In a landmark ruling that many hope establishes a new global precedent for a state's obligation to its citizens in the face of the growing climate crisis, a Dutch court on Wednesday said that the government has a legal duty to reduce carbon emissions by 25 percent by 2020.
A just verdict and a misleading headline.
Just think how much licking of the lips Monsanto is doing thinking about all the law suits against EU countries banning GMO products. Why does Obama want TPP?
I don't know the Dutch legal system, but this feels like a decision that can be appealed... and therefore probably will be...to a higher court. What are the chances that a higher court will uphold this ruling? Hmmm.... I wonder.
The global precedent is being set alright but not in that Netherlands court. But rather in the ultimate passage of TTP, TTIP, TISA and every other facet of the new trans national corporate governance that is rapidly emerging, with TTIP set to effect the Dutch directly upon entrance.
The Dutch people could become vegetarians and reduce carbon emissions by 17-18% immediately, not having to wait for the year 2020 and without waiting for governmental action. Instead, they will continue eating their burgers and hot dogs while complaining about government inaction. They are just like self-proclaimed progressive Americans - all talk, no sense of personal responsibility, and endless expressions of hostility to the vegetarian lifestyle.
From the link in the article to an equally historic case today in Washington State -
Seattle, Washington – On Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Hollis Hill issued a landmark decision
in Zoe & Stella Foster v. Washington Department of Ecology, the climate change case brought by eight young citizens of Washington State. In her decision, Judge Hill ordered the Washington Department of
Ecology (“Ecology”) to reconsider the petition the eight youth filed with Ecology last year asking for carbon dioxide reductions, and to report back to the court by July 8, 2015, as to whether they will consider the undisputed current science necessary for climate recovery.
Thank you Washington youngsters and attorneys - God Speed and Thunder
deleted no longer relevant. Thanks, oldgoat!
Plus when you listen to the "elites," it seems that they truly have convinced themselves that huge corporations ruling and employing us are the best way to go.
It scares me to even write that, but you see it all the time. Women leaders, too. "Oh, we'll just have to cut social security or raise the age," stuff like that, all the time, as if there is no better way to actually represent people. Scary stuff.
A typical vicious response to a non-vicious post. Rabbit food? Your ignorance is on display. Humans are omnivores? So? All the more reason to avoid environment-destroying meat. You phony progressives are so reactionary!
So? It's not particularly relevant that the Dutch declare that "climate action" is a human right. It won't change anything in the nations that are the greatest polluters. Nations comply with whatever human rights standards they wish. Consider the legitimacy of the UDHR. Even the US, with all our crowing about being leaders in human rights, doesn't comply with the UDHR. For example, this international agreement states that food and shelter are fundamental human rights -- even for the jobless poor. America disagrees.
Well, yeah, zenpractice is riding a high horse... in the way that was stated....however, I would like to state that the "cause" of our climate problem is ... multifaceted... it is greed, overpopulation...agribusiness.... and OVER EATING of meat and from the agribusiness model... and greed again... and a now ingrained expectation of humans that life should be so easy, they barely have to lift a finger... and they also have to be beautiful while not lifting that finger.... so, yeah, add the VANITY industry....
So, in other words... we really need a re evaluation of what is really important in life AND ... by using FF'S IN OUR EVERYDAY LIVES.... we have what is it... I think 50 ff's slaves working for us everyday.... stuff that we used to have to do ourselves.... or well, most of us... I think that much of our problems stem from in the days of kings and queens, whose lives seemed beautiful and clean and easy... and we became brain washed in to thinking that fossil fuels could allow us to live as if we were all kings and queens.... but as they abused humans in being able to live as they did.... we, though using a material resource... .are also, abusing humans in doing so... those we go to war over to basically steal the resource and also, humanity in general.... .since, we are killing ourselves off so we can live the easy life...
Now, i know someone will say... hey, I work my butt off... don't tell me I don't work hard....well, it's not that simple... it's all about EXPECTATION... YEAH, I WORK HARD TOO... but....
I think it has more to do with bringing the concept... to consciousness... the quantitative details will still have to be worked out...
i stopped eating beef and any other "meat" by 1980.... however, I kept fish in my diet... this is the thing... it is very hard to be a complete vegetarian when you work a lot... I do try to cook most of my meals... from scratch... I'm not a processed food eater... not much anyway.... but... being able to always combine everything needed to make whole protein is difficult sometimes... you end up eating the same thing all the time... But, I do think that a mostly vegetarian diet is better....like you said... eating some type of animal protein is almost necessary... even if it is only dairy products... (which I also rely on).... this is especially true of people who are very physically active... doing hard work or an athlete... not that there aren't some who are complete veggies.... but again, lots of things have to fall into place in order for such a diet to work...
The biggest culprit is AGRIBUSINESS... in the meat industry... the way meat is raised and processed is completely disgusting...
It's a nice gesture, but it hardly merits banner-waving and parades when a small country declares their willingness to reduce air pollution. What are "human rights"? Much of the world considers the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be the definitive answer. The US does not. The UDHR, for example, states that adequate food and shelter are fundamental human rights -- even for the jobless poor. America disagrees, and we ended our welfare aid programs.
The US has increased its use of coal for power plants, indicating a reversal of progress. Still, I would maintain that our leading contribution to climate change is our excessive use of privately-owned motor vehicles. We pour massive amounts of soot and oil particles (the cause of climate change) into the atmosphere every day via our motor vehicles, and to be honest, Americans do not wish to deal with the inconvenience of a comprehensive mass transportation system. Nor do taxpayers want tax dollars to be used for creating one.
The court did not just order the Dutch government. It also ordered the Dutch people. "You have decided that the science requires the reduction of "greenhouse gases", also meaning that you yourselves must reduce producing and emitting "greenhouse gases", therefore it is so ordered. You shall reduce producing and emitting "greenhouse gases". "
The next, interesting part, will be watching what the Dutch do in order to comply with this court order. (I hear that the Danes have a head start. The Dutch could borrow ideas from the Danes.)
What I hear is that under pressure from Obama's EPA's clean air rules, plus the fact that natural gas is lower cost and less controversial, that the US has decreased its use of coal for power plants. To be checked is whether we the US have decreased our use of power plants period. The Environmental groups seek that, and our margin of safe (no collapse) use has decreased in recent years.
As for that "inconvenience of a comprehensive mass transportation system", the larger more comprehensive idea is that most urban Americans should live in American Tokyo, crowded together in very small homes, so that most of us can walk to most things, and take mass transit for the rest. Most Americans seem to object to the inconvenience and unpleasantness of living so close together with other Americans. Apparently so do most people on this forum, what with their paeans to nature and open space.