0:01

Hi, I'm Gray, I am. This is

0:03

the climate question where we ask. Simply

0:06

put, enough can we do about climate

0:08

change? Focus.

0:10

From the Bbc World Service as

0:13

supported by advertising. Ready.

0:20

To pop the question, the jewelers

0:22

a Blue nile.com if got sparkled

0:24

down to a science with beautiful

0:26

lab grown diamonds worthy of your

0:28

most brilliant moments. Their lab grown

0:31

diamonds are independently graded and guaranteed

0:33

identical didn't natural diamonds and they're

0:35

ready to ship to your door.

0:37

Good a Blue nile.com and use

0:39

promo code listen to get fifty

0:41

dollars off your purchase of five

0:43

hundred dollars or more. That's code.

0:45

Listen Had Blue nile.com for fifty

0:47

dollars off Blue nile.com code. Listen.

0:52

Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. With the

0:54

price of just about everything going up during

0:56

inflation, we thought we'd bring our prices down.

0:59

So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer,

1:01

which is apparently a thing. Mint Mobile Unlimited Premium Wireless.

1:03

You better get 30, 30, better get 30, better get

1:05

20, 20, better get 20, 20, better get 15,

1:10

15, 15, 15, just 15 bucks a month. Sold! Give

1:13

it a try at mintmobile.com/switch. $45 up

1:15

front for 3 months plus taxes and fees. Promote

1:17

for new customers for a limited time. Unlimited more than 40GB

1:19

per month. Slows. Had.

1:25

A Lovely listeners. It's gray attacks

1:27

in here and I have a

1:30

very special guest a day. Long

1:32

time listeners will know him very

1:34

well. It's Neil Reason know. How

1:36

low gray or hello climate question

1:38

listeners. It's such a privilege to

1:40

be back to. We. Have missed you

1:42

so much on this program or at

1:44

least I have a for anyone who

1:46

doesn't know needle in. I use to

1:48

make the show together used to presented

1:50

with me and then you're amazing. Talents

1:52

were just required elsewhere in the department.

1:54

So just tell us what you've been

1:56

up to. your so i left

1:59

the climate question to go go start

2:01

to work on a new podcast which

2:03

we've launched in the last months called

2:06

The Global Story. And our tagline is

2:08

we do one story in detail every

2:10

day with the BBC's best journalists. And

2:12

so we don't focus just on climate.

2:15

We do the full news agenda. So

2:17

of course, we're covering the wars in

2:19

Gaza and Ukraine. We've just also done

2:22

one about the rebuilding of Notre Dame

2:24

in Paris, which is a fascinating story.

2:26

We've talked about who's in Trump's inner

2:29

circle, how AI disrupts elections.

2:31

But I'm here, I think, Graeia,

2:33

because you want to talk about the

2:35

episode that we've made about these Swiss

2:38

women, these elderly Swiss women who

2:40

spent almost a decade arguing that

2:42

their government's lack of action as

2:44

they saw it on climate change

2:46

amounted to a violation of their

2:48

human rights. And just this month,

2:51

the European Court of Human Rights

2:53

has found that in fact, that's

2:55

true, and that the Swiss government

2:57

needs to change its policies to

2:59

respect these women's human rights. And

3:01

it's a major, major decision that

3:03

is going to have implications right

3:06

across Europe and indeed possibly in courts

3:08

around the world. Without further delay,

3:10

let's hear The Global Story podcast you

3:12

helped to make me. Hello,

3:15

I'm James Reynolds from the BBC

3:17

World Service. This is The Global

3:19

Story. Today,

3:22

a historic court ruling on

3:25

climate change. It's just unbelievable.

3:27

I mean, we not just

3:29

won our case, we won,

3:32

won, won. The

3:34

prize, a binding ruling from

3:37

a top European court, which could

3:39

advance climate action across 46 countries.

