Climate Case Ireland

Last updated

Friends of the Irish Environment v Government of Ireland [1] (also known as Climate Case Ireland)[ citation needed ] was an important climate change case decided by the Irish Supreme Court in 2020. In the case, the Supreme Court quashed the Government of Ireland's 2017 National Mitigation Plan on the grounds that it lacked the specificity required by the Irish Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (the 2015 Climate Act). The Supreme Court ordered the government to create a new plan which was compliant with the 2015 Climate Act.

Contents

The case was initiated by environmental activist group Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE) in response to Ireland's substantial gap to its 2020 emissions target and insufficient progress towards "a low carbon, climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy by the end of the year 2050". The Supreme Court dismissed FIE's rights-based arguments, stating that FIE as a corporate entity did not enjoy personal rights. The decision, marking the first time Irish courts held the government accountable for climate inaction, was acclaimed as a turning point and was internationally noted. The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, David R. Boyd, called the case "a landmark decision" which "sets a precedent for courts around the world to follow".

Background

Irish Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications Irish Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications.png
Irish Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications

The case concerned the National Mitigation Plan (the Plan), which was published on 19 July 2017. [2] The 2015 Climate Act provides a framework for the establishment of "a low carbon, climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy by the end of the year 2050" (the national transition objective). [3] The 2015 Climate Act requires that, to enable the State to pursue the national transition objective, the government produce and approve a national mitigation plan [4] which specifies "the manner in which it proposed to achieve the national transition objective". [5]

In 2015, the Republic of Ireland had the third highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the EU. [6] In 2017, the Climate Change Advisory Council, an independent statutory body in Ireland, submitted its report to the government. It projected that Ireland would miss its targets for 2020 "by a substantial margin". It reported that additional policies and measures were "essential" for Ireland to meet its targets for 2030 and that the implementation of "effective additional policies" was "urgently" needed for Ireland's 2050 target. [7] The chair of the Council, Professor John Fitzgerald, commented that the Plan contained "few decisions" and would not be enough to meet Ireland's national transition objective. [8]

The case was brought by environmental activist group Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE), a non-profit company limited by guarantee and a registered charity in Ireland. [9] FIE was inspired to bring the action by other global climate cases, including Netherlands v Urgenda and Juliana v. United States . FIE said that they hoped that the litigation would bring about more ambitious government action on climate change. [10] There was considerable public support for FIE's decision to take the case, as a petition of support for the plaintiffs has gained over 20,000 signatures. [10]

High Court

In the High Court, FIE argued that the Plan was ultra vires the 2015 Climate Act and that the Plan violated rights under the ECHR and the Constitution of Ireland. It argued that the government, in approving the Plan, had failed to act to ensure that emissions were reduced in the short-term and medium term, and therefore would fail to achieve targets deemed necessary by the international community. It relied on the fact that, despite the advice of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that emissions would need to fall by at least 25–40% between 1990 and 2020 to help limit global warming to 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, the Plan envisaged an increase in emissions of 10% in that period. FIE noted that an even greater reduction would be necessary to meet the aim of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. FIE sought to have the government's decision to approve the Plan quashed and sought an order that the Plan be revised in accordance with the requirements of the 2015 Climate Act. [11] [12]

The government argued that the Plan, as government policy, was not justiciable. They further argued that, because FIE is a company and not a natural person, FIE had no standing to claim personal rights under the ECHR or the Constitution. [13]

Mr. Justice MacGrath delivered the decision for the High Court on the 19 September 2019. The High Court found that FIE did have standing to bring rights based arguments and accepted, for the purposes of the case, that there was an unenumerated constitutional right to "an environment consistent with human dignity". However, it found that the Plan did not infringe this right or the constitutional rights to life or bodily integrity, as claimed by FIE. The High Court found that the Plan was not ultra vires the 2015 Climate Act, noting the "considerable margin of discretion" enjoyed by the government. The reliefs sought were refused. [12] [14]

Supreme Court

After their case was unsuccessful in the High Court, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case directly, allowing FIE to "leap-frog" the normal route to the Supreme Court via the Court of Appeal. In its decision, the Supreme Court noted that the case was of "general public and legal importance" and that there was no dispute between the parties as to the seriousness of climate change, the climate science underpinning the Plan or the likely increase in emissions during the Plan's lifetime. [13]

The Supreme Court composition was seven judges: Clarke CJ, Irvine P, O'Donnell J, MacMenamin J, Dunne J, O'Malley J and Baker J. [1] Such a composition is reserved for cases of particular importance or complexity. [12] The case was heard over two days. The judgement, which had unanimous support from all seven judges, was delivered by Chief Justice Clarke on the 31 July 2020. [1]

