ppt revolution justified legal wichester€¦ · epa endangerment finding migration, supply of food...

Revolution

Justified

Why only the law

can save us now

www.revolutionjustified.orgwww.revolutiemetrecht.nl

The legal status of IPCC reports

• The principle of fair hearing and due process

• “No court of law could possibly deviate from IPCC findings sinceany expertise put before the court would never be as inclusiveas that inherent in the IPCC. ”

• High Court of Justice of England

Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills


The legal status of IPCC reports

• 100% certainty

- that Earth is warming

- that Co2 has increased due to mankind

• 90-95% certainty:

- that man made Co2 causes warming

- that warming in 20th century was 0.74 degrees Celsius

- that all societies in all regions of the world will be adversablyaffected with a rise of 2 to 3 degrees


Observations

At current 0,8 degrees celsius

• 75% summer ice mass disappeared in last 30 years at North Pole

• Greenland: melting ice everywhere in 2012 (-7% reflection = 2x energy use USA)

• Increase extremities on land with factor 25 since 1960


Consequences

Green book, White book

EPA endangerment finding

Migration, supply of foodand raw materials

Security issues

Increasing adaptation costs


Emissions, warming and inertia

• Last 10.000 years between 260 - 280 ppm

anno 1750 � 280 ppm

• 1980 � 340 ppm � present day effect

• 2013 � 400 ppm � effect as per 2050

� warming in the pipeline

� asbestos and tobacco

• Now 20 ppm every decade (instead of 10.000 years!)


UNFCCC treaty (1992 -> 195 countries including EU)

“The ultimate objective of this Convention is to achieve stabilization of

greenhouse gas concentrations in the amosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

“The Parties should protect the climate system…in accordance with theircommon but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.

“…The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent orminimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects.””

“…Efforts to address climate change may be carried out cooperatively byinterested Parties.”


Dangerous climate change

• Cancun agreements:

- 2°C is dangerous (or 1.5 °C)

- 2°C = staying under 450 ppm Co2-eq or

staying under 450 ppm Co2 (with effect aerosols etc)

• Maximum carbon budget is 50 ppm (about 20 years in BAU scenario)



• The EU Commission to the Council (10.1.2007)

“The EU's objective is to limit global average temperature increase to less than

2°C compared to pre-industrial levels… By stabilising long-term concentrationsat around 450 ppmv CO2 eq. there is a 50 % chance of doing so.”

• Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

“Emission reduction targets of 25 to 40% below 1990 levels in 2020 would be

consistent with stabilising long-term levels of greenhouse gas concentration levels at 450 ppm Co2 equivalent. This concentration level has a reasonable chance (50%) of avoiding an increase in global average temperature of more

than 2°C. “

Box 13.7 The range of the difference between emissions in 1990 and emission allowances in 2020/2050 for

various GHG concentration levels for Annex I and non-Annex I countries as a group

Deviation from baseline in Latin

America and Middle East, East Asia

BaselineNon-Annex I

-30% to -80%0% to -25%Annex IC-650 ppm CO2-eq

Deviation from baseline in most regions,

especially in Latin America and Middle

East

Deviation from baseline in

Latin America and Middle East,

East Asia

Non-Annex I

-40% to -90%-10% to -30%Annex IB-550 ppm CO2-eq

Substantial deviation from baseline in all

regions

Substantial deviation from

baseline in Latin America,

Middle East, East Asia and

Centrally-Planned Asia

Non-Annex I

–80% to –95%–25% to –40%Annex IA-450 ppm CO2-eqb

20502020RegionScenario category



• Succes rate for staying below 2 degrees:

– 450 ppm Co2 -> 50% chance (endangerment, duty of care)

– 400 ppm Co2 -> 60% chance (+ precautionary principle)

– 350 ppm Co2 -> 85% chance (+ precautionary principle)

• Maximum carbon budget is 50 ppm (about 20 years in BAU scenario)

• Using fossil fuels longer will require very steep emission reductions



• CBDR principle: annex 1 countries -> 25-40% in 2020 (as to 1990 GHG)

-> 80-95% in 2050

• UNFCCC treaty: focus is on individual responsibility of countries

• No new burden sharing agreement before 2020

• Getting results before 2020 is key from a scientific as well as financialperspective.