3:42

Most of the women who brought the case are

3:44

in their 70s and in a

3:46

case which could headline a legal

3:48

drama. These women spent almost a

3:51

decade arguing that the Swiss government

3:53

has been failing to protect them

3:56

against climate change. Now,

3:58

the European courts of human rights. The white

4:00

has agreed and

4:02

activists are thrilled. All over the

4:04

world more and more people are taking their government's

4:07

support because in a climate emergency

4:09

everything is at stake. The

4:11

BBC's Georgina Raft has been covering the case

4:13

for many years. She'll tell us what it

4:16

means for the women behind the case, the

4:18

government that lost and the effect

4:20

it might have in courtrooms around the world.

4:28

Georgina, hello. Hi James.

4:30

Nice to have you here in the studio.

4:32

You've been following this case for

4:35

a long time. I can imagine your

4:37

email inbox is bombarded by

4:39

groups, campaigners, lawyers, other

4:41

journalists saying you have to cover this, you

4:44

have to cover that, look at this, look

4:46

at that. Why did this case attract your

4:48

attention? So I think I really like

4:50

the idea of how people can take action

4:52

on climate change. I find it really interesting.

4:54

We know that people are interested in politics, they

4:57

might use creative mediums, but the idea of using

4:59

the courts, which is kind of this dry-ish

5:01

area to make change about this

5:03

global problem was really interesting. 50

5:06

years ago environmental law was in its

5:08

nacency or sometimes didn't really exist in

5:11

the same way and now we're facing

5:13

this huge global problem and

5:15

there are people who've taken these really personal stories to

5:17

the courts. And look,

5:19

to help with some of the wider legal questions of the

5:21

case, we've got Sophie Marginac

5:23

with us, a lawyer with global expertise

5:26

in climate litigation, who's

5:28

also helped another BBC podcast, The Climate

5:30

Question. You're with ClientEarth, what's that? ClientEarth

5:33

is an environmental legal

5:35

organisation. I'm an

5:37

Australian qualified environmental lawyer and have

5:40

been for over 15 years and during

5:43

my time at ClientEarth I have

5:46

specialised in climate justice and climate

5:48

change litigation. And I think what

5:50

Jadina said about the law being

5:53

a tool for leverage and to

5:55

give a political voice to groups

5:57

in society that don't always have that.

6:00

that voice is really true. And

6:02

we're seeing in the past few years, many more of

6:04

these cases being brought by

6:06

people who are maybe shut out

6:08

of the political process, who are

6:11

frustrated by the inertia

6:14

in the global climate

6:16

framework. And they are taking

6:18

the law into their own hands and using the

6:20

court system. And it's proven to be really effective.

6:24

Here's one of the funny things about this story.

6:26

When we say the word litigation, everyone, you can

6:28

see the kind of shoulder sag. Yet

6:30

the massive contradiction is that

6:32

we all love courtroom dramas. I mean, you don't

6:34

switch on any TV channel for more than 10

6:36

seconds to see a courtroom drama. I grew up

6:39

watching what LA Law, other members of the team

6:41

grew up watching Ally McBeal, The Good Wife, Suits

6:44

and so on. So Georgina, my question to

6:46

you on that point is, would this make

6:48

a good courtroom drama? I

6:51

think so. I think these women, and I loved

6:53

interviewing them. I mean, I think when you interview

6:56

anyone who's really passionate about a cause raised

6:59

to a problem that we all know exists and we all

7:01

identify with, that something draws you in and you just

7:03

want to hear more from them, almost regardless

7:05

of the story. And that's what happened. I

7:07

was talking to Elizabeth Stern, who's 76. She

7:10

was one of the women in

7:12

this association. And she was just wonderful.

7:14

She sort of started the interview. She's like, hello, dear Georgina.

7:16

Can you hear me? I got

7:18

nervous about this song.

7:22

Anyway, hello, Georgina. It

7:26

was sort of this lovely, nice conversation. Some

7:28

of us are not made to sit

7:31

in a rocking chair and knit something.

7:33

Although I like that also once in a

7:36

while. But of course, she had a lot

7:38

of very serious things to say. And I

7:40

noticed the change in terms of our glaciers.

