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

0:08

on. First, the Carbon Majors

0:10

report has been updated, and it

0:13

found that the world's top emitters have

0:15

just emitted more since the signing of

0:17

the Paris Climate Accord in 2015. Admissions

0:22

have gotten even more concentrated in that

0:24

time, too, with only 57 fossil fuel

0:29

and 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 for

0:56

the other story we're going to dig into today,

0:59

which is a historic ruling from the

1:01

European Court of Human Rights. The

1:03

court ruled in favor of several

1:05

older Swiss women who sued their

1:07

government over its weak climate commitments

1:09

and lack of action on climate,

1:12

arguing that it was violating their right to

1:14

a healthy environment. It's often referred to as

1:17

the Swiss Grannies case, and it's a really

1:19

big deal that they won. I've

1:21

got Lucy Maxwell, co-director of the Climate

1:24

Litigation Network, with me today to talk

1:26

about that. It's all

1:28

coming up after this quick break. I'm

1:30

Amy Westervelt, and this is Drilled. For

1:39

people that have read the other

1:41

Carbon Majors report, what should

1:43

people be looking out for in this one? So

1:47

yeah, the main, obviously new thing

1:49

that Influence Map is bringing is

1:51

we've updated the data fully to 2022

1:53

reporting. So

1:56

the primary area of focus in our

1:58

research is kind of focus. on that new

2:00

data and the way we

2:02

frame that is largely in assessing the

2:04

period after the Paris Agreement at

2:07

the end of 2015. So all the data from 2016 through 2022

2:09

and comparing the

2:13

production and emissions data in those years

2:15

compared to both kind

2:17

of the recent period before the Paris

2:19

Agreement, but then also just more widely

2:21

in the historical context compared to the

2:23

previous findings. Top line, what we find

2:26

is some similar, but maybe

2:28

even more dramatic statistics than what

2:30

have been published from the data in the

2:32

past. Maybe the very concentrated top line group

2:34

of just 67 producers being

2:36

linked to 80% of global

2:39

fossil fuel and cement CO2 emissions since the Paris

2:41

Agreement. I was really struck by that too.

2:43

The other thing that jumped out was

2:45

just this almost even split between the

2:47

investor owned and state owned entities.

2:50

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

2:52

something that has been analyzed before,

2:55

but I'm seeing an increased awareness

2:59

of the trickiness

3:01

of dealing with the state owned

3:04

entities and how different it

3:06

is from the investment owned ones. So yeah, I wonder if

3:08

you could speak to that a little bit. Yeah,

3:11

absolutely. I'm not sure if I will have

3:13

thoughts or two, but I can go from

3:16

the data side. So definitely we wanted to

3:18

highlight that because it is interesting that obviously

3:20

the data can be used to track the

3:22

differences there. Notably, investor owned

3:24

companies account for a slightly smaller

3:27

percentage since the Paris Agreement than

3:29

the nation state owned entities, although

3:31

obviously still being very significant in

3:34

global emissions, in particular where we

3:36

do highlight in the report that

3:39

in coal production in particular, we're seeing investor

3:41

owned companies. Coal production is

3:43

slightly on the decline while

3:46

state owned nation

3:48

state producers really continue to considerably ramp

3:50

up their coal production. That's really where

3:52

we're seeing kind of a shift between

3:54

the companies in terms of supply dynamics.

3:56

I don't know if there's anything you want to add just

3:59

from a lot of people. or a

4:01

wider perspective there? Well, we don't have

4:03

reserves data in the carbon-based database, but

4:05

the state-owned entities own the vast

4:08

majority of the proven carbon-able oil and gas

4:10

reserves. So it underscores

4:12

the importance of keeping state-owned oil

4:14

and gas and coal companies in

4:18

the carbon-based database and focus for

4:20

policymakers around the world, whether it

4:22

be charging them reparations fees

4:24

or other ways of helping entities

4:26

pay for climate damages. They should

4:28

definitely be in the next, not

4:32

only their obfuscation and

4:34

statements at competence, but also how

4:37

they invest even

4:39

more capital into

4:41

new reserves and new production capacity.

4:44

Almost every company in the Middle

4:46

East, Persian Gulf, are investing billions,

4:50

about tens of billions in expanding capacity. I

4:53

know you've been looking

4:55

at the carbon meters for a long time.

4:57

What's been jumping out to you in the

4:59

last few years as

5:04

there's been a little bit of movement

5:06

on the policy front? I see more

5:08

and more scientists and climate modelers being

5:10

interested in our results. Provided

5:13

some data to people who are doing T-wave

5:17

analysis and attributing

5:19

responsibility for that. There are

5:22

emerging programs that

5:24

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

5:26

of scientists and policy makers

5:29

to some degree are interested in this data

5:31

so they can perhaps decase against

5:33

particular both state owners

5:35

as well as investor-owned companies. Apologies if

5:37

this already exists and I have missed

5:39

it. Is there or are there plans

5:41

to be a methane

5:43

major's database anytime soon?

