0:01

There have been a couple of major

0:03

climate accountability stories over the past week

0:05

that I want to bring you updates

0:07

on. First, the Carbon

0:10

Majors report has been updated, and

0:12

it found that the world's top emitters

0:15

have just emitted more since the signing

0:17

of the Paris Climate Accord in 2015.

0:21

Admissions have gotten even more concentrated in

0:24

that time, too, with only 57 fossil

0:26

fuel and

0:29

cement producers linked to 80% of

0:33

global fossil CO2 emissions produced since

0:35

the Paris Agreement was signed. The

0:39

report is now part of Influence

0:41

Map, which tracks lobbying efforts to

0:43

delay climate policy. And I spoke

0:45

with both longtime Carbon Majors author

0:47

Richard Headey and Influence Map program

0:50

manager, Dan Van Acker,

0:52

about this update. That

0:54

updated report is sort of the perfect setup

0:56

for the other story we're going to dig

0:58

into today, which is a historic ruling

1:00

from the European Court of Human

1:02

Rights. The court ruled in favor

1:05

of several older Swiss women who

1:07

sued their government over its weak

1:09

climate commitments and lack of action

1:11

on climate, arguing that it

1:13

was violating their right to a healthy environment.

1:15

It's often referred to as the Swiss Grannies

1:18

case, and it's a really big deal that

1:20

they won. I've got Lucy

1:22

Maxwell, co-director of the Climate Litigation Network,

1:24

with me today to talk about that.

1:27

It's all coming up after this quick break. I'm

1:30

Amy Westervelt, and this is Drilled. If

1:40

you're listening to this show, you

1:43

are probably at least climate curious.

1:46

One thing that I get asked all

1:48

the time is, okay, I understand that

1:50

this is a big problem. We

1:53

need to act now, but what can I do? The

1:56

climate crisis can feel like such

1:58

a huge, overwhelming problem. which

2:00

is why this April, former

2:02

US Vice President Al Gore

2:05

and the climate reality are

2:07

holding a free training on what's happening

2:09

with the climate and what we can

2:11

personally do. And actually, I'm

2:13

going to be part of that training. It

2:15

all happens in New York City, April

2:18

12th through the 14th, and it's going

2:20

to be big, really big. If

2:22

you want to know what climate change means

2:24

for your future, your career, you're part of

2:26

the country or the world, this training is

2:28

for you. You'll get to

2:31

hear straight from former US Vice President

2:33

Al Gore and a lineup of incredible

2:35

thought leaders, scientists, experts, and more at

2:37

the top of their fields. I'll

2:40

be doing a training on climate

2:42

disinformation as part of this. You'll

2:45

come away with a real understanding of what's

2:47

happening to the planet and the skills to

2:49

make a difference. If you

2:51

complete the training, you'll join the Climate

2:53

Reality Leadership Core, a community of nearly

2:55

50,000 change makers

2:58

all over the world. To

3:01

learn more and

3:03

apply, visit climaterealityproject.org/new

3:05

dash York. That's

3:08

climaterealityproject.org/new dash

3:11

York. I hope

3:13

to see you there. Hi,

3:28

it's Amy here, and I'm excited

3:31

to tell you about a new

3:33

podcast from APM Studios and Western

3:35

Sounds called Ripple. Such

3:37

a good idea this show. In

3:40

the aftermath of major disasters,

3:42

there is always a swarm

3:44

of media attention. The public

3:46

is captivated by breaking news,

3:48

there's coverage and controversy, and

3:51

then the cameras and

3:53

the public just move on. But

3:55

the stories are not finished. Ripple

3:58

is a new series investigating the

4:00

stories we were told were over.

4:02

In season one, the reporting team

4:05

traveled hundreds of miles across the

4:07

Gulf Coast to learn the ongoing

4:09

effects of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon

4:11

oil spill, which are still impacting

4:13

many coastal residents more than a

4:16

decade later. You can

4:18

listen now to Ripple wherever you get your podcasts.

4:31

For people that have read the other

4:33

carbon majors report, what should

4:35

people be looking out for in this one? So

4:38

yeah, the main obviously new

4:41

thing that Infosys app is bringing is

4:43

we've updated the data fully to 2022

4:45

reporting. So

4:48

the primary area of focus in

4:50

our research has kind of focused on that

4:52

new data and the way

4:54

we framed that is largely in assessing

4:56

the period after the Paris Agreement at

4:58

the end of 2015. So all the data

5:01

from 2016 through 2022 and

5:04

comparing the production and emissions data in

5:06

those years compared to both kind

5:09

of the recent period before the Paris

5:11

Agreement, but then also just more widely

5:13

in the historical context compared to the

5:15

previous findings. Top line, what we

5:17

find is some similar, but maybe

5:20

even more dramatic statistics than what have been

5:22

published from the data in the past, maybe

5:24

this very concentrated top line group of

5:27

just 57 producers being linked to 80%

5:30

of global fossil fuel and cement CO2 emissions since

5:32

the Paris Agreement. I was really struck by

5:34

that too. The other thing that jumped out

5:36

was just this almost even split

5:39

between the investor owned and state

5:41

owned entities. And I

5:43

wonder, I don't know if that's something

5:45

that has been analyzed before, but I'm

5:47

seeing an increased awareness

5:50

of the trickiness of

5:54

dealing with the state owned entities and

5:56

how different it is from the investing.