7:43

Like there was one literally in

7:45

my backyard called the Pizzol doesn't

7:48

exist anymore. About the impacts

7:50

of heat waves on her health

7:52

and other women's health. There are

7:54

now more and more studies testifying

7:56

that older people, specifically older

7:58

women, suffered the most. during

8:00

heat waves. They die more

8:02

often actually. She talked about not

8:04

being able to leave her home, about having

8:07

health attacks during heat waves because Switzerland has

8:09

higher temperatures now than it used to. And

8:11

then we had 35 degrees and

8:14

I thought oh haha I escape this

8:16

heat, I go up to the mountains

8:18

and that included

8:20

having to take a funicular and

8:23

on that funicular it

8:25

was so hot in there. I

8:28

thought what's happening to me?

8:30

I got hotter and hotter and

8:33

the funicular only takes 10 minutes but

8:35

I was convinced I'm not going to

8:37

survive it. And

8:40

I was sweating and

8:42

this kind of cold sweat, although

8:44

it was very hot, it was just

8:46

my whole body went wacko. But

8:49

it took more than 12 hours for

8:51

my whole system to go back to

8:53

normal. But

8:57

I also loved the pictures of them at the

8:59

court in Strasbourg, sort of celebrating and

9:01

kissing each other on the cheeks. Everybody

9:03

is happy and helping and kissing here

9:06

at show and journalists here and cameras

9:08

and I stand in the middle and

9:10

I think are you part of this

9:13

really? Yes, yes I am. And also

9:15

what was really sweet because this Swiss

9:17

case was also brought alongside two of

9:20

the cases which were separate. One

9:22

was by a group of Portuguese youth, so

9:25

mostly teenagers. They were making

9:27

a case against 32 countries in

9:29

Europe. Their case was dismissed because

9:32

it has to go through the Portuguese courts. But

9:34

they, they're sort of separate cases but they

9:36

formed a bond so you know they're totally

9:39

different generations. These young people are mostly teenagers

9:41

and these women in their 70s but

9:43

they sort of joined together, they had all these

9:46

photos and they told me that when they met

9:48

last year they had made a banner, the Swiss

9:50

women had made a banner and they met the

9:52

Portuguese children and they cut the banner in half.

9:55

The Portuguese children took theirs back to Portugal

9:57

and Swiss women to Switzerland and when they met again

9:59

they brought it back. together. I just thought it was

10:01

so beautiful and kind of again would be a great

10:03

moment in any sort of film. These

10:06

cases are thrilling because they're

10:08

asking courts and decision makers

10:11

around the world to take

10:13

these really difficult problems like

10:15

climate change and

10:17

creating new law and that's exactly what

10:19

the European Court has just done. The

10:22

Court holds that under Article 8 states

10:25

have a duty to adopt and

10:28

to effectively apply and practice regulations

10:31

and measures capable of

10:33

mitigating the existing and

10:35

potentially irreversible future effects

10:37

of climate change. Sophie

10:41

why is this so significant? So

10:43

the Court has found that firstly,

10:46

really importantly, climate change is not

10:48

a problem that is outside

10:50

of its capacity and

10:52

its jurisdiction so it can

10:54

decide questions of this nature

10:57

and it's also found that human

10:59

rights apply to the problem of

11:02

climate change. Really

11:04

interestingly, it's also found that because

11:07

there are trade-offs and

11:09

additional risks for future generations

11:12

that the Court needs to take the

11:14

special circumstances of climate change and

11:16

its impact on people alive

11:19

today but also people who will be

11:21

feeling the impact into the

11:23

future into account in its

11:25

decision making and it's found that Switzerland

11:28

has not done enough to protect this

11:30

group of senior women and the rest of

11:32

its citizens from climate change and it's set

11:35

out some really clear criteria for what the

11:37

state has to do. Georgina, there

11:39

will be some people listening who will

11:41

think, hang on a sec, of

11:43

all the many, many millions of people

11:46

affected by climate change around the world,

11:48

many in developing countries, Switzerland

11:50

would fall quite low down

11:53

the list of people

11:55

whose lives have been dramatically affected by climate

11:57

change. So there's sort of two things.