5:46

That's a good question. I mean, well, within carbon

5:48

majors, so we do track the

5:51

methane Emissions of

5:53

some of the fossil fuel production processes, at least

5:55

on our side otherwise. It'll probably remain at that

5:57

for now. I don't know, Rick, if you have.

6:00

In a recent research and to me

6:02

than. War with

6:04

Iran include estimated methane emissions in

6:06

our database. So a report on

6:09

somebody gets on Surf's here to

6:11

equivalent. To their scope

6:13

on emissions. But we're dance.

6:16

With. On blink those two

6:18

company declared. Methane. Emissions

6:20

that find those not plausible. Yeah.

6:23

And have a methodology to assign

6:25

or estimates. And. Quantify

6:27

methane emissions on the basis. Of

6:30

Global Oil and Gas and

6:32

Coal missions on our part

6:34

time basis. I'm

6:37

not saying that's absolutely accurate and

6:39

uncensored netizens, but unless we have

6:41

an best the of and submitted

6:43

methane emissions, their lions more of

6:45

a global emissions. Than

6:47

us here like to statements made by

6:49

on the gas companies themselves and to

6:51

be underestimates. But

6:54

I'm I'm planning a separate some methane database.

6:56

them. You mentioned that

6:59

more scientists are interested in incorporating

7:01

this data and skill. Attribution study

7:03

is and things like. That are

7:05

you also seeing. More

7:07

academic researchers and players and sucks

7:10

in the litigation space using this

7:12

data as lol. Yeah,

7:16

I've I've provides data to

7:18

are a number of the

7:20

cases now Wyoming their rights,

7:23

Records. In

7:25

Puerto Rico, for example, and

7:27

Multnomah County. Oh

7:30

and some state level of the turn

7:32

his generals efforts in that regard. Than.

7:34

on the science and saw

7:37

didn't report woods concert expose

7:39

their and and others. Climate

7:42

separation is. Just as

7:45

tall which I think you might have

7:47

seen but a smile or sunday that

7:49

report yeah no I thought other so

7:51

interesting. And then we added a report

7:53

with Michael Grass Home in Italy on

7:55

estimating quantifying emissions. and

7:57

reparations to the lead

8:00

20 oil and gas and coal companies,

8:02

which then I filed an affidavit on

8:04

behalf of Greenpeace, Italy, and Nurekama, with

8:06

a court in Rome in

8:09

their case against the ANI. So

8:12

this interest on this work on

8:14

a number of different levels. Yeah. And

8:16

then a scientist come to me and said, we'd

8:19

like to massage your data to see how we

8:22

can use that to quantify

8:25

attribution to carbon

8:27

measures of various heat waves. So

8:30

they've done a global search for heat waves

8:32

and tying that to carbon

8:35

measures emissions. And

8:37

I'm sure there'll be a lot more work coming down the road now

8:39

that influence map has come

8:41

out of an update this week. I

8:44

find the stat about the increase

8:46

in the seven years since

8:49

Paris compared to the seven

8:51

years before it to be

8:53

interesting and- We don't

8:55

have a handle on this climate exchange bomb, as

8:57

you well know. So yeah, I'm curious what

8:59

you both think is behind that. I know

9:02

I'm asking you to speculate,

9:04

but especially since influence map does look

9:06

at the lobbying component as well, what

9:08

do you think is driving that? Is

9:11

there a sense that, like, I know I'll just

9:13

say anecdotally that it seems like a lot of

9:15

the oil companies

9:18

are kind of racing to

9:20

tap their resources while the getting

9:22

is good. So I wonder if

9:24

that's driving any of that. I

9:27

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

9:29

behind it. They're good at extracting carbon and selling

9:31

at the best profit. And

9:34

they are not yet concerned enough

9:36

about the potential of stranded assets

9:39

based on the assumption that the

9:41

world will not act quickly enough

9:43

to curtail production. So

9:45

they don't see a stranded asset issue. At

9:48

least not the Western companies do, which have oil

9:51

and gas reserves that might range from six

9:53

years of current production to 12 or

9:56

14 years. for

10:00

the existing reserves is fairly short. So

10:02

they feel like they can outlast the

10:05

dragons that are coming from the Saudi

10:08

ramp, you know, with more than a hundred

10:10

years worth of reserves. That's a different population.

