it goes without saying that lowering emissions that way achieves nothing.
The average voter in my country has next to no power to have government reflect what most ppl want. Oligarchy, etc...
Yes there fucking is. If the government makes a law that's unconstitutional, the court system can block it. Human rights are part of countries' constitutions.
As to the future temperature and CO2 level of the atmosphere (ignoring the fact that you can't measure the temperature of the atmosphere), there are four possibilities:
1) Warmer and more CO2
2) Warmer and less CO2
3) Cooler and more CO2
4) Cooler and less CO2
Anybody who thinks that either 2, 3 or 4 is optimal for life on Earth doesn't understand basic biology.
I'm going to sue the government and force them to burn huge piles of old tires.
What constitutional right is that, exactly?
Who should we sue over the microplastics in our blood?
Micro plastics come from oil. Sue them.
The paradox of human rights: If your government allows you to sue it for human rights violations, there is a very good chance your rights are not being violated. Conversely, countries that regularly violate human rights have no such provisions in their law.
Or, you make up fake rights in order to justify atrocities. 🕯🦋
Civilization of this clown planet took ridiculousness to another level.... 😂 We should start invoicing our comedy show to extraterrestrials who have been observing this circus for free 😅
This will surely give rise to another classic case of unintended consequences.
Cool, that you gathered this for us and thanks again for your Planet Wild support, the power line project is wonderful. My thinking about that RWE is responsible for the melting of peruvian glaciers is the brown coal, burned by subsidiary companies in power plants in western Germany. Maybe that farmer heard of it. Camping on glaciers at last would be a nice idea to save them (😂) since the alp municipalities already cover them with tarpaulins as protection against the summer heat(🤣).
Yes, I would agree that RWE had some doing in it. It just seems so random. What about all the other companies who've been burning coal? In any case, I've been meaning to look into this for a long time, so this recent court decision was a good excuse to talk about it!
I think it is very important that the courts deal with those issues, since our laws are not equipped to answer these questions of responsibility for climate change or the human right to live on a habitable planet. All of society needs to find a solution for the mess we are in and the judicial system is part of our society, so it's about time they adress these issues.
Carbon dioxide doesn't increase temperature 🤒 it stabilizes it blocking heat both ways. If carbon dioxide traps heat 1 way Venus would have lost atmosphere within 1000 years billions of years ago. Every time it was the hottest year on record or a record heat wave. Was when carbon admission were reduced.
Many of those climate change models violate thermal dynamics
The mess that we are in is not a climate crisis, it is a brain crisis. We are being pushed down a path to oblivion by liars that are trying to convince us that there is a crisis to fix.
Like so much else, there is something weirdly reductionist going on with these lawsuits. Which I suppose necessary for a five year old to be a plaintiff in a court case which is obviously too complicated for them to understand.
It is just madness . We no longer have any sense.
If you want to turn some really shoddy science into real-world action, then take the case the court.
Lawyers are the last people on earth that we should be trusting to pass judgements about the validity of scientific claims.
When the science doesn't support your position, you move to the courts.
Science supports their position, but the politicians don't give a shit about science. That's why they're in court.
Were the judges judging on law or their personal views
Externalities are by definition harms, and are clearly rampant.
The government paying for the fault of companies who pump out Co² doesn't insentivise these companies to reduce Co² emissions.
The money that comes as a compensation for climate change comes from the taxes you pay. It's your own money you get back as a compensation.
No that assumes money exists outside governaments :
The governament prints money and gives it out for valuable things and then subsequently removes it from the economu trough taxes to avoid inflation ...
The governament subsidizes fossil fuels for billions ...
So they better stop subsidizing those if they want any hope of dealing with climate change
That so nice guy syndrome holding feminist accountable for what they promised you for betraying your gender and what power you had and basic rights
Taking the climate to court, how progressive. Can plants sue for the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Why do you think plants are CO2 starved?
Why would plants sue for lack of CO2? Atmospheric CO2 continues to rise therefore there is clearly enough in the atmosphere for plants to use. Given that almost all plant species alive today evolved at much lower levels of CO2 it shouldn't be surprising.
@@QT5656he isn’t evil man, he just thinks we scientific people have some monetary motives. He just doesn’t see what we are really doing. He doesn’t see we just try to warn humanity. Sadly, he will only understand once his whole life earned money was destroyed by the house which was catapulted away by another deadly tornado..
I hope that suing will stop the governments and companies to act "environmentally unbenignly" in the future!
Quick, arrest the Cretaceous!
What even is this comment section lol. I can't even tell if it's paid trolls or just fools. You'd think that all these people who prefer to FEEL like they know better than everyone, than actually learn new things, would have stopped paying attention to this channel a long time ago.
It's really weird : /
I have not been paid!
Excuse me, I watched the video and I agree with most of the comments here, this sentence is ridiculous at best
@@juimymary9951 Unacceptable & inexcusable. Go read up on climate change.