6:00

So yeah, I wonder if you can speak to that a little bit.

6:03

Yeah, absolutely. I'm not sure if Rick will have thoughts

6:05

or two, but I can pick off on the data

6:07

side. So definitely we wanted to highlight that just because

6:09

it is interesting that obviously the

6:12

data can be used to track

6:14

the differences there. Notably,

6:16

investor-owned companies account for a slightly

6:18

smaller percentage since the Paris Agreement

6:20

than the nation state and state-owned

6:23

entities, although obviously still being very

6:25

significant in global emissions. In

6:27

particular, where we do highlight it in

6:29

the report is that in coal production

6:32

in particular, we're seeing investor-owned companies'

6:34

coal production is slightly on

6:36

the decline while state-owned and

6:38

nation-state producers really continue to

6:40

considerably ramp up their coal

6:42

production. That's really where we're

6:44

seeing kind of a shift

6:46

between the companies in terms

6:48

of supply dynamics. Rick, I don't know if

6:50

there's anything you want to address from a

6:52

larger or a wider perspective there. Well, we

6:55

don't have reserves data in the carbon-majors database,

6:57

but the state-owned entities own the vast

7:00

majority of the proven recoverable oil and gas

7:02

reserves. It underscores

7:04

the importance of keeping state-owned

7:06

oil and gas and coal

7:08

companies in the carbon-majors

7:10

database and focus for policymakers around the

7:12

world, whether it be charging them reparations

7:16

fees or other ways of

7:18

helping entities pay for climate

7:20

damages. They should definitely be in the

7:22

mix, not only

7:24

their obfuscation and

7:26

statements of competence, but also how

7:29

they invest even

7:31

more capital into

7:33

new reserves and new production capacity.

7:36

Almost every company in the Middle

7:38

East, Persian Gulf, are investing billions,

7:40

about tens of billions in expanding

7:43

capacity. I know you've

7:45

been looking at the

7:47

carbon-majors for a long time. What's

7:49

been jumping out to you in

7:51

the last

7:54

few years as there's

7:56

been a little bit of movement on the policy

7:58

front? I see more and more. scientists

8:00

and climate modelers being interested in

8:02

our results provided

8:05

some data to people who are doing key

8:09

to wave analysis and

8:11

attributing responsibility for that. There

8:13

are emerging programs that

8:16

I can't quite talk about at this point, but a lot

8:18

of scientists and policy makers to

8:20

some degree are interested in this data so

8:22

they can press the case against

8:25

particular votes stay known

8:27

as well as invest in companies. Apologies if

8:29

this already exists and I have missed

8:32

it. Is there or are there plans to

8:34

be a methane majors

8:36

database anytime soon? Good question.

8:38

I mean well within carbon majors so

8:40

we do track the

8:43

methane emissions of

8:45

some of the fossil fuel production processes at

8:47

least on our side otherwise it'll probably remain

8:49

at that for now. I don't know Rick if

8:51

you have plans to expand your

8:53

research into methane. Well

8:56

we do include estimated methane

8:58

emissions in our database so

9:00

we report on gigatons of

9:02

CO2 equivalent to

9:04

their scope on emissions but

9:06

we don't we don't link

9:09

those to company declared methane

9:11

emissions because I find those not

9:13

plausible. Yeah. When you have

9:16

a methodology to assign or estimate

9:19

and quantify methane emissions on the basis

9:22

of global oil and gas

9:24

coal emissions on a

9:26

per ton basis. I'm

9:29

not saying that's absolutely accurate. I'm

9:31

certain it isn't but at least we

9:34

have a estimate of attributed methane emissions

9:36

that aligns more with global emissions. Then

9:39

I see like the statements made by oil

9:41

and gas companies themselves tend to be underestimated.

9:46

But I'm not planning a separate methane

9:48

database now. You mentioned

9:50

that more scientists are interested

9:52

in incorporating this data into

9:54

attribution studies and things like

9:56

that. Are you also seeing

9:59

more Or academic researchers and players

10:01

and folks in the litigation space

10:03

using this data as Lol. Yeah.

10:07

I've I've provides data to

10:09

are a number of the

10:12

cases know why? I mean

10:14

there were reports on in

10:17

Puerto Rico, for example, in

10:19

Montgomery County. Oh,

10:21

and some state level of the turned

10:23

his generals efforts in that regard. Than

10:27

on the science and saw

10:29

didn't report woods coverage exclusionary

10:31

and and others. Climate

10:35

Reparations. Song

10:37

which I think he might have seen

10:39

but a smile or sunday that report

10:41

yeah no I thought other so interesting

10:43

and then we editor of Point with

10:45

Michael Grass home in Italy on estimating

10:48

quantifying emissions. And reparations to

10:50

the leaving twenty oil and gas

10:52

com companies which then I saw

10:54

it and affidavits on behalf of

10:56

Greenpeace Italy and recall man with

10:58

a court in around. In

11:00

their case against and I. To.