12:00

Going on, there's the role of Switzerland in

12:02

the global problem. So what emissions of

12:04

those warming greenhouse gases? Does it contribute

12:06

to climate change? And the Swiss government

12:08

would say it's quite small. It's just

12:10

0.1 of global emissions. Like much

12:12

of Western Europe, those emissions have been coming

12:14

down due to green technology, but also

12:16

a lot of Europe's industry has

12:19

been moved abroad. So they're kind of displacing

12:21

those emissions. But in terms of the

12:23

actual impacts of climate change, you know, it's a

12:25

global problem. You can't stop a heat wave. You can't

12:27

draw a border in the atmosphere

12:29

and stop global temperature rise and say, OK,

12:32

we're going to protect this small country. And

12:34

we have seen temperatures rising, affecting

12:36

Switzerland and Europe. So we had these

12:38

very powerful heat waves last year, the

12:40

year before. And that is one

12:42

of the things that the Swiss women talked about in

12:45

their case. What about older men in Switzerland?

12:47

Are they affected as well? Yes. So

12:49

one of the women said to me, she's like,

12:51

although we're a group just for women,

12:54

that doesn't stop the men from forming their

12:56

own association. And we are aware that older

12:58

men suffer also, but then they have to

13:00

take up the issue on their own. Because

13:03

sometimes we have asked, do you hate

13:05

men? Why don't you have men as

13:07

members? But they would have

13:10

to take it on themselves because you

13:12

can only file a complaint

13:14

if you're personally affected. So

13:16

she'll throw out that invitation, I think. I see. Translation,

13:19

if men get your act together. I

13:22

think you'd have to ask that to the point. And

13:25

Sophie, what was the government's argument

13:27

in court? The government argued

13:29

that the damage and

13:31

the harm that the women had

13:34

suffered wasn't bad enough and wasn't

13:36

specific enough to them to

13:38

mean that they had the right to

13:41

take this case to court. They said

13:43

that climate change affects everyone. It could

13:45

affect pregnant women and young people who

13:47

are also particularly vulnerable in heat waves. But

13:50

the court rejected that argument and

13:52

it opened the jurisdiction to the

13:55

association to act on behalf

13:58

of the women and other people. or

14:00

who might be affected by climate change. So it

14:02

set out a new test and made new law

14:05

to enable this case to go ahead.

14:07

And in really simple layperson's

14:09

terms, what does the ruling mean for

14:11

the Swiss government? So it's

14:14

really significant, and this is the

14:16

part that can be translated to the

14:19

45 other states that

14:21

are parties to the European Convention on Human

14:23

Rights. And the court has said that there

14:25

are minimum standards that governments must meet.

14:28

So they need to get

14:30

to net zero by 2050, so

14:32

have a carbon neutrality aim. They

14:34

need to have laws and policies

14:36

that set out how the country

14:38

will get to that net zero

14:41

target. So the sort of framework

14:43

climate legislation that we have in

14:45

the UK, the Climate Change Act. Okay,

14:49

next, what it's taken to get

14:51

to this historic victory for climate

14:53

activists in Europe, and what

14:55

could it mean around the world? What

14:58

could it mean? What could

15:00

it mean? What could

15:03

it mean? What could

15:05

it mean? What

15:07

could it mean? This is The Global Story. We

15:10

bring you one big international story in detail,

15:14

five days a week. Follow or

15:16

subscribe wherever you listen. With

15:22

me are BBC climate reporter Georgina Ranard before

15:26

we go much further. I now

15:28

want to rewind a little bit and

15:31

look at some of the other cases which may have

15:33

paved the way for what

15:35

we've just seen at the European Court of Human Rights.

