Historic Supreme Court Verdict Means Ireland's Government Must Increase Climate Ambition

image_50427649
on

The Supreme Court of Ireland has ruled in favour of an environmental group challenging the Irish governmentโ€™s climate plans, finding its policies did not meet legal requirements for detailing how the country will meet emissions-reductionย targets.

The decision is only the second time a countryโ€™s highest court has required a national government to reformย its climate policy in order to meet legalย obligations.

Environmental group Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE) filed the case in 2017 against the government claiming that a climate policy adopted that year was unlawful under various legal authorities including Irelandโ€™s Climate Act of 2015, the countryโ€™s Constitution, and the European Convention on Humanย Rights.

FIE argued the 2017 Climate Mitigation Plan, which followed from the statutory Climate Act and set out pathways for a low-carbon transition, lacked requirements to cut emissions in the near term. The group noted that Irelandโ€™s emissions had increased in recent years and that the country is not on track to meeting its emission reductionย goals.

The High Court initially dismissed the case on the grounds that the government has wide discretion to setย policy. The Supreme Court, which took the case in a โ€œleapfrogโ€ appeal given the urgency of climate policy, reversed that decision with a ruling on July 31 that foundย the 2017 Climate Mitigation Plan did not meet statutory requirements of Irelandโ€™s 2015 climateย law.

The Chief Justice concluded that the plan โ€œfalls well short of the level of specificity required to provide that transparency and to comply with the provisions of the 2015 Act.โ€ The ruling, delivered just over a month after hearings were held before the Court, proposes the plan beย quashed.

According to FIE, the Irish government โ€œmust now create a new, more ambitious National Mitigation Plan that complies with Irelandโ€™s national and international climateย obligations.โ€ย 

Dr. David R. Boyd, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, said in a press releaseย that โ€œthis landmark decision recognizes the urgency of responding to the climate emergency and sets a precedent for courts around the world toย follow.โ€

The case is part of a wave of climate lawsuits around the world seeking to hold governments accountable for inadequate climate action. Many of the cases make claims of constitutional and human rights violations. The Irish case included rights-based claims, though the Supreme Court judgment was not based on those claims. The judgment did note that FIE as a โ€œcorporate entityโ€ would not have โ€œstandingโ€ or permission to bring a case claiming violation of rights that are only guaranteed to individuals. The Chief Justice also expressed his skepticism toward an unenumerated or inherent right to a healthy environment under the Irishย Constitution.

Theย rulingย is clear, however, that Ireland has a legal obligation to make detailed and specific requirements in its climate policy for slashing emissions in the short term andย beyond.

โ€œThe Irish Government can no longer make promises it will not fulfill. It has a legal obligation to protect citizens from the worst impacts of climate change by reducing Irelandโ€™s emissions in the short-term. Failure to do so is a breach of its legal obligations on climate change,โ€ Beth Doherty of youth campaign group Fridays for Future Ireland said in a press release.

Clodagh Daly, spokesperson for Climate Case Ireland, said the pressure must be kept on the government to ensure that it follows through with a more aggressive climateย policy.

โ€œExciting as a legal win may be, the real work now lies in the creation of a transformed National Mitigation Plan โ€“ one that guarantees the rapid and dramatic reduction of Irelandโ€™s emissions,โ€ Daly said. โ€œIt is technologically and economically feasible for us to achieve this โ€“ and the Supreme Court has now affirmed that there is no legal basis for a lack of political will. The government needs to stepย up.โ€

The Irish climate lawsuit was inspired by aย case brought by the Netherlands-based Urgenda Foundation, whose CEO Marjan Minnesmaย said in a press release: โ€œthe Irish Supreme Court has taken a historic step today that will give hope to people all over the world.โ€ Urgenda successfullyย challenged the Dutch government‘sย 2020 emissions reduction target, winning an initial verdict in 2015 beforeย the Dutch Supreme Court issuedย a final ruling last December, which orderedย the government to make steeper emissions cuts in order to safeguard human rights threatened by the climateย crisis.

Image Credit: Climate Caseย Ireland

image_50427649
Dana is an environmental journalist focusing on climate change and climate accountability reporting. She writes regularly for DeSmog covering topics such as fossil fuel industry opposition to climate action, climate change lawsuits, greenwashing and false climate solutions, and clean transportation.

Related Posts

Analysis
on

We reflect on a year of agenda-setting stories that charted the political influence of fossil fuel interests in the UK and beyond.

We reflect on a year of agenda-setting stories that charted the political influence of fossil fuel interests in the UK and beyond.
on

The Heartland Institute, which questions human-made climate change, has established a new branch in London.

The Heartland Institute, which questions human-made climate change, has established a new branch in London.
on

At McNeese State Universityโ€™s LNG center, โ€œwe want to ensure that our LNG industry has a major say in research direction,โ€ one of its project leaders wrote.

At McNeese State Universityโ€™s LNG center, โ€œwe want to ensure that our LNG industry has a major say in research direction,โ€ one of its project leaders wrote.
on

But experts say these โ€œabusiveโ€ lawsuits, which are designed to demoralize and drain resources from activists, should be fought, not feared.

But experts say these โ€œabusiveโ€ lawsuits, which are designed to demoralize and drain resources from activists, should be fought, not feared.