11:03

Listen to some and as for

11:05

come on number different levels there

11:07

are many scientists come to me

11:10

Answer: would like to massage you

11:12

dated see how. How

11:14

we can use that to

11:16

quantify. Attribution to.

11:19

Curb. Majors of various heat waves.

11:21

So they've done a thorough search

11:23

for he to have aids tie

11:25

that to to club measures emissions.

11:29

And. I'm sure they have a lot more work.

11:31

I'm a download know that influence? not as a

11:33

month com. I'll have an update as. I

11:36

find a sad about. The. Increase

11:38

in the seven years since terrorists

11:40

compared to the seven years before

11:42

at the elections are saying and

11:44

we don't have a handle on

11:46

those firemen Sex change bomb as

11:49

your well now so yeah. I'm curious

11:51

what you both think is behind that. I

11:53

know I'm asking you to. To.

11:55

speculate but especially since influence map

11:57

does look at the lobbying component

12:00

well. What do you think is driving

12:02

that? Is there a sense that,

12:04

like I know I'll just say anecdotally that it seems

12:06

like a lot of the oil

12:09

companies are kind of racing to tap

12:12

their resources while the getting is

12:14

good. So I wonder if that's

12:16

driving any of that. I

12:18

think you're spot on. That's what's behind it.

12:21

They're good at extracting carbon and selling at

12:23

the best profit. And

12:25

they are not yet concerned

12:27

enough about the potential of

12:29

stranded assets based on

12:31

the assumption that the world will

12:34

not act quickly enough to curtail

12:36

production. And so they don't see

12:38

a stranded asset issue. At

12:40

least not the Western companies do, which have oil

12:43

and gas reserves that might range from six

12:45

years at current production to 12 or

12:49

14 years. The horizon for

12:52

the existing reserves is fairly

12:54

short. And I feel like they can outlast the

12:57

dragons that are coming from society

13:00

around with more than 100 years worth

13:02

of reserves. That's a different population. I

13:04

know. I do wonder if that's like, because

13:06

I noticed that the state owned ones have

13:08

ramped up more than the investor

13:11

owned. And I wonder if that's part of

13:13

it, this desire to kind of stockpile

13:17

wealth from those reserves as

13:19

much as possible before they

13:22

lose value. The

13:25

fortune line, they would have to be

13:27

concerned about the world getting stuff together.

13:30

And curtail demand. You're

13:33

the boy. Improving the

13:36

efficient use of carbon or

13:38

substitutes or alternative technologies like

13:40

in transportation. Just

13:42

to make the link back to what

13:44

you said, Amy, on that point of

13:46

transition happening is obviously super dependent on

13:48

effective policy. Exactly.

13:50

That gave us research. We actually made the

13:52

link in the report highlighting some of the

13:54

largest producing entities in carbon majors. We Just

13:57

see so many links to those companies being.

14:00

Drug companies when it comes to

14:02

engaging with climate policy globally and

14:04

that's true but foreign investor and

14:06

companies who are very actively in

14:08

case but also for some of

14:10

the state owned companies where we

14:12

have data that and to be

14:14

less transparent but. Can. Take even

14:17

more instructive positions they are. We really

14:19

do ceilings. There are other cities companies

14:21

are are working against Of these policy

14:23

processes that would enable are required to

14:26

enable the transition. Where.

14:28

Don't see shareholder resolution. Some.

14:31

Having enough of an impact on me,

14:33

I was hoping. More.

14:36

Pauses. Been settled a response instead

14:39

on. At some point large

14:41

investors and an express seconds. May

14:44

be Us companies to funnel more of

14:47

their. Capital. Resources and

14:49

two alternatives than and they can continue

14:51

brought said in some other than my

14:53

intensity carbon. I was really

14:55

surprised that in the top ten company.

14:57

Has since sarah that only to

14:59

add in that surround companies are

15:01

in not less. It's. Really interesting

15:03

to They fill a lot of the the. Policy.

15:07

Com in litigation

15:09

efforts underway. Target

15:12

the investor owned company is and.

15:14

I'm not either. No I haven't seen

15:17

a lot that has figured out how

15:19

that how to deal with this state

15:21

owns problems. Maybe. Danny No

15:23

Substance is instance. I mean we do

15:25

access to some extent where these companies

15:28

are actors in and is him at

15:30

all. see that it's interest their own

15:32

policy areas. for example, Saudi Aramco them

15:35

from their act of another policy areas.

15:37

And and but that's largely as I

15:39

mentioned black box. Yeah, they're very intransparent.