15:38

Georgina, every year the world convenes for

15:40

the COP climate summit. What

15:43

number are we on? Do you remember? We

15:46

just had COP 28. Okay,

15:48

so in 2015 there was a

15:51

significant agreement. Talk us through that.

15:53

So this is quite interesting. This

16:01

huge landmark agreement, whenever

16:03

you hear people talking about 1.5 degrees Celsius,

16:12

it's being repeated over and over again. We must stay

16:14

at 1.5 to have a safe world for our children

16:16

and grandchildren. The idea

16:18

that we need to limit global temperature rise to

16:20

1.5 above pre-industrial times. For

16:23

the first time, global warming has exceeded 1.5

16:25

degrees Celsius across an entire year. That

16:29

originates really in the Paris Agreement, which is

16:31

when all 192 countries that are signed up

16:33

to the convention said they

16:35

will keep global temperature rise to that. And

16:37

they also agreed to radically reduce their emissions.

16:39

And I'm going to get a bit nerdy

16:41

here, which kind of is always a risk of climate. But

16:47

they agreed to create these things called Nationally Determined

16:49

Contributions, or NDCs, which are these plans in which

16:51

they say, this is how we're going to reduce

16:53

our emissions. They're quite specific. They're

16:55

sort of layout, sector by sector, what they're going to do,

16:58

what the emissions are and how they will reduce them. And

17:01

the Paris Agreement was an

17:03

international, legally binding deal. And

17:05

now what we're seeing is these lawsuits and

17:08

kind of referring back to the commitments that

17:10

governments have made. It's not

17:12

the only thing they refer back to, but it's

17:14

really significant. I think we saw that a bit

17:16

in this ruling, this idea of Switzerland hasn't enshrined

17:18

in its own law its international commitments. And

17:20

I think often they're referring back to the

17:22

Paris Agreement. People

17:25

are always saying to me, what's the point in COP? You

17:27

know, we go out there every year and report from it

17:29

and people say,

17:31

well, it's just a whole load of rubbish from

17:33

politicians. And

17:36

I think this is one area where you can point to the

17:39

COP and say, look, they signed the Paris Agreement

17:41

and now people are using it to hold governments

17:43

to account on lack of action. At

17:46

that point, holding governments to account then,

17:48

Sophie. Since 2015 in the Paris

17:50

Agreement, we've seen several cases around the world

17:52

where domestic courts have been

17:54

trying to hold governments to account, including

17:56

in the Netherlands. Yes, that's

17:59

right. And in some ways, this

18:02

judgment from the European court can

18:04

actually be seen as building on some

18:06

existing law across Europe. In

18:09

2015, the Hague District Court, actually just

18:11

before the Paris Agreement was signed, already

18:14

made a finding that the Netherlands hadn't

18:16

done enough to comply with its

18:19

own commitments to reduce emissions. But

18:22

that was just the beginning. We also had

18:24

Louisa Neubauer, who was one of the organisers

18:26

of the Youth School Strikes, took

18:28

a case in Germany. And

18:31

in 2021, the German Constitutional Court

18:33

found that the German government had

18:36

not done enough to reduce emissions in the

18:38

near term. And that forced them

18:40

to completely revise their climate policy.

18:43

And a very similar case was successful

18:45

in Belgium just last year. Sophie,

18:53

for those listening outside Europe, they

18:55

might think, okay, the Swiss government has been a

18:58

ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. Interesting,

19:00

interesting, interesting. But how does that affect the rest

19:03

of the world? This

19:05

will have global implications.