10:12

I know. I do wonder if that's

10:14

like, because I noticed that the state owned ones

10:16

have ramped up more than the investor

10:19

owned. And I wonder if

10:21

that's part of it, this desire to kind

10:23

of stockpile wealth from

10:26

those reserves as much as

10:28

possible before they

10:30

lose value. I think that's

10:32

a fortune long. They would have

10:34

to be concerned about the

10:36

world getting stuff together. Yeah. And

10:39

curtail the millions. You're

10:42

the boy. Improving the high-fishing

10:44

use of carbon or some of

10:46

the terms or alternative technologies like

10:48

in transportation. Just

10:50

to make the link back to what you said,

10:52

Amy, on that point of that transition happening is

10:54

obviously super dependent on effective policy

10:57

and their exactly like influence maps research.

10:59

We actually made the link in the

11:01

report highlighting some of the largest producing

11:03

entities in carbon majors. We

11:05

just see so many links to those

11:08

companies being some of the most obstructive

11:10

companies when it comes to engaging with

11:12

climate policy globally. And that's true both

11:14

for the investor on companies who are

11:16

very actively engaged, but also

11:19

for some of the state owned companies

11:21

where we have data, they tend to be less

11:23

transparent, can take even more

11:25

obstructive positions. So yeah, we really

11:27

do see a link there where obviously these companies

11:29

are working against these policy

11:31

processes that would enable or are

11:33

required to enable the transition. Where

11:36

does the shareholder resolutions having

11:40

enough of an impact? I mean, I was

11:42

hoping to get more positive

11:45

shareholder responses. Yeah. At

11:48

some point large investors and I expressed

11:50

their concern. Maybe

11:53

ask the companies to funnel more of

11:55

their capital resources into

11:57

alternatives that they can continue.

12:00

brought something from all of the my intensity carbon.

12:02

I was really surprised that in the

12:04

top 10 companies since Paris that

12:06

only two of the investor owned

12:09

companies are in that list. It's

12:11

really interesting because I feel like a lot of the

12:14

policy comms, even

12:17

litigation, you know, efforts underway

12:19

target the investor owned companies

12:21

and I'm not, I don't

12:23

know, I haven't seen a lot that has figured

12:26

out how to deal with this state

12:29

owned problem. Maybe

12:31

Dan, you know something. I

12:33

mean, we do assess to some extent where

12:35

these companies are active in engaging with policy

12:37

that is interest their own policy area. For

12:40

example, Fide or MCO, they are active in

12:43

other policy areas and it's largely, as

12:45

I mentioned. Black box. Yeah,

12:48

they're very in transparent where we do

12:50

have data. They're highly oppositional to

12:53

any sort of ambitious climate policy. We

12:55

try to drive awareness of that among

12:58

policymakers and campaign groups. But

13:00

yeah, it is definitely a difficult problem.

13:03

Can you talk through some of the methodology

13:06

in terms of attributing emissions, especially

13:08

given that so many of

13:10

these companies have joint ventures?

13:14

We don't have access to the

13:16

required data to look into every

13:19

joint production agreement and joint ventures.

13:22

And so we take the companies at

13:24

face value for what they report as

13:26

their net equity production. So they might

13:28

operate or produce oil and

13:30

the Persian Gulf but only have net

13:33

equity of a certain percentage of it. We

13:35

say we're reporting that right now reports and

13:37

we base our estimates on what they report

13:39

as equity production. Got it. That makes sense.

13:42

I guess a bit with state owned companies, but

13:45

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

13:47

rigorous method for quantifying

13:49

that stuff too. But I wanted to mention too, Amy,

13:51

that oil and

13:53

gas companies are pretty fast,

13:55

silent communication to the public

13:57

and trying to convince the

14:01

public that they are green

14:03

oil companies, if you will, that's probably overstating it

14:05

on their behalf. But

14:07

they're taking climate change seriously

14:10

and that they're reducing their emissions and

14:12

they can declare that the emissions that

14:14

they are responsible for, they're

14:16

reducing dramatically and line with the Paris

14:18

Agreement. But of course,

14:20

as you well know, better than anybody

14:23

else is that they're not looking

14:25

at their scope three production related emissions. And

14:28

only claim progress, albeit

14:31

fair enough, they're making good progress in their regard

14:33

on reducing scope one and scope two emissions. You

14:36

can see ExxonMobil, for example, having reduced their

14:38

scope one and two

14:40

emissions from 125 million tons, about 10

14:42

years ago, to

14:44

around a hundred or 105 million tons

14:47

now. Still with the BOMBER,

14:49

in essence. That's a

14:51

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

14:55

And you add three at 450 to 500 million tons. We

14:59

have noticed this very strange

15:01

increase in the investor

15:03

owned companies. Like Shell has

15:06

done this with us now and Exxon,

15:08

I think BP as well, pushing

15:10

a lot of claims that they're investing

15:12

more in quote unquote

15:14

low carbon solutions and

15:16

then basically including gas in

15:19

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

15:21

same thing in what you think of that.