15:41

Where we do have data, they're highly

15:44

oppositional to our any sort. December says

15:46

climate policies. it's we try to to

15:48

trace awareness of that among a policy

15:51

makers and campaign groups. The Isis. Is

15:53

is definitely a difficult problem that. Can

15:55

you talk through some of the methodology

15:58

in terms of attributing. emissions,

16:00

especially given that so many of

16:03

these companies have joint ventures. We

16:06

don't have access to the required

16:09

data to look into every joint

16:11

production agreement and joint ventures. And

16:14

so we take the companies at face

16:16

value for what they report as their

16:18

net equity production. So they might operate

16:21

or produce oil and the Persian Gulf

16:23

only has net equity of a

16:25

certain percentage of it. We say

16:27

we're reporting there are no reports, so we

16:29

base our estimates on what they report as

16:31

equity production. Got it. That makes sense. Like

16:34

it's a bit of a state owned company, but

16:37

it's, you know, I think we have a pretty

16:39

rigorous method for quantifying that

16:41

stuff too. But I wanted to mention too,

16:43

Amy, that oil and

16:45

gas companies are pretty fast silent

16:47

communication to the public and

16:50

trying to convince the public

16:53

that they are green

16:55

oil companies if you all that's probably overstating it

16:57

on their behalf. That

16:59

they're taking climate change seriously

17:02

and that they're reducing their emissions and

17:04

they can declare that the emissions that

17:06

they are responsible for, they were reducing

17:08

dramatically in line with the Paris Agreement.

17:12

But of course, as you well know, better than

17:15

anybody else is that they're not

17:17

looking at their scope three production related emissions

17:19

and only claim progress. Albeit

17:23

fair enough, they're making good progress in their

17:25

regard on reducing scope one and scope two

17:27

emissions. You can see ExxonMobil, for example, having

17:29

reduced their scope one and

17:31

two emissions from 125 million tons

17:34

about 10 years ago to around

17:36

a hundred or 105 million

17:39

tons now still as visible over

17:41

in the United States. That's a pretty

17:43

big number just for scope one and scope two. Yeah.

17:46

And you add three at 450 to 500 million tons.

17:51

I've noticed this very strange

17:53

increase in the investor

17:55

owned companies. Shell has done

17:58

this with us now and Exxon. and

18:00

I think BP as well, pushing a lot

18:02

of claims that they're investing more

18:04

in quote unquote

18:06

low carbon solutions and

18:08

then basically including gas in

18:11

that. I'm curious if you're seeing the

18:13

same thing and what you think of that. Well,

18:16

I've been more sanguine about natural

18:18

gas if their fugitive methane rate

18:20

was lower. It

18:23

looks like Equinor, for example, producing

18:25

completely offshore and using

18:28

renewable electricity to run a lot

18:30

of their facilities, their natural

18:32

gas is pretty clean. But most

18:34

of the companies, gas prom on down. I

18:37

don't know. So I

18:39

would like to see them put much more

18:41

emphasis in reducing their fugitive and deliberately

18:44

invented methane. Then

18:48

I could buy a bit more

18:50

into the notion that that's a pretty suitable term.

18:54

To low tech technology, which has a ways

18:56

to go. That's an agreement

18:58

as a fossil fuel and fossil gas. But

19:02

most natural gas systems

19:04

leak methane all the way from

19:07

production to their own stove. You

19:09

know, investment in clean

19:11

technology by Shell and

19:14

others. I think

19:16

it's probably a good public gambit to phrase

19:19

it that way. We certainly know that they're

19:21

not investing nearly enough into

19:24

really low carbon technologies. Exxon

19:27

has abandoned its more carbon-based aspects of that. And

19:29

we don't see companies being very serious. I

19:31

don't think they take the climate problem to be

19:33

very serious. That they're busy making money and

19:35

will continue to do that for as long as

19:38

they can. Yeah, I

19:40

think we also have some data on our

19:42

side to back that up. I mean, if

19:44

we look at the end of 2022, we

19:47

compared a lot of the capital

19:49

expenditure into green, supposed

19:51

to green investment compared

19:53

to fossil fuels, as well as what

19:55

that looks like on the marketing side. And there's

19:57

such a big disconnect in terms of... the

20:00

level at which these companies are

20:02

putting out messaging around the importance

20:04

of transition and how they're contributing

20:06

to it versus then actually looking

20:08

at, as you say, their capital

20:11

expenditure. First of all, how they

20:13

compare green versus fossil fuels, but

20:15

then also what they even define

20:17

as green is often either not

20:19

very transparent or in many cases

20:21

includes unproven technologies like carbon capture,

20:23

reliance on offsets, or as

20:25

you say, even just including gas or certain types of

20:28

gas technologies in that investment

20:32

category. I think at the time we

20:35

highlighted that perhaps the European

20:37

majors were slightly better in this than

20:39

the US ones, but

20:41

even now we know we seem like,

20:43

I think it's BP and Shell have

20:45

both rolled back their emissions targets. So

20:47

even there, we're now kind of seeing

20:49

a reversal of that. Yeah,

20:52

I'm curious about that because it

20:54

seemed to me like the European majors were

20:56

a little bit more

20:59

worried, let's say, about being

21:01

sued around reneging

21:03

on Paris commitments. Does that seem

21:05

like it's gone

21:07

away or they're just like, who cares, we're

21:10

making more money, so we'll deal with the

21:12

lawsuit. Yeah, I

21:14

think it's tough to say. I don't know

21:16

if you have higher level insights, but I

21:18

think it probably comes back to what we

21:20

were talking about earlier where maybe a few

21:22

years ago it seemed like there was a

21:24

wider push for the transition also from the

21:26

investor side and now that

21:29

we are seeing profits rising again in oil

21:31

and gas, these companies are trying to continue

21:33

to reach out those profits while they

21:35

still can. One last question

21:38

for both of you too is that given

21:40

this data, it feels very hard for

21:42

the industry to claim that they're on track

21:44

or part of the transition and all that

21:46

stuff. How would you like to see people

21:49

use this data to push them towards actually

21:52

getting on track with those commitments?