19:07

And that's because this

19:09

court has really

19:11

significant influence. And there are really only

19:13

a few regional

19:15

human rights courts. The Inter-American

19:18

Court on Human Rights is also

19:20

considering the impact of climate

19:22

change on human rights. It's holding

19:25

hearings in the coming months. And

19:28

its decisions apply across the

19:30

Americas, including to the US and

19:32

Canada. So there's the

19:35

potential for the European ruling to

19:37

influence that process. It could also influence

19:39

the International Court of Justice Advisory opinion,

19:41

which is also occurring this year. And

19:44

that's the UN courts. That's right. That's

19:47

the World Court. So all

19:49

states tend to pay attention

19:52

to the decisions of the ICJ. Getting

19:55

right to the heart of this, Sophie. Does

19:57

a ruling in a court in Europe? mean

20:01

that factories in China will

20:04

change how they operate? Well

20:06

certainly not overnight but there

20:09

could be flow

20:11

on effects absolutely on the

20:14

behaviour of companies and the world

20:16

economy. I think if

20:18

all states that are parties to

20:20

the European Convention need to lift

20:23

their standards and start to actually

20:25

implement the policies that they have

20:27

said that they will on

20:29

the international stage then that is going

20:31

to have an impact on companies

20:34

and the economy overall because the transition

20:36

to a low carbon economy will have

20:38

to speed up. And

20:40

companies have been on notice about this

20:42

for many many years. Some

20:45

of them have even started to make their own

20:47

commitments and they need to be making their own

20:49

commitments. Isn't a court ruling only as good

20:51

as the enforcement mechanism behind it? There's no

20:53

point having a ruling unless

20:56

there's some way of enforcing it. Does

20:58

that happen with this ruling in the

21:00

European court? That's absolutely

21:03

true and but we

21:05

will see I think litigation in

21:07

domestic states so at

21:10

the domestic level throughout Europe and

21:12

it may also influence litigation in other

21:14

countries around the world. Let's

21:19

look back now to the women who

21:21

started the conversation that we're having in this

21:23

studio the Swiss women, the older women. I

21:25

hesitate to call them older women but that

21:27

is the point. That is the point of

21:30

why they've gone to the European

21:32

Court of Human Rights. Georgina, what have they said

21:34

in the aftermath of the ruling? I

21:37

was getting into trouble with editors calling them

21:39

older women. Really? Of course. For

21:41

some people it's a sort of controversial

21:43

idea and I said no. The whole point of

21:45

this ruling is that it's based on their age

21:48

and gender and the women will say we are

21:50

senior women as they say in German and

21:52

we are disproportionately affected. They're

21:55

very excited to see what will now happen in

21:57

Switzerland so the idea of how will the government

21:59

respond. But also what type of

22:01

cases could it lead to in Switzerland? So if

22:03

the government doesn't respond in the way people

22:06

would like to see could it see

22:08

new domestic cases happening in Switzerland with

22:10

potential financial and fines for

22:12

the government Georgina this case has

22:15

been going on for how many years now? The

22:17

they started nine years ago when they form a

22:19

association There will be a thought at

22:22

the back of their minds perhaps at the back of other

22:25

people's minds is that? Women who

22:27

began perhaps in their 60s and 70s and the case

22:29

being going on for nine years as

22:31

it goes on Talk

22:35

to me about some of their own thoughts about

22:37

the future and as they move from 70s into

22:39

80s I I wonder that

22:41

I asked that question to them and I think One

22:44

of the things that's really interesting is when they started the

22:46

case the thinking the public thinking about

22:48

climate change was a bit different I think we

22:50

hadn't had those Serious heat

22:52

waves in some ways that that we had in

22:55

the years since so they started with quite a

22:57

different environment To the one

22:59

we were in today in terms of public

23:01

opinion I think back then people were thinking

23:03

climate change is a future problem and nine

23:05

years later people on the whole understand That

23:07

is a problem we're facing today, and I

23:10

asked them that same question and one of

23:12

them said to me we know Statistically

23:15

in ten years. We are gone. So whatever

23:18

we do now We are not doing for

23:20

ourselves, but for our the

23:22

children of our children of our children

23:25

I'm not the grandmother not yet

23:29

Who knows but yes

23:31

that is for many of us it

23:33

definitely is for me high

23:38

motivation That is quite

23:40

important now Isn't it Sophie and sort of

23:42

international law and the kind of thinking around

23:44

is intergenerational and what can we do now

23:46

to protect? Future generations and what do we

23:48

owe them? Georgina some

23:51

of the most famous climate campaigners in the

23:53

world have been young been students have been

23:55

Greta Thunberg who? Came to fame when

23:57

she was a teenager What is it about

23:59

these two? extremes, the younger people

24:01

and the older people. Why are they the

24:03

ones in the public eye on

24:06

this? I suppose another way

24:08

of asking it, what happened to the 25 to what 65

24:10

year old?