15:23

Well, I've been more sanguine about

15:26

natural gas if their fugitive methane

15:28

rate was lower. It

15:31

looks like Equinor, for example, producing

15:34

completely offshore and using renewable

15:36

electricity to run a lot of

15:38

their facilities. Their natural gas

15:40

is pretty clean, but most

15:42

of the companies, Gazprom on down, I know.

15:46

So I would like to see

15:48

them put much more emphasis in reducing their

15:51

fugitive and deliberately event

15:54

by saying, then I could

15:56

buy a bit more into the

15:58

notion that that's a bridge field. of all to

16:02

low tech technology, which has a ways to

16:04

go. That's when we

16:06

agree that it's a fossil fuel, it's fossil gas. Right.

16:10

Most natural gas systems

16:12

leak methane all the way from production

16:14

to their home stove.

16:17

You know, investment in clean

16:19

technology by Shell and

16:22

others, I think

16:24

it's probably a good public gambit to phrase

16:27

it that way. We certainly know that they're

16:29

not investing nearly enough into

16:32

really low carbon technologies. Excellent.

16:35

That's abandoned, it's more common, various aspects of that

16:37

and we don't see companies being very serious. I

16:39

don't think they take the climate problem to be

16:42

very serious, that they're busy making money and will

16:44

continue to do that for as long as they

16:46

can. Yeah, I think we

16:48

also have some data on our site to back that up. I mean,

16:50

if we look at 2022, end of 2022, we

16:55

compared a lot of the capital

16:57

expenditure into green, supposed

16:59

to green investments compared

17:01

to fossil fuels, as well as, you know,

17:03

what that looks like on the marketing side.

17:06

And there's just such a big disconnect in

17:08

terms of the level at which these companies

17:10

are putting out messaging around the importance of

17:12

the transition and how they're contributing to it

17:14

versus then actually looking at, as you say,

17:17

their capital expenditure. First of all, how that

17:19

compares green versus fossil fuels, but then also

17:22

what they even define as green is

17:24

often either not

17:27

very transparent or in many cases

17:29

includes unproven technologies like carbon capture,

17:31

reliance on offsets, or as

17:34

you say, even just including gas or certain types of

17:36

gas technologies in

17:39

that investment category. I think at the

17:41

time we highlighted that

17:43

perhaps the European majors were

17:46

slightly better in this than the

17:48

US ones, but even now we know we've

17:51

seen like, I think it's BP and Shell

17:53

have both rolled back their emissions targets. Yeah.

17:56

And there we're now kind of seeing a

17:58

reversal of that. Yeah,

18:00

I'm curious about that because it

18:02

seemed to me like the European majors were

18:05

a little bit more

18:07

worried Let's say about being sued

18:09

around, you know reneging

18:11

on Paris Commitments does that seem

18:14

like it's what's gone away

18:16

or they're just like who cares. We're making more

18:18

money. So we'll deal with the law Yeah,

18:22

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

18:24

know if you have higher level insights But

18:26

I think it probably comes back to what we

18:28

were talking about earlier We're maybe a few years

18:31

ago It seemed like the there was a wider

18:33

push for the transition also from the investor side

18:35

and now That we

18:37

are seeing profits rising again in oil and

18:39

gas So these companies are trying to continue

18:41

to you count those profits while they

18:43

still can one last Question

18:46

for both of you too is that given

18:48

this data? It feels very

18:50

hard for the industry to claim that

18:52

they're on track or part of the transition and

18:54

all that stuff How would you like to see

18:56

people use this data to push them towards

18:59

actually getting on track with those commitments?

19:02

I would like to see large investors and

19:05

shareholders bring it up at their

19:07

annual meeting and many shareholders

19:09

have been trying to do but I think that

19:12

is a Leverage point

19:14

their own investors will raise objections

19:16

to their capital investment plans as

19:18

not respected in the climate science

19:20

I Mean

19:23

there are other ways of doing that but shareholders

19:25

have an important multiplying Yeah,

19:28

I mean I agree with that I think also the

19:30

power of the data is that it can be used

19:32

in so many different ways to hold these

19:34

companies to account So also

19:37

kind of the week you

19:39

also talked about the academic

19:41

side As

19:44

always the financial sector I think that's

19:46

where the power is and using this data so

19:48

long I believe they these different stakeholders who have

19:50

impact in their own different mechanisms. I like the

19:53

product information hazard placards of

19:55

gas pumps In

19:59

this gas pump Causes. Greenhouse.

20:02

Gas emissions. Here's here's what it is:

20:04

per gallon, but it has ago but

20:06

I think we need more public warnings

20:08

like were the one cigarette tax. If

20:13

you're passionate about the environment and

20:15

you enjoy getting out into nature,

20:17

there's another podcast I think he'll

20:20

love called out there and it's

20:22

an award winning so that explores

20:24

big questions through intimate stories outdoors.