The Supreme Court ruled that the Plan was subject to judicial review, as the Court was not reviewing the adequacy of government policy but instead the government's obligation to produce a plan in accordance with the 2015 Climate Act. [15]

The Supreme Court had quashed the Plan, finding it to be ultra vires the government because it did not conform with the requirement of the 2015 Climate Act as it did not provide specific details as to how the national transition objective would be achieved. [16] The Court found that the Plan fell "well short" of the level of detail required under the 2015 Climate Act. [17] Clarke CJ called parts of the Plan "excessively vague or aspirational". He explained that the Plan should have sufficient information to enable an interested member of the public to understand and assess how the government intends to meet its climate objectives. [18]

Because the Court quashed the Plan, the government was obligated, under the 2015 Act, to make a new plan which complied with the Act, and covered the full period remaining to 2050. The Court also noted that, in line with its judgement, "it follows that an identical plan cannot be made in the future". [19]

While FIE were successful in their argument regarding the illegality of the Plan, they were unsuccessful in their rights based arguments. The Court found that FIE, as a corporate entity, did not enjoy the right to life or bodily integrity and therefore did not have standing in terms of the various rights based claims it sought to put forward under the ECHR and the Constitution. However, Clarke CJ accepted that constitutional rights could be engaged in an appropriate environmental case in the future, although he expressed the view that a right to a healthy environment could not be derived from the Constitution. [15] [11]

Reaction

The decision was hailed in Irish media as a "turning point for climate governance in Ireland" [15] and a "watershed moment". [16] It also garnered international media attention. [20] [21] [22]

The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Eamon Ryan, said he "welcomed" the judgment of the Supreme Court and congratulated Friends of the Environment for taking the case. He said that the ruling must be used to "raise ambition" and "empower action". [23]

Impact

Climate Case Ireland was the first case in which the Irish courts held the government to account for their inaction on climate change. [20] The case is one of three similarly high-profile, "strategic" climate cases internationally in which the highest national court has found that the government's climate mitigation policies do not comply with the law. [12] It was the third climate case globally to reach the highest national court. [24] The judgement came after a similar decision was upheld by the Dutch Supreme Court in the Urgenda case in 2019. Tessa Khan, an environmental lawyer who worked on that case, commented that the Irish decision eased some concerns that the Dutch decision would be a one-off. [25] The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, David R. Boyd, called the case "a landmark decision" which "sets a precedent for courts around the world to follow". [26]

Related Research Articles

Environmental finance is a field within finance that employs market-based environmental policy instruments to improve the ecological impact of investment strategies. The primary objective of environmental finance is to regress the negative impacts of climate change through pricing and trading schemes. The field of environmental finance was established in response to the poor management of economic crises by government bodies globally. Environmental finance aims to reallocate a businesses resources to improve the sustainability of investments whilst also retaining profit margins.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Resource Management Act 1991</span> 1991 New Zealand law promoting sustainable management of natural and physical resources

The Resource Management Act (RMA) passed in 1991 in New Zealand is a significant, and at times, controversial Act of Parliament. The RMA promotes the sustainable management of natural and physical resources such as land, air and water. New Zealand's Ministry for the Environment describes the RMA as New Zealand's principal legislation for environmental management.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate Change Act 2008</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Climate Change Act 2008 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Act makes it the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for all six Kyoto greenhouse gases for the year 2050 is at least 100% lower than the 1990 baseline, toward avoiding dangerous climate change. The Act aims to enable the United Kingdom to become a low-carbon economy and gives ministers powers to introduce the measures necessary to achieve a range of greenhouse gas reduction targets. An independent Committee on Climate Change was created under the Act to provide advice to UK Government on these targets and related policies. In the act Secretary of State refers to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

Ecojustice Canada, is a Canadian non-profit environmental law organization that provides funding to lawyers to use litigation to defend and protect the environment. Ecojustice is Canada's largest environmental law charity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greenhouse gas emissions by Australia</span> Release of gases from Australia which contribute to global warming

Greenhouse gas emissions by Australia totalled 533 million tonnes CO2-equivalent based on greenhouse gas national inventory report data for 2019; representing per capita CO2e emissions of 21 tons, three times the global average. Coal was responsible for 30% of emissions. The national Greenhouse Gas Inventory estimates for the year to March 2021 were 494.2 million tonnes, which is 27.8 million tonnes, or 5.3%, lower than the previous year. It is 20.8% lower than in 2005. According to the government, the result reflects the decrease in transport emissions due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, reduced fugitive emissions, and reductions in emissions from electricity; however, there were increased greenhouse gas emissions from the land and agriculture sectors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change policy of the United States</span> Overview of the climate change policy of the United States of America