21:54

I would like to see large investors

21:56

and shareholders bring it up at

21:58

their annual meeting. and many

22:01

shareholders have been trying to do, but I think that

22:04

is a leverage point.

22:06

Their own investors will raise objections

22:08

to their capital investment plans as

22:10

not respected in the climate science.

22:14

There are other ways of doing that, but shareholders have

22:16

an important role to play. Yeah,

22:20

I mean, I agree with that. I think

22:22

also the power of the data is that

22:24

it can be used in so many different

22:26

ways to hold these companies to account. So

22:28

also kind of the legal side that we

22:30

talked about that Rick mentioned and the academic

22:32

side of the campaign to use this data

22:35

as well as the financial sector.

22:37

That is where the power is

22:39

in using this data so widely, but

22:41

these different stakeholders who have them are

22:44

in their own different mechanisms. Probably. The

22:46

product information hazard placards a gas pump.

22:49

So this means when

22:51

this gas pump causes greenhouse

22:54

gas emissions, here's what it is for

22:56

a gallon pump. Yes, but

22:58

I think we need more public warnings like we're

23:00

the only cigarette tax. Meanwhile,

23:03

in Europe, a landmark ruling from

23:06

the European Court of Human Rights that's

23:08

likely to have major ripple effects throughout

23:10

the European Union. This is

23:12

interesting in the context of the Carbon Major's

23:15

report, particularly given the

23:17

growing divide between investor owned and

23:19

state owned oil companies on the

23:21

question of energy transition. Obviously,

23:24

the governments of Saudi Arabia, the

23:26

United Arab Emirates and Qatar are

23:28

not beholden to the European Court

23:30

of Human Rights. But Qatar

23:32

is the number one supplier of

23:34

gas to Europe at the moment

23:37

and has successfully locked in outrageously

23:39

long contracts there. And the US

23:41

is right behind them battling

23:43

for number one. The European

23:45

market is shifting and it's

23:48

going to shift even more as governments

23:50

are increasingly forced to actually

23:53

comply with their climate

23:55

commitments. That's going to have a

23:57

big impact on suppliers in both the Middle East and the

23:59

Middle East. the US and could

24:01

also really shift the math in Asia,

24:03

which will be the target customer for

24:05

fossil fuels that Europe doesn't

24:07

want. All that

24:10

from one case in Switzerland that

24:12

has been somewhat patronizingly referred to

24:14

as the Swiss Grannies case.

24:17

Here's climate litigation center co-director

24:19

Lucy Maxwell with more on

24:21

that case. Yeah,

24:24

my name is Lucy Maxwell. I'm the co-director

24:27

of the Climate Litigation Network. Can

24:29

you just outline briefly the

24:31

cases that we were expecting rulings

24:34

on today? Right,

24:36

well there were three cases the European Court

24:38

of Human Rights was giving its

24:40

ruling today. The first was a

24:42

case brought by senior women in

24:44

Switzerland against the Swiss government because

24:47

of its weak climate action, especially around its

24:49

2030 target. There was a case

24:52

brought by Portuguese young people against 32

24:55

governments in Europe, looking at

24:57

each of their actions when it comes to climate

24:59

change and finding that they all fall

25:01

short, the best available time. And

25:04

finally there was a case brought by a

25:06

French mayor against the French government, again

25:09

because the government had failed to

25:11

meet its own targets to combat

25:13

climate change. And they were all

25:15

alleging that those failures by their

25:17

governments amount to violations

25:19

of their human rights because

25:22

of the impacts that climate change will have

25:25

now and in the

25:27

future on the enjoyment of health, family

25:29

and private life and their mortality.

25:33

And we're going to dig into the details but at just

25:35

a high level can you tell me what

25:38

these rulings said about each of those cases?

25:42

So the European Court of Human Rights

25:44

upheld the Swiss senior women's climate case

25:47

and fundamentally the court found that

25:49

the climate crisis is a

25:51

human rights crisis, that governments

25:53

have legal obligations to take much

25:55

stronger action to protect people's human

25:57

rights and in this case that the The

26:00

Swiss government's efforts to reduce emissions were

26:02

not in line with best available science.