20:26

For example, how do you find

20:29

the will to live if you

20:31

have crippling climate anxiety, why do

20:33

people keep living in places that

20:36

are prone to natural disasters? And

20:38

how could we use national parks

20:40

to write historical. Wrongs. Each.

20:43

Episode of Out There as a. Deeply personal

20:45

narrative about regular people. Whose lives

20:47

have changed out in nature, currencies

20:49

and about. There is all about

20:52

sale ads the of stories that

20:54

he does around the globe exploring

20:56

how we find stillness amidst the

20:58

noise of life. Whether it's through

21:00

photographing the stars, hiking the Grand

21:03

Canyon or visiting a national park

21:05

in Korea. Follow. Out there

21:07

where ever you that your podcast

21:09

or at out there podcast.com that

21:12

oh you. T T H

21:14

E R E's podcast not

21:16

com. Meanwhile,

21:24

in Europe, a landmark ruling from

21:26

the European Court of Human Rights

21:28

that's likely to have major ripple

21:30

effect throughout the European Union. This

21:32

is interesting in the context of

21:34

the Carbon Majors reports, particularly given

21:36

the growing divide between. Investor owned

21:39

and state owned oil companies

21:41

On the question of energy

21:43

transition obviously the governments of

21:45

Saudi Arabia, The United Arab

21:47

Emirates, and. Qatar or not. Beholden

21:49

to the European Court of Human

21:51

Rights, but. qatar is a

21:53

number one supplier of gas to

21:55

europe at the moment and has

21:57

successfully locked an outrageously long con

21:59

tracks there. And the US is right

22:02

behind them battling for number

22:04

one. The European market

22:07

is shifting and it's going

22:09

to shift even more as governments are

22:11

increasingly forced to actually comply

22:13

with their climate commitments. That's

22:16

going to have a big impact on suppliers

22:19

in both the Middle East and the US

22:21

and could also really shift the math in

22:23

Asia, which will be the target

22:25

customer for fossil fuels that Europe

22:27

doesn't want. All

22:30

that from one case in Switzerland

22:32

that has been somewhat patronizingly referred

22:34

to as the Swiss Grannies

22:36

case. Here's climate

22:38

litigation center co-director Lucy Maxwell

22:40

with more on that case.

22:44

Yeah, my name is Lucy Maxwell. I'm the

22:47

co-director of the Climate Litigation Network. Can

22:50

you just outline briefly the

22:52

cases that we were expecting rulings

22:54

on today? Right.

22:56

Well, there were three cases the European Court

22:58

of Human Rights was giving its

23:00

ruling today. The first was

23:02

a case brought by senior women

23:04

in Switzerland against the Swiss government

23:07

because of its weak climate action,

23:09

especially around its 2030 target. There

23:12

was a case brought by Portuguese

23:14

young people against 32 governments in

23:16

Europe, looking at each of

23:18

their actions when it comes to climate change

23:20

and finding that they all fall short of

23:22

best available science. And

23:24

finally, there was a case brought by a

23:27

French mayor against the French government, again,

23:29

because the government had failed to

23:31

meet its own targets to combat

23:33

climate change. And they were all

23:36

alleging that those failures by their

23:38

government amount to violations

23:40

of their human rights because

23:42

of the impact that climate change will have

23:45

now and in the

23:47

future on the enjoyment of health, family

23:50

and private life and their mortality.

23:53

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

23:55

a high level, can you tell me what

23:58

these rulings said about you? each of those

24:00

cases. So the

24:02

European Court of Human Rights upheld the

24:05

Swiss Senior Women's Climate case. And

24:07

fundamentally, the court found that the

24:10

climate crisis is a human rights

24:12

crisis, that governments have legal

24:14

obligations to take much stronger action

24:17

to protect people's human rights. And

24:19

in this case, the Swiss government's efforts to

24:21

reduce emissions were not in line

24:23

with best available science. They

24:26

didn't have a clear plan of

24:28

targets for the period up to 2030. And

24:31

they had not even met their own targets.

24:34

And so for all of those failures,

24:36

the European Court found that that constituted

24:39

a human rights violation because the state

24:41

was not protecting its people from

24:43

the harm posed by climate change. And

24:46

it was looking particularly at the harm that senior

24:48

women in Switzerland would

24:50

experience because of the heat waves and

24:53

other impacts that would happen in that country. So

24:56

it found that the Swiss government had

24:58

violated its human rights obligations. And now

25:00

the government has to go away

25:02

and create a robust and

25:04

science-based climate plan, especially

25:06

before 2030. And

25:09

that's what we're all focused on,

25:11

government action now to ensure that

25:13

by 2030, we have massively slashed

25:15

emissions in order to protect

25:17

all of our futures. In the Portuguese

25:20

youth climate case, the European

25:22

Court found that it

25:24

wasn't possible for the Portuguese young

25:26

people to jointly sue 32 governments

25:29

together in Europe at

25:32

this European human rights

25:34

court. What the court found

25:36

was that because the young people are living in

25:38

Portugal, it was necessary for them

25:40

to take their case only

25:42

against the Portuguese government and back

25:45

in the national courts. The

25:47

court just was not willing to accept

25:50

that the nature of climate change, because

25:52

everyone contributes to it, means

25:54

that it's possible to sue multiple governments

25:56

together. And this was quite a

25:59

new and complex. argument that the

26:01

Portuguese young people were making. But

26:04

unfortunately the court did not accept that part of it.