The climate change policy of the United States has major impacts on global climate change and global climate change mitigation. This is because the United States is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world after China, and is among the countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person in the world. In total, the United States has emitted over 400 billion metric tons of greenhouse gasses, more than any country in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paris Agreement</span> 2015 international treaty on climate change

The Paris Agreement, often referred to as the Paris Accords or the Paris Climate Accords, is an international treaty on climate change. Adopted in 2015, the agreement covers climate change mitigation, adaptation, and finance. The Paris Agreement was negotiated by 196 parties at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference near Paris, France. As of February 2023, 195 members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are parties to the agreement. Of the three UNFCCC member states which have not ratified the agreement, the only major emitter is Iran. The United States withdrew from the agreement in 2020, but rejoined in 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change in Europe</span> Emissions, impacts and responses of Europe related to climate change

Climate change has resulted in an increase in temperature of 2.3 °C (2022) in Europe compared to pre-industrial levels. Europe is the fastest warming continent in the world. Europe's climate is getting warmer due to anthropogenic activity. According to international climate experts, global temperature rise should not exceed 2 °C to prevent the most dangerous consequences of climate change; without reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, this could happen before 2050. Climate change has implications for all regions of Europe, with the extent and nature of impacts varying across the continent.

Litigation related to climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has become increasingly common in federal and state courts. Following adoption of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), additional pressure was placed on California public agencies to evaluate potential adverse effects to global climate change caused by GHG emissions. In particular, several lawsuits have been filed against agencies for failure to analyze GHG emissions generated by projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Court decisions prior to the 2010 revisions to the CEQA guidelines gave early insights as to how CEQA would be used as a vehicle to identify and mitigate GHG emissions within the state. Decisions issued after adoption of the revised guidelines are now being used to interpret CEQA's new requirement to evaluate GHG emissions and climate change.

The German Climate Action Plan 2050 is a climate protection policy document approved by the German government on 14 November 2016. The plan outlines measures by which Germany can meet its various national greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals through to 2050 and service its international commitments under the 2016 Paris Climate Agreement. The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), under minister Barbara Hendricks, led the development of the plan. The plan was progressively watered down since a draft was first leaked in early May 2016. Projections from the environment ministry in September 2016 indicate that Germany will likely miss its 2020 climate target.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change in Germany</span> Emissions, impacts and responses of Germany related to climate change

Climate change is leading to long-term impacts on agriculture in Germany, more intense heatwaves and coldwaves, flash and coastal flooding, and reduced water availability. Debates over how to address these long-term challenges caused by climate change have also sparked changes in the energy sector and in mitigation strategies. Germany's energiewende has been a significant political issue in German politics that has made coalition talks difficult for Angela Merkel's CDU.

<i>Juliana v. United States</i> 2015 lawsuit

Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. is a climate-related lawsuit filed in 2015 by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States and several executive branch officials. Filing their case in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, the plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization Our Children's Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the members of Martinez's organization Earth Guardians, and climatologist James Hansen as a "guardian for future generations". Some fossil fuel and industry groups initially intervened as defendants but later requested to be dropped following the 2016 presidential election, stating that the case would be well defended under the new administration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change litigation</span> Use of legal practice to further climate change mitigation

Climate change litigation, also known as climate litigation, is an emerging body of environmental law using legal practice to set case law precedent to further climate change mitigation efforts from public institutions, such as governments and companies. In the face of slow politics of climate change delaying climate change mitigation, activists and lawyers have increased efforts to use national and international judiciary systems to advance the effort. Climate litigation typically engages in one of five types of legal claims: Constitutional law, administrative law, private law (challenging corporations or other organizations for negligence, nuisance, etc., fraud or consumer protection, or human rights.

Max Barrett is an Irish judge who has served as a Judge of the High Court since January 2014.

<i>State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation</i> Dutch court case about carbon dioxide emissions

State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation was a court case heard by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in 2019 related to government efforts to curtail carbon dioxide emissions. The case was brought against the Dutch government in 2013, arguing the government, by not meeting a minimum carbon dioxide emission-reduction goal established by scientists to avert harmful climate change, was endangering the human rights of Dutch citizens as set by national and European Union laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change in the Netherlands</span> Emissions, impacts and responses of the Netherlands related to climate change

The Netherlands is already affected by climate change. The average temperature in the Netherlands rose by more than 2 °C from 1901 to 2020. Climate change has resulted in increased frequency of droughts and heatwaves. Because significant portions of the Netherlands have been reclaimed from the sea or otherwise are very near sea level, the Netherlands is very vulnerable to sea level rise.