450 scenario 50% chance of staying below 2 degrees

Years up to 2020 are key“To keep open a realistic chance of meeting the 2°C target, intensive action is required before 2020.” (IEA)

Delay is also false economy“ delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment avoided in the power sector before 2020 an additional $ 4.3 would need to be spent between2021 and 2035 to compensate for the increased emissions.” (IEA)

Lock-in“ If stringent new action is not forthcoming by 2017, the energy-related

infrastructure then in place will generate all the Co2 emissions allowed in the 450 Scenario up to 2035, leaving no room for additional power plants, factories and other infrastructure unless they are zero-carbon, which would beextremely costly” (IEA)



World bank, IEA, IPCC, PWC

We are heading towards 4 - 6°C at the end of the century

IMF managing director Christine Lagarde

“ Unless we take action on climate change, future generations will beroasted, toasted, fried and grilled.”


350 scenario85% chance of staying below 2 degrees

Hansen et al:

• 6% reductie per year up to 2050 (2012 = 100)

• Equals 40% in 2020 (compared to 2012 and for NL also to 1990).

• Had we started in 2005 then 3.5% would be enough.

• When we start in 2020 yearly reduction needs to be 15%


450 scenario50% chance of staying below 2 degrees

From a carbon intensity perspective (PwC)

• 5,1 % reduction per year untill 2050 (presently 0.8%)

• Doubling our effort is still 6 C• Quadrupling is still 4 C

• Had we started in 2000 then annual reduction of 3,7%

• The longer we wait the higher the costs of adaptation and of the energy transformation


Carbon bubble

Potsdam institute (85%) Only 1/5 can be burned untill 2050

IEA (50%)Only 1/3 can be burned untill 2050

Consequences• Effect on stock market value and collateral security

The Economist“Either governments are not serious about climate change or fossil-fuel firms are overvalued”


Stalemate

National governments must lead• IPCC, IEA, World bank and common sense• PPP mobility, elektricity, gas, education, healthcare

• Climate Treaty 1992 � responsibility of individual states• National law: government has duty for habitability of the country

Political stalemate and inability- 4 years � 40 years- Complex- Vested interests and status quo- Media

Hence: to depoliticise and to impose


Legal intervention

• Cancun �� Resolution 10/4 UN Human Rights Council

Climate change is a threat to the human rights of all people and societies in the world

• ECJ PreussenElektra 2001“The use of renewable energy sources … contributes to the reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases which are amongst the main causes of climate change which the European Community and its Member States have pledged to combat….It should be noted that that policy is also designed to protect the health and life of humans, animals and plants.”

• UN Security Council“Climate change is posing a threat to world peace and stabilty.”


Legal intervention

Massachussets vs EPA (US Supreme Court)

• “The harms associated with climate change are serious and wellrecognized.”

• “The risk of catastrophic harm, though remote, is nevertheless real.”

• “Epa’s steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presents a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is both “actual” and “imminent.”

• “A reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of globalemissions, no matter what happens elsewhere.”


Legal intervention

The need for precaution, not damages

• Attorney General Spier: states and multinationals are “too big to fail”

• 4-6 degrees is an infringement of human rights (threat):

habitability of regions, the right to life, health, housing, self-determination, own means of subsistence, public order and security, environmental safety and respect for private and family life.

• Is there a legal justification for these infringements?

….necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety orthe economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.


Legal intervention

Standard of due care• Danger is well recognised -> 2 degrees and 450 ppm• Risk mitigation is defined -> 25-40% in 2020 • Alternatives are known -> energy efficiency, renewables, CCS

Inaction is unlawful• Analogy with asbestos (no regulation, inertia, phase out)

• Individual responsibility and proportional liability

• The no-harm rule: to prevent, reduce and control the risk of environmental harm to other states.

• EU policy of 20% in 2020 is endangerment and infringement of humanrights within the EU

• Precautionary principle for positive obligation to protect HR (350 ppm)


Upcoming lawsuit in the Netherlands

• Plaintiff: Urgenda foundation, founded in 2008

• Defendant: the Dutch government

• Standing: statutory goal and actions with focus on climatechange and energy transition

• Claim:

- 40% reduction of Co2 in 2020 via 6% reduction per year to be

continued to 2050, or what the court may decide with a

minimum of 25% in 2020

- informing and warning the general public on climate change

issues


Summary

• The energy transformation is urgent

• Socio-economically there is a lot at stake

• The outlook for a timely political intervention is gloomy

• Legal intervention is needed to initiate and speed up the transformation

ppt revolution justified legal wichester€¦ · epa endangerment finding migration, supply of food...

Documents