26:07

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

26:09

other aspects of the claim. But they

26:11

basically said, if you want to

26:13

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

26:15

you must go back to the national court to do

26:17

that. In the French mayor's case, the

26:19

European Court of Human Rights found that

26:22

he was living in France and he could sue

26:24

the French government. But unfortunately, he

26:27

no longer lived in the place in

26:29

France where he was alleging the

26:31

climate impacts were happening, which were sea level

26:33

rise. He now lived

26:35

in Brussels because he's

26:37

no longer the mayor of that place. He

26:41

has work outside of France.

26:44

And because he's not located there, he

26:47

no longer has that ability to bring

26:49

the case. So

26:51

a lot of the decisions of the

26:53

court in these three cases focused

26:56

on who was bringing the case and

26:59

against which kind of government. And

27:01

that shows you that access to the court can

27:04

really depend on where you're living and which

27:07

government you can sue. It

27:09

sounds like a lot of jurisdictional stuff

27:11

being worked out too.

27:13

Yeah, absolutely. Just like

27:16

standing and all that. Yeah.

27:19

And in some ways, it's still

27:21

a very traditional approach to

27:24

who can bring a court case,

27:27

even though we know that one country's

27:29

emissions have huge impacts

27:31

on people living far outside its

27:33

borders. Right. But

27:36

these decisions today don't

27:38

open the door to those kind of

27:40

global claims. It's a quite traditional approach

27:42

as far as we can tell. And

27:46

it means that, yeah, it

27:49

looks like the first port

27:51

of call is the government

27:53

in the country that you're living.

27:57

And obviously for many, many

27:59

affected communities. especially those in

28:01

low-lying islands, in

28:04

the global south, in a range of

28:06

developing countries, the countries in which they're

28:08

living are not the primary countries that

28:10

have contributed to the climate crisis. And

28:13

so that, I think, is going to be a

28:15

topic that many people will be discussing in the

28:17

weeks to come. What does

28:20

this mean for the global justice

28:22

aspect of climate litigation?

28:25

Yeah, that's interesting because I was just

28:27

also reading about how Shell

28:29

is being sued in the UK,

28:31

for example, for impacts in Nigeria.

28:34

Because the company has a headquarters in

28:36

the UK that can work as sort

28:38

of a global case. But yeah, it's

28:40

interesting that it can't be the government

28:45

of another country. Yeah,

28:47

so far. That's what it seems.

28:50

So I want to dig

28:52

into the, I'm

28:55

going to call it the Swiss Granny's

28:57

case. I've been indoctrinated into calling it

28:59

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

29:01

traditional approach. And yeah, this is the

29:03

first time, if I'm not wrong,

29:05

that the court has affirmed that, yes,

29:07

this is actually a human rights violation.

29:10

So yeah, I'm curious to hear from you.

29:12

What does that mean and why is that important? Absolutely.

29:16

The central finding in

29:18

the Swiss case is completely groundbreaking.