Tessa Khan is an environmental lawyer who lives in the United Kingdom. She co-founded and is co-director of the Climate Litigation Network, which supports legal cases related to climate change mitigation and climate justice.

Climate change is having a range of impacts in the Republic of Ireland. Increasing temperatures are changing weather patterns, with increasing heatwaves, rainfall and storm events. These changes lead to ecosystem on land and in Irish waters, altering the timing of species' life cycles and changing the composition of ecosystems. Climate change is also impacting people through flooding and by increasing the risk of health issues such as skin cancers and disease spread. Climate change is considered to be the single biggest threat to Ireland according to the head of the Defence Forces of Ireland, Mark Mellett.

<i>Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell</i> Dutch legal case (2021)

Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell (2021) is a human rights law and tort law case heard by the district court of The Hague in the Netherlands in 2021 related to efforts by several NGO's to curtail carbon dioxide emissions by multinational corporations. It was brought by the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth and a group of other NGO's against the oil corporation, Shell plc. In May 2021, the court ordered Shell to reduce its global carbon emissions from its 2019 levels by 45% by 2030, relating not only to the emissions from its operations, but also those from the products it sells. It is considered to be the first major climate change litigation ruling against a corporation.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "Friends of the Irish Environment v The Government of Ireland & Ors". 2020. Archived from the original on 31 October 2020. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  2. ↑ "National Mitigation Plan 2017" (PDF). 2017. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 September 2018. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  3. ↑ "Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 - A Brief Overview". www.mccannfitzgerald.com. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  4. ↑ "2015 Climate Act, section 3". 2015. Archived from the original on 26 April 2016. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  5. ↑ "2015 Climate Act, section 4". 2015. Archived from the original on 26 April 2016. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  6. ↑ "Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change - CSO - Central Statistics Office". www.cso.ie. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  7. ↑ "Climate Change Advisory Council Periodic Review Report 2017" (PDF). 2017. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 December 2019. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  8. ↑ O'Sullivan, Kevin. "Climate Change Advisory Council strongly criticises Government plan on climate". The Irish Times. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  9. ↑ "About Us - Friends of the Irish Environment". www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.org. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  10. 1 2 "Climate case". Climate Case Ireland. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  11. 1 2 "Friends of the Irish Environment v. Ireland". Climate Change Litigation. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Kelleher, Orla (9 September 2020). "The Supreme Court of Ireland's decision in Friends of the Irish Environment v Government of Ireland ("Climate Case Ireland")". EJIL: Talk!. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  13. 1 2 Carolan, Mary. "Supreme Court to hear appeal over Government's 'flawed' climate change plan". The Irish Times. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  14. ↑ "Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v The Government of Ireland". 2019. Archived from the original on 30 April 2021. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  15. 1 2 3 Ryall, Áine. "Supreme Court ruling a turning-point for climate governance in Ireland". The Irish Times. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  16. 1 2 Kenny, David. "Opinion: The Supreme Court's ruling on the government's climate plan is a watershed moment". TheJournal.ie. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  17. ↑ Boland, Lauren. "Supreme Court finds government climate plan falls "well short"". TheJournal.ie. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  18. ↑ Keena, Colm. "Court's quashing of climate plan a cause for international embarrassment". The Irish Times. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  19. ↑ "Supreme Court rules in favour of Climate Case Ireland". Green News Ireland. 31 July 2020. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  20. 1 2 Frost, Rosie (31 July 2020). "Irish citizens win case to force government action on climate change". living. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  21. ↑ "Climate change: 'Huge' implications to Irish climate case across Europe". BBC News. 1 August 2020. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  22. ↑ "Los jueces reclaman al gobierno de Irlanda un plan de acción climática más exigente". La Vanguardia (in Spanish). 31 July 2020. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  23. ↑ "Minister Ryan welcomes the judgement of the Supreme Court today in relation to National Mitigation Plan". www.gov.ie. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  24. ↑ "Supreme Court to hear Climate Case Ireland appeal". Climate Case Ireland. 14 February 2020. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  25. ↑ "Activists took the Irish govt to court over its national climate plan — and won". The World from PRX. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
  26. ↑ "Amidst a climate and biodiversity crisis, hope emerges: Friends of the Irish Environment win historic 'Climate Case Ireland' in the Irish Supreme Court". Climate Case Ireland. 31 July 2020. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.