24:13

That's in what are we all doing? What's our

24:15

contribution? It's interesting because we

24:17

all know David Attenborough, of course,

24:20

who produces these very powerful documentaries, and

24:22

Greta Thunberg talked about how inspirational

24:24

he was to her. And there

24:27

is something, there's a sort of connection between the

24:29

generations. We've seen many young people

24:31

speak up more and more and

24:33

to realize the urgency. But do

24:35

you have any thoughts

24:38

or ideas how we

24:40

can activate the

24:42

older generations as well because we need everyone?

24:45

Yes, we do. My generation has

24:47

made a mess of things. We've

24:50

known that it's happening and we've

24:52

done nothing. We

24:55

have to make major changes to the way

24:57

we live. And that's why you've

24:59

done such a lot. You really have. And

25:03

you've spoken for the

25:05

generations that have to look after this. I've

25:07

been bleating about this for a long time,

25:10

but the big changes came

25:13

when you

25:15

were four. And that's

25:18

brought hope. I

25:21

always like bringing people together, this older

25:23

generation, a young together in a room

25:25

and seeing them. I think

25:27

there is a sense with some older

25:29

generations of they can see

25:31

how much has changed. Again, when I talked to

25:33

some of these Swiss women, they said when I

25:36

was growing up on a farm in Switzerland, we

25:38

just didn't see this type of weather. They said we

25:41

would have three days of hot weather. The schools would close, which

25:43

they said was great because they didn't have enough of

25:45

the school. Yeah, who didn't like that? Now,

25:47

you can't really make light

25:50

of a strong heat wave anymore

25:52

because it's dangerous now. And they've

25:54

seen that change over five, six,

25:56

seven decades. And I think many of

25:58

them have a sense of responsibility. They may

26:00

not have been driving that change, but they've

26:03

seen it and they want to do something about it. And

26:05

of course, we know younger people have sort of inherited

26:07

this earth with such significant

26:09

change. Many of them have never seen

26:11

anything else and will have to live into the next

26:13

whatever, 70, 80 years. And

26:15

I think they obviously, many of them feel

26:18

very powerful that they have to do something to stop

26:20

it. So for you're probably the

26:22

one who knows what these potential future cases

26:24

must be like in the people approaching your

26:26

firm. Give us a sense, if you can,

26:29

of what the

26:31

next few years might look at in terms

26:34

of the other groups, not necessarily of

26:36

older Swiss women, but of other groups you might be

26:38

in contact with who say, we are now going to

26:40

go through the courts. This

26:43

case really opens the potential

26:45

for claims against companies.