26:05

They didn't have a clear plan of

26:08

targets for the period up to 2030,

26:10

and they had not even met

26:12

their own targets. And

26:14

so for all of those failures, the

26:16

European court found that that constituted a

26:19

human rights violation because the state was

26:21

not protecting its people from

26:23

the harm posed by climate change. And

26:26

it was looking particularly at the harm that senior

26:28

women in Switzerland would

26:30

experience because of the heat waves and

26:32

other impacts that would happen in that country. So

26:36

it found that the Swiss government had violated

26:38

its human rights obligations, and now the government

26:40

has to go away and create

26:42

a robust and science-based

26:45

climate plan, especially before 2030. And

26:49

that's what we're all focused on. And we're

26:51

in action now to ensure that by 2030,

26:54

we have massively slashed emissions in

26:56

order to protect all of our futures. In

26:58

the Portuguese youth climate case,

27:00

the European court found that

27:03

it wasn't possible for the Portuguese young

27:06

people to jointly sue 32 governments

27:09

together in Europe at

27:12

this European human rights

27:14

court. What the court found

27:16

was that because the young people are living

27:18

in Portugal, it was necessary for them to

27:20

take their case only against

27:22

the Portuguese government and back in

27:25

the national courts. The

27:27

court just was not willing to accept

27:29

that the nature of climate change, because

27:32

everyone contributes to it, means

27:34

that it's possible to sue multiple governments

27:36

together. And this was quite

27:38

a new and complex argument that the

27:41

Portuguese young people were making. But

27:43

unfortunately, the court did not accept that part of it.

27:46

And they didn't go further to look at any of the

27:48

other aspects of the claim. But they

27:50

basically said, if you want to

27:53

bring your case, you can bring it against Portugal, but

27:55

you must go back to the national courts to do

27:57

that. In the French mayor's case, the

27:59

European court... Court of Human Rights found that

28:02

he was living in France and he could sue

28:04

the French government, but unfortunately he

28:06

no longer lived in the place in

28:09

France where he was alleging the

28:11

climate impact was happening, which was sea level

28:13

rise. He now lives

28:15

in Brussels because he's

28:17

no longer the mayor of that place. He

28:20

has work outside of France.

28:23

And because he's not located there,

28:26

he no longer has that ability to

28:28

bring the case. So

28:31

a lot of the decisions of the

28:33

court in these three cases focused

28:36

on who was bringing the case and

28:38

against which kind of government. And

28:41

that shows you that access to the court can

28:44

really depend on where you're living and which

28:46

government you can sue. It

28:49

sounds like a lot of jurisdictional stuff

28:51

being worked out too.

28:53

Yeah, absolutely. Just like

28:55

standing and all that.

28:58

Yeah. Yeah. And in

29:00

some ways it's still a very traditional

29:02

approach to who can bring a court

29:05

case, even though we know that one

29:08

country's emissions have huge

29:10

impact on people living far outside

29:13

its borders. Right. But

29:15

this decision, these decisions today don't

29:18

open the door to those kind of

29:20

global claims. It's a quite traditional approach

29:22

as far as we can tell. And

29:26

it means that, yeah, it

29:29

looks like the first port

29:31

of call is the government

29:33

in the country that you're living.

29:36

And obviously for some, for many,

29:39

many affected communities, especially those in

29:41

low lying islands, in

29:43

the global south, in a range of

29:46

developing countries, the countries in which they're

29:48

living are not the primary countries that

29:50

have contributed to the climate crisis. Right.

29:53

And so that I think is going to

29:55

be a topic that many people will be discussing in

29:57

the weeks to come. for

30:00

the global justice aspect

30:03

of climate litigation. Yeah, that's

30:05

interesting because I was just also reading

30:07

about how Shell is

30:09

being sued in the UK, for

30:11

example, for impacts in Nigeria, because

30:13

the company has a headquarters in

30:15

the UK that can work as

30:17

sort of a global case. But

30:19

yeah, it's interesting that it can't

30:21

be the

30:24

government of another country. Yeah,

30:27

so far. That's what it seems.

30:30

So I want to dig

30:32

into the, I'm

30:35

going to call it the Swiss Grannies

30:37

case. I've been indoctrinated into calling it

30:39

that. I know you were just saying it's a

30:41

more traditional approach. And yeah, this is the

30:43

first time, if I'm not wrong, that

30:45

the court has affirmed that, yes, this is

30:47

actually a human rights violation. So yeah, I'm

30:50

curious to hear from you. What does that

30:52

mean? And why is that important? Absolutely.

30:55

The central finding in

30:58

the Swiss case is completely groundbreaking.

31:01

It's the first time that that European

31:04

Human Rights Court, the highest court

31:06

in Europe, has found that climate

31:09

change affects human rights now and

31:11

in the future, that governments have legal

31:13

duties to protect human rights in the context

31:15

of the climate change, in the context of

31:18

the climate crisis, and

31:20

that they need to adopt science based

31:22

targets to prevent further

31:24

dangerous climate change. This

31:27

ruling will have huge implications,

31:29

not just for communities in Europe, who

31:32

are already taking their governments to court

31:34

for weak climate action, but

31:36

all around the world where there's this

31:38

movement of people who are turning to

31:40

the courts as a last resort, because

31:43

their governments are failing to act fast

31:47

and with care and in line with

31:49

science. And so this ruling

31:51

will give a huge boost to that movement of

31:54

climate litigation brought by communities

31:56

from South Korea to Australia

31:58

to Brazil. Canada

32:01

and all throughout Europe as well. Because

32:04

this ruling is influential as the European Court

32:06

of Human Rights is one of the most

32:09

powerful human rights bodies globally

32:12

in terms of its experience.