29:22

It's the first time that that European

29:24

Human Rights Court, the highest court in

29:27

Europe, has found that climate

29:29

change affects human rights now and in

29:31

the future. That governments

29:33

have legal duties to protect human rights in

29:35

the context of the climate change, in the

29:37

context of the climate crisis. And

29:40

that they need to adopt science-based

29:42

targets to prevent further

29:44

dangerous climate change. This

29:47

ruling will have huge implications,

29:50

not just for communities in Europe who

29:52

are already taking their governments to court

29:54

for weak climate action, but

29:56

all around the world where there's this

29:58

movement of people. who are

30:01

turning to the courts as a last resort

30:03

because their governments are failing to act

30:06

fast and with care and

30:08

in line with science. And

30:11

so this ruling will give a huge boost to

30:13

that movement of climate litigation

30:15

brought by communities from South

30:17

Korea to Australia to Brazil,

30:20

Canada and all throughout

30:22

Europe as well. Because this ruling

30:25

is influential as the European Court of Human

30:27

Rights is one of the most powerful

30:30

human rights bodies globally in

30:32

terms of its experience. It

30:35

was created in the 1950s and

30:38

now it has decided that the

30:41

well-known human rights guarantees that have been

30:43

in place for decades can

30:45

apply to this very new

30:47

and difficult global problem we're

30:49

all tackling and

30:52

that government's obligations to protect us apply

30:54

in the same way, which is very powerful. Quite

30:56

a few of our listeners are

30:59

in the US and our

31:01

court system works a little differently. The

31:04

decision of a court in one

31:06

region is of great interest

31:08

to courts in other regions. It's

31:10

not directly applicable by a

31:13

court, say, in the US. But

31:16

what we know is that judges are

31:18

looking to each other because they're trying

31:20

to decide these very novel cases in

31:23

the context of climate change. So

31:25

a judge in the US, especially if they're looking

31:27

at a case that concerns the right

31:30

to a healthy environment, like the

31:32

Montana decision or cases that are being

31:34

brought by young people in Hawaii and

31:36

many other states in the US, I'm

31:39

sure they will find this decision very

31:42

interesting because some of the rights that

31:44

the European Court of Human Rights looked at

31:46

today, like the right to life, the

31:49

right to private and family life, which includes

31:51

protection for health, have

31:53

parallels in different state

31:56

constitutions in the US, as

31:58

they do in other countries around the world. So

32:00

I'm sure this will be part of a dialogue

32:02

that these courts are having with each other when

32:05

they're looking at how these different decisions

32:08

are being made and how can

32:10

these well-established human rights

32:13

obligations of government apply to this very

32:15

new and difficult challenge of climate change.

32:19

And can I have you talk us through

32:21

how does the enforcement mechanism work

32:24

within the European

32:26

Union and particularly Switzerland in this

32:28

case? There's

32:31

an obligation on all of the European

32:33

governments that are part of this human

32:35

rights treaty that they must

32:37

respect a decision of the European Court of

32:39

Human Rights when it's made against them. So

32:43

the expectation is that Switzerland will comply

32:45

with the court's ruling and

32:47

will go away and significantly

32:50

increase its climate efforts,

32:52

put in place a proper framework

32:54

from now until 2030 and

32:57

ensure that that complies with what science

32:59

says is necessary because that's what the

33:01

European Court has ordered. In

33:03

terms of enforcement, there are a number of

33:05

different parts. The European

33:07

Court system itself has enforcement

33:10

mechanisms. So if the government is

33:12

not complying, it's possible for there

33:14

to be complaints and supervision and

33:17

further enforcement. There's also

33:19

the National Court system where

33:21

you can bring a case if

33:24

Switzerland is not complying, say in one

33:26

year or two years and there's the

33:28

need to follow up and pressure the

33:30

government. But I think most important of

33:32

all is going to be the public

33:34

scrutiny from everyone watching

33:36

the Swiss government. There's a very

33:39

vibrant civil society movement in

33:41

Switzerland. As you will have seen, the senior

33:44

Swiss women are supported by

33:46

hundreds of people, thousands of people, and

33:49

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

33:51

part of the democratic rule of law

33:53

system. The governments need to

33:56

respect and comply with court orders.

33:59

That's also part of the system. of what will be

34:01

in the background in terms of compliance

34:03

and enforcement in this case. You mentioned

34:05

that this will also impact other cases

34:08

that are already in motion and I

34:11

imagine could also smooth the path for

34:13

people that are considering these kinds of

34:15

claims. Can you talk about that in

34:17

a little bit more detail? You know,

34:19

what cases do you expect to

34:21

most immediately be impacted by

34:24

this? Right, there's about

34:26

40 cases pending around the

34:29

world against governments brought by communities

34:31

who are very concerned that their

34:33

governments are not protecting them from

34:35

climate change and don't have rigorous

34:38

and science-based climate policies. So

34:41

this ruling will be of great interest to them.

34:43

I'm talking here about

34:45

cases in South Korea, in Australia,

34:49

in Brazil, in Canada, in

34:51

Europe, where this ruling has particular

34:54

binding significance. There

34:57

are already cases happening

34:59

against numerous high-emitting governments

35:02

where this decision will be particularly important. So

35:04

there are already cases being brought against

35:07

the governments in Belgium, Sweden,

35:09

Czech Republic, Italy, the

35:11

Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and

35:13

Poland. And all those

35:15

cases are ongoing and they mainly focus on

35:18

those governments' week 2030 targets. We

35:21

know the science is very clear. Almost

35:23

every government globally is not on

35:26

track to reduce emissions in a

35:28

way that will prevent further dangerous climate change

35:30

because their 2030 targets are too

35:32

weak. And so those cases

35:34

in Europe and outside will be

35:37

drawing on this decision because

35:39

this decision very clearly says

35:42

governments have legal obligations to take climate

35:45

action. That climate action

35:47

must be informed by science. And

35:50

it's really important that that action is

35:52

taken before 2030 because we know this

35:54

is the critical decade if we have

35:56

any chance of holding warming to

35:58

1.5 degrees. and avoiding

36:00

the worst future impact. So

36:03

we're gonna see much bolstering and

36:05

boosting of the existing cases around the

36:07

world, a group of about 40. And

36:10

I'm sure many more who will be inspired

36:12

to take climate action to the courts. But

36:15

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

36:17

go to court. They shouldn't

36:19

have to put the time and the energy

36:21

into litigation. No one wants that, it's the

36:24

last resort. Hopefully what comes out

36:26

of this decision is not necessarily new litigation,

36:30

it's actual climate action by the government.