26:47

Companies also have duties under

26:49

human rights law. They have

26:51

to reduce the impact of

26:53

their operations on human

26:56

rights. And now that this court has

26:58

defined climate change squarely as a human

27:00

rights issue, large fossil

27:02

fuel companies will also need to look

27:04

at their policies and ask themselves a

27:07

ray aligning with the trajectories set out

27:09

by the European court. Litigation

27:11

then can be. Captivating. Yes,

27:14

exactly. I mean, it's about

27:16

these global stories, isn't it? This idea of

27:18

it's a very personal playing out in a

27:21

court about this issue that we all care

27:23

about and we can all see happening every

27:25

day and affecting us every day. Georgina,

27:28

thank you so much. Thank you, James. And Sophie,

27:30

it is great to have you with us. Thank

27:32

you so much. And

27:36

thank you for listening. If you want

27:38

to get in touch, you can send us a

27:40

message or a voice note on WhatsApp on plus

27:43

four four three three zero one

27:45

two three nine four eight

27:47

zero. Or you can email us

27:49

at the global story at BBC

27:51

dot com. We read everything you

27:53

write. You can find those details

27:55

in our show notes and

27:58

wherever you're listening in the world. been

28:00

a global story. Thank you

28:02

for having us in your headphones and

28:05

goodbye. All

28:12

right, Greg Jackson and Neil Risell

28:14

back in your ears. I have

28:16

to admit Neil, one

28:19

of my favourite moments in that

28:21

was when James asks about whether

28:23

this could be adapted into a

28:25

courtroom drama.

28:28

Here's what you need to know about James

28:30

Reynolds. So James Reynolds is a terrific, people

28:32

will know, he's a terrific broadcaster and

28:34

journalist and one of his defining features is

28:36

he has a very vivid imagination and so he's

28:39

able to bring things to life, particularly in

28:41

audio, which is why one of the reasons we

28:43

love having him on the global story so

28:45

much. But another thing to know

28:47

about James is all his cultural references are

28:49

grounded in the 1990s. So

28:51

he mentions LA law in that episode

28:53

and another one that we were doing

28:56

about the American election. He

28:58

was talking about the West Wing. I mean, this is what you

29:00

get when you get James. I think it's a great thing listeners

29:03

can decide for themselves. No,

29:06

well, just to sort of re-emphasise, it's

29:08

such an exciting time for climate litigation

29:10

by the sounds of it and really

29:13

by what Georgina was saying, the

29:15

beginning. That's it. And you

29:17

heard James talking to Georgina there saying, your

29:19

email inbox must be full of messages and

29:21

people pitching stories and ideas and products and

29:23

all the rest of it. And I'm sure

29:26

it's the same for you, Graeia. And what

29:28

I'm seeing in my email inbox is I

29:30

am seeing more and more press

29:32

releases and calls for action around

29:34

cases specifically or lawyers who are

29:36

working in this field. So yeah,

29:38

it's the future. And on that

29:41

note of inboxes, if you would

29:43

like to send us a question about anything

29:45

you've had today or indeed any other climate

29:47

questions, you can send us a message now.

29:49

We're doing a listeners questions programme very soon.

29:51

And we're just trying to decide which questions

29:53

to include. So send them in now. If

29:56

I didn't say that already, send them in

29:58

now. Do you remember the email? Oh,

30:01

it's etched in my mind.

30:03

It's the climate question at

30:05

bbc.com. You've still got it.

30:07

Thank you so much, Neil. It's been

30:09

such a joy to talk to you. Yeah, and you,

30:11

Grah. Take it easy. Honey,

30:19

why are you packing a suit with

30:21

swim trunks and sunscreen? Because

30:23

I can't wear the same suit for fine

30:26

dining and kayaking. Total faux pas.

30:28

Then I need something casual for the roller

30:30

coasters. Oh, and the

30:32

music festival. Meetings waterside. Really?

30:35

Looks like your work trip to Tampa Bay just turned

30:37

into a couple's trip through the weekend. Off they're

30:39

packing. Work meets play in

30:41

Tampa Bay, where business and leisure blend perfectly.

30:44

Discover modern hotels and easy

30:46

vibes at visittampavay.com. Do

30:49

you ever feel like your brain is on overdrive

30:51

and your mind is constantly racing? The plans, worries,

30:53

and to-do lists are never ending. Calm

30:56

can help your mind take a break from the noise by

30:58

softening anxiety symptoms in the moment and helping you cope with

31:00

day-to-day stressors. Calm is the

31:02

number one app for sleep and meditation, giving

31:04

you the power to calm your mind and

31:07

change your life. For listeners to the show,

31:09

Calm is offering an exclusive offer of 40%

31:11

off a Calm premium subscription at

31:13

calm.com. Go to

31:15

calm.com. For

31:20

40% off unlimited access to

31:23

Calm's entire library. That's

31:25

calm.com.