32:15

It was created in the 1950s and

32:18

now it is decided that

32:20

the well-known human rights guarantees that have

32:22

been in place for decades can

32:25

apply to this very new

32:27

and difficult global problem we're

32:29

all tackling and

32:32

that government's obligations to protect us apply

32:34

in the same way which is very powerful. Quite

32:36

a few of our listeners are

32:38

in the US and our

32:41

court system works a little differently. The

32:44

decision of a court in one region

32:47

is of great interest to courts

32:49

in other regions. It's not directly

32:51

applicable by a court

32:53

say in the US but

32:55

what we know is that judges are

32:58

looking to each other because they're trying

33:00

to decide these very novel cases in

33:03

the context of climate change. So

33:05

a judge in the US especially if they're

33:07

looking at a case that concerns the right

33:09

to a healthy environment like the

33:12

Montana decision or cases that are being

33:14

brought by young people in Hawaii and

33:16

many other states in the US. I'm

33:19

sure they will find this decision very

33:21

interesting because some of the rights that

33:23

the European Court of Human Rights looks

33:25

at today like the right to life,

33:29

the right to private and family life which includes

33:31

protection for health have

33:33

parallels in different state

33:35

constitutions in the US as

33:38

they do in other countries around the world. So

33:40

I'm sure this will be part of a dialogue

33:42

that these courts are having with each other when

33:45

they're looking at how these different decisions

33:48

are being made and how can

33:50

the well-established human rights

33:52

obligations of government apply to this very

33:55

new and difficult challenge of climate change.

33:58

And can I have a question? you talk

34:00

us through how does the enforcement

34:03

mechanism work within the

34:05

European Union and particularly Switzerland

34:07

in this case? There's

34:10

an obligation on all of the European

34:12

governments that are part of this human

34:15

rights treaty that they must

34:17

respect a decision of the European Court

34:19

of Human Rights when it's made against

34:21

them. So the expectation

34:23

is that Switzerland will comply with the

34:25

court's ruling and will go

34:27

away and significantly increase

34:31

its climate efforts, put in place

34:33

a proper framework from now until

34:35

2030 and ensure that that

34:37

complies with what science says is necessary because

34:39

that's what the European Court has ordered. In

34:43

terms of enforcement there are a number

34:45

of different parts. The

34:47

European Court system itself has

34:49

enforcement mechanisms so if a government

34:51

is not complying it's possible for

34:53

there to be complaints and supervision

34:55

and further enforcement.