36:34

So yeah. I wanted to

36:36

ask you too about what impact you think

36:38

it might have on the

36:40

EU commissions, above and

36:42

beyond the individual governments.

36:45

Could it possibly influence

36:47

some of the decision-making there

36:49

around energy and this Green

36:52

New Deal stuff at the EU

36:54

level? Yeah, hopefully

36:57

today's decision will have a ripple

36:59

effect through all of the

37:01

different government bodies in individual

37:03

countries and at the European level who

37:06

determine climate policy. It's

37:09

hard to speculate how the European Commission might

37:11

respond to this, but what

37:13

they do get loud and clear from this

37:15

judgment is that the failure

37:18

to take strong climate action impact

37:20

people's human rights. And

37:22

it's signed to the key source that needs to

37:24

be taken into account when deciding

37:27

the level of ambition of

37:29

a climate target and a climate policy. And

37:32

the EU is currently determining its

37:34

2040 target right now. There

37:36

will be more movement after the European

37:39

elections and then there'll be a

37:41

real need to decide on that target.

37:44

I hope that this decision will inform

37:46

that, that parliamentarians in

37:48

Europe and the European

37:50

Commission will be thinking very hard about

37:53

the need to take ambitious action because

37:55

they know that human rights are at

37:57

stake as the highest court on human

37:59

rights. Europe has fed today. I'm

38:02

working on a story about an industry

38:04

group that represents the largest LNG

38:06

producers in North America,

38:08

so Canada and the

38:10

US, and they are

38:13

lobbying different European parliamentarians

38:16

and the energy commissioners

38:18

and whatnot as well

38:21

to try to get them to embrace

38:23

a sort of favorable policy

38:26

framework for continuing

38:28

to increase LNG

38:30

imports to Europe despite the

38:33

fact that all the data shows that consumption

38:35

of LNG in Europe is actually

38:37

going down and that that looks like

38:39

it will continue and whatnot. So in

38:41

a situation like that where

38:44

you now have this decision that's

38:46

saying like, yes, in fact, failing

38:49

to meet your own climate

38:52

commitments is a violation of human

38:54

rights. If that, I

38:56

don't know, just could make them less, just

38:59

less open to that. I honestly found it

39:01

a little surprising that these

39:03

officials would even spend

39:06

the time to meet with these

39:09

tree lobsters

39:12

in various statements after these

39:14

meetings, they're saying things like,

39:16

oh, we're going to need US

39:18

LNG for decades and tabling that

39:20

directive that was going to

39:22

ban contracts that ended after

39:25

I think it was 2049. They didn't

39:27

want this thing that the

39:29

lobbyists are pushing for, which is like 20, 30 year contracts

39:34

lock Europe into LNG

39:36

imports. So to me,

39:38

when I was hearing all of

39:40

this, I was thinking like, maybe they'll start to

39:43

think twice about that sort of thing. Yeah.

39:46

Decisions like this come down. I think this

39:48

ruling sends a very clear message to

39:51

governments in Europe that courts

39:53

will be watching their climate efforts,

39:55

particularly before 2030, and that there

39:57

will be scrutiny

40:00

if they decide to

40:02

continue their current, weak, and

40:05

really woeful efforts to address

40:07

the climate crisis. Here

40:09

I'm talking about the continued expansion

40:12

of fossil fuel projects,

40:16

a whole range of activities that fly in

40:18

the face of science. Communities

40:21

know that that's not in line with the

40:23

science, and now courts are accepting that that's

40:25

actually a legal matter. It's not just a

40:27

question of politics. If

40:29

governments continue to fail to act

40:32

and fail to rapidly flash their

40:34

emissions, that's something

40:36

that will go before the court. The European

40:38

Court of Human Rights has said that could

40:40

amount to a human rights violation. If

40:43

you have a weak target and you're not

40:45

meeting your own climate target, then

40:47

you could be found in violation. I really

40:49

think that will sit on the minds of

40:51

government decision makers as they

40:53

have to consider the energy transition and the wide

40:56

range of policy choices they have ahead of them.

40:59

They must be taking steps to

41:01

slash emissions and stop the continued expansion

41:03

of fossil fuels.