‘Supreme Court did its job in Urgenda ruling’
On December 20th, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands presented its verdict in the case State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation. Urgenda pressed charges against the State to force them to adhere to the Paris Agreement, and the lower courts ruled in their favor. Now that this ruling has been upheld by the Supreme Court, UYA member Dr Rianka Rijnhout argues in newspaper NRC that the Supreme Court did its job: ensuring that the law is upheld.
In an opinion piece, Rijnhout and colleagues from Utrecht University argue that the emission reductions enforced by the ruling correspond to the bare minimum that is necessary to curb dangerous climate change effects, as is stated by climate scientists, international agreements, and, until recently, by the Dutch government itself.
“If there are dangers to the life and safety of citizens -which evidently is the case with climate change- and if legislators cannot or do not take appropriate measures, then the court can (or even: must) judge whether the government’s policy is lawful, if citizens request it to do so.”
Want to know more about the State v. Urgenda case?
You can read the opinion piece in NRC (in Dutch) or listen to Rijnhout’s appearance in NOS Met het Oog op Morgen.
On Friday 24 January 2020, Dr Rianka Rijnhout and UYA-colleague Dr Peter Bijl (Geosciences) will give a Friday Earth Sciences Talk on the State v. Urgenda case. In their talk, they will explain the historic and current Dutch emission mix and the consequences of the verdict for the Dutch and global emissions in 2020 and beyond, in relation to stated emission reduction policies and sustainable development goals. The talk will be held from 16:00-17:00 in Pangea, Victor J. Koningsberger building.