34:58

There's also the national court

35:00

system where you can bring a

35:02

case if Switzerland is

35:04

not complying, say in one year or

35:06

two years and there's no need to

35:08

follow up and pressure the government. But

35:10

I think most important of all is

35:13

going to be the public scrutiny

35:15

from everyone watching the Swiss

35:17

government. There's a very vibrant civil

35:19

society movement in Switzerland,

35:22

as you will have seen. The

35:24

seen Swiss women are supported by

35:26

hundreds of people, thousands of people and

35:29

they're all going to be watching because they know that it's

35:31

part of the democratic rule of law

35:33

system. The governments need to

35:36

respect and comply with court orders. So

35:38

that's also part of what will be

35:41

in the background in terms of compliance

35:43

and enforcement in this case. You mentioned

35:45

that this will also impact other cases

35:47

that are already in motion and I

35:50

imagine could also smooth the path for

35:53

people that are considering these kinds of

35:55

claims. Can you talk about that in

35:57

a little bit more detail? You know

35:59

what? cases you expect to

36:01

most immediately be impacted by

36:04

this? Right, there's

36:06

about 40 cases pending around

36:08

the world against governments brought by

36:10

communities who are very concerned that

36:12

their government is not protecting them

36:14

from climate change and don't

36:16

have rigorous and science-based climate

36:19

policies. So this

36:21

ruling will be a great interest to them. I'm

36:24

talking here about cases in South

36:26

Korea, in Australia, in

36:29

Brazil, in Canada, in

36:31

Europe, where this ruling has

36:34

particular binding significance. There

36:36

are already cases happening against

36:38

numerous high-emitting governments, where

36:41

this decision will be particularly important. So

36:44

there are already cases being brought against

36:46

the governments in Belgium, Sweden,

36:49

Czech Republic, Italy, the

36:51

Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and

36:53

Poland. And all those

36:55

cases are ongoing, and they mainly focus on

36:57

those governments' weak 2030 targets. We

37:01

know the science is very clear. Almost

37:03

every government globally is not on

37:05

track to reduce emissions in a

37:07

way that will prevent further dangerous

37:09

climate change, because their 2030 targets

37:11

are too weak. And

37:14

so those cases in Europe and outside

37:16

will be drawing on this decision,

37:19

because this decision very clearly says

37:22

governments have legal obligations to take climate

37:24

action. That climate action

37:27

must be informed by science. And

37:30

it's really important that that action is taken before

37:32

2030, because we know this

37:34

is the critical decade if we have

37:36

any chance of holding warming to 1.5

37:38

degrees and avoiding the worst

37:41

future impact. So we're

37:43

gonna see much bolstering and

37:45

boosting of the existing cases around the

37:47

world, a group of about 40, and

37:50

I'm sure many more who will be inspired

37:52

to take climate action to the courts. But

37:55

I think most of all communities don't wanna have to

37:57

go to court. They shouldn't have

37:59

to put the... time and the energy into

38:01

litigation. No one wants that at the last

38:04

resort. Hopefully what comes

38:06

out of this decision is not necessarily

38:08

new litigation, it's actual

38:10

climate action by the government. So,

38:12

yeah. I

38:15

wanted to ask you too about what impact you

38:17

think it might have on the

38:20

EU commissions, you know, above and

38:22

beyond the individual governments. Could it

38:25

possibly influence some of

38:27

the decision making there around energy

38:29

and the Green New

38:32

Deal stuff at the EU level?

38:35

Yeah, hopefully today's decision

38:37

will have a ripple effect through

38:40

all of the different government bodies in

38:43

individual countries and at the European

38:45

level who determine climate policy.

38:48

It's hard to speculate how the European Commission

38:50

might respond to this, but

38:53

what they do get loud and clear from

38:55

this judgment is that the

38:57

failure to take strong climate action impacts

39:00

people's human rights. And

39:02

science is a key source that needs

39:04

to be taken into account when deciding

39:07

the level of ambition of a climate

39:09

target and a climate policy. And

39:11

the EU is currently determining its 2040 target right

39:13

now. There

39:16

will be more movement after European

39:18

elections and then there'll be a real

39:21

need to decide on that target. I

39:24

hope that this decision will inform that,

39:26

that parliamentarians in Europe and

39:29

the European Commission will be thinking

39:31

very hard about the need

39:33

to take ambitious action because they know that

39:35

human rights are at stake as the highest

39:38

court on human rights in Europe has said

39:40

today. I'm working on

39:42

a story about an industry group that

39:44

represents the largest LNG producers

39:47

in North America, so

39:49

Canada and the US,

39:51

and they are lobbying

39:54

different European parliamentarians

39:56

and the energy

39:58

commissioners and whatnot as well. to

40:01

try to get them to embrace

40:03

a sort of favorable policy

40:05

framework for continuing

40:08

to increase LNG

40:10

imports to Europe, despite the

40:12

fact that all the data shows that consumption

40:15

of LNG in Europe is actually

40:17

going down and that that looks like

40:19

it will continue and whatnot. So in

40:21

a situation like that, where

40:24

you now have this decision that's

40:26

saying, like, yes, in fact, failing

40:29

to meet your own climate

40:31

commitments is a violation of human

40:34

rights. If that, I don't

40:36

know, just could make them less, just

40:39

less open to that. I honestly found it

40:41

a little surprising that these

40:43

officials would even spend

40:45

the time to meet with these

40:49

tree lobsters

40:51

in various statements after these meetings,

40:54

they're saying things like, oh, like,

40:56

we're going to need US LNG for

40:58

decades and tabling that directive

41:00

that was going to ban

41:03

contracts that ended after I think

41:05

it was 2049. They didn't want this

41:07

thing that the lobbyists are pushing

41:10

for, which is like 20, 30 year contracts

41:14

lock Europe into LNG

41:16

imports. So to me, when

41:18

I was hearing all of this,

41:20

I was thinking like, maybe they'll start to

41:22

think twice about that sort of thing. Decisions

41:26

like this come down. I think this ruling sends

41:29

a very clear message to governments in

41:31

Europe that courts will

41:33

be watching their climate efforts,

41:35

particularly before 2030, and that

41:39

there will be scrutiny if

41:41

they decide to continue their

41:43

current, weak and really woeful

41:45

efforts to address the climate

41:47

crisis. And here I'm

41:49

talking about the continued expansion

41:51

of fossil fuel projects,

41:55

a whole range of activities that fly in

41:58

the face of science. Communities

42:00

know that that's not in line with the

42:02

science, and now courts are accepting that that's

42:05

actually a legal matter. It's not just a

42:07

question of politics. And if

42:09

governments continue to fail to act

42:11

and fail to rapidly slash their

42:13

emissions, that's something

42:16

that will go before the courts. And the

42:18

European Court of Human Rights has said that

42:20

could amount to a human rights violation. If

42:22

you have a weak target and you're not

42:25

meeting your own climate target, then you could

42:27

be found in violation. So I really think

42:29

that will fit on the minds of

42:31

government decision makers. As they

42:33

have to consider the energy transition and the wide

42:36

range of policy choices they have ahead of them,

42:38

they must be taking steps to slash

42:41

emissions and stop the continued expansion of fossil

42:43

fuels.