@@Misophist trust me I probably read up on it more than you have. And I can say with full confidence that this ruling is ridiculous at best and a political stunt at worst, it will do exactly nothing to fix the issue and it won’t pressure any relevant country to do better.
Sue the government for not providing what's promised. Why haven't we thought about it earlier?
That is nice guy syndrome. Holding feminist accountable for what promised you in return for betraying your gender and what ever power you had and basic rights
@@osmosisjones4912interesting segue, tells us more 🍿
I always wonder what happens when the government fines themselves over violations of their own laws. Where does that money come from and where does it go?
In the end it all boils down to a question of power.
When I produce CO2 ,
I disadvantage 8 billion people a little bit, and more in the future
There, you see? Its Carl, he's the reason we're in this mess.
But you also help 8 billion trees as well
@@dr_shrinker Well, that is true for the trees that survive our onslaught.
@@dr_shrinker Well, that is true for the trees that survive our onslaught.
@@dr_shrinker 3.04 trillion give or take.
I was going to write a long blurb on this subject here but will satisfy myself with this. I work in oil and gas, have done since 1980 (I will dispose of myself immediately upon finishing this). I know what it takes to power this civization: energy sources, and the infrastructure to get it to end users. All I see from net zero and stop oil now advocates is magical thinking. There ain't no free lunch.
Yes, but the overwhelming consensus of those who study climate change is that human activity is causing a rapid rise in global temperatures worldwide. One way or another, human civilization will stop pouring greenhouse gasses into the biosphere. Civilization can't take the heat.
and 8 billion people rely on oil to survive. Remove the oil and how many people will be dead in a week/month/year?
This is why I'm giving up voting. It's useless if everything gets overturned by some court, or quango or lobby group and simply puts a democratic fig leaf on a corrupt system.
Maybe I should sue the moon for all of those dark nights when I tripped over. Remember, everything is always something or someone else's fault.
Can we sue the corporations doing most of the polluting?
CO2 is not pollution its plant food...
@@manoo422 Why don't you go educate yourself on the greenhouse effect? There are good explanations for schoolchildren floating around here on UA-cam. Us adults will be waiting for you when you get back.
@@manoo422 Too much co2 kills plants. Look it up. 1000 ppm leads to carbon dioxide toxicity.
@@MalloonTarka I wont be taking advice from gullible 🐑🐑🐑 who get all their opinions from MSM propaganda...
@@MalloonTarka Why don't you educate yourself on how things really work and do your own thinking, instead of parroting the liars that are ruining us.
It's absurd to have courts deciding what should be a political decision.
Courts decide if the law/agreement is followed. Political decision was made when that law was passed/agreement was made.
@jozefmitro1017 that's how it's supposed to be. Unfortunately it's not always done that way.
it reminds me of "Late Philp J. Fry" episode of "Futurama" where they sing "When humans are enslaved to Giraffes....due to treetops stripped of their leaves..." to a tune of "In The Year 2525" by Roger and Evans with nods to video arcade game "Joust", H. G. Wells, 1930s "Time Oscillator" about after a then coming WWII, and theory of how entropy could eventually bounce back our universe.
Ah, yes. Sue them, and when the lawyers don't show up, sue them!
Germany sure needs to get sued, especially after shutting down their nuclear reactors based on counterfeit documents
The reason was a wide-spread anti-nuclear sentiment in Germany, especially after the Fukushima accident but also before that. Politicians in Germany don't influence public opinions on matters a lot. But journalists and organizations do. Therefore, if you want to sue the people responsible then I'd rather look at "environmental organizations" and journalists who made up "environmental reasons" for their anti-nuclear stance. There are even reports that Russia has stirred anti-nuclear sentiments in Germany. Now whether these reports are true or not I don't know but it 100% fits the Russian modus operandi and must be investigated.
There have been no "counterfeit documents". Please read other media outlets as well to educate yourself.
Oh, cut the crap already. Science that advises to close nuclear reactors, or scientists that actually shut up when asked is USELESS.
I'm sure all the blue jeans manufacturer's will now get sued, as now the pants I wear every day are being blamed for "climate crisis."
Hey Sabine, big fan of your channel here! you're my favourite voice when I'm driving alone, love your content ❤
Suggestion: I'd really like to hear your opinion on the so-called Wolfram Physics Project, can you make a video about it? 😃
thank you!
This makes me happy. Lobbying is, essentially, destroying the environment. This gives a small incentive to serve the public, rather than corporations with vast amounts of money. I know, "small", but it's better than nothing.
These are the same people that have been happily using fossil fuels all their lives and would be the first people to start screeching about how fossil fuels are a necessity and a human right the moment gas and electricity are no longer available to them.
You either sue 600 thousand more times or get a good lawyer or sue the scientists who knows nothing but complaining.
When you say you'll cover the first month if the person is one of the first 500 to use the code. Are you covering it with your personal money? Or did you negotiate some kind of deal to make it free for your first 500 code users?