The Insufficient Response Of The Spanish Justice System To Climate Change Today
The earth has gone through a lot of climate change, as climate deniers like to point out, but it's nothing else. It is different because it is caused by the The Spanish Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit initiated by Greenpeace, Ecologistas en Acción, Oxfam Intermón and CODA against the lack of ambition in the climate of PNIEC 2021. The work of Lhotka and Jan Kysely (2022) clearly shows that they have increased in number and severity in the European continent since 1950, especially in the last two decades. The need calls for a more ambitious review of the goals of not exceeding 1.5 ºC increase in the global average temperature according to the Paris Agreement, based on the scientific diagnosis of the current climate situation and that in any case that the reduction in emissions is less than 55% in 2030 compared to 1990. The Supreme Court of Spain declared that according to our Constitution, it can only be checked if the PNI EC complies with the Law. Science is the basis of the case, and the decision urges that “any limitation or established in accordance with the previous section must correspond to the public's right to enjoy an environment suitable for human development.
Veröffentlicht : vor 2 Jahren durch World Nation News Desk in Environment
The earth has gone through a lot of climate change, as climate deniers like to point out, but it’s nothing else. It is different because it is caused by the human species due to the abusive use of fossil fuels as a source of energy; and because of its temporal and exponential speed, in less than 200 years. If heat waves are taken as an indicator of climate reference, the work of Lhotka and Jan Kysely (2022) clearly shows that they have increased in number and severity in the European continent since 1950, especially in the last two decades. The observations show us the seriousness of the climate situation.
On July 24, the Supreme Court issued a ruling dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety, regarding the so-called “Spanish climate case”—litigation initiated by Greenpeace, Ecologistas en Acción, Oxfam Intermón and CODA against the lack of ambition in the climate of PNIEC 2021. 2030—, considering that it is in accordance with the law, is not arbitrary and includes the participation of the commitment assumed by the European Union (EU) in this matter. But, in addition, it based the decision on “clear results that the progress of emission reductions as intended will happen for the national economy.”
The need calls for a more ambitious review of the goals of not exceeding 1.5 ºC increase in the global average temperature according to the Paris Agreement, based on the scientific diagnosis of the current climate situation and that in any case that the reduction in emissions is less than. 55% in 2030 compared to 1990. Binding goal for the EU, confirmed by Regulation 2021/119 European climate legislation (06/30/2021).
Another issue is the slowness of failure, because the objectives referred to in the demand are those considered in the National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan (PNIEC) 2021-2030, have been surpassed. The new PNIEC 2023-2030 increases the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 32% compared to the previous 23%. The PNIEC review undertaken by the Government—with lofty, albeit insufficient, objectives—fully justifies the need. But energy dependence could still be 51% in 2030, which could mean saving about 90 billion euros in the import of fossil fuels. Bill that we pay every year, in addition to the health, environmental and climate costs of using it.
The Supreme Court declared that, according to our Constitution, it can only be checked if the PNIEC complies with the Law. Therefore, “dogmatic and scientific considerations” do not apply. For TS, “it is true that the Paris Convention and the community regulations contain minimum limits”, without understanding that environmental degradation, which is fully diagnosed by climate science, forces – like it or not – one ambition and acceleration of the current socioeconomic model. . It is not just an energy transfer process.
The Spanish Constitution establishes in its article 45.1 that Spanish citizens “have the right to enjoy an environment suitable for human development, as well as the duty to preserve it.” But this is collected in the Third Chapter. In the guiding principles of social and economic policy, not in the second Chapter. Rights and freedoms, that is, it is a right that belongs to the socioeconomic policy. Consequently, this is another fundamental aspect of the Spanish Constitution that needs to be examined.
There are decisions in other countries that consider scientific diagnosis, such as the case of Urgenda, in the Netherlands. The decision of the Supreme Court of Spain is also different from that made by the State of Montana (United States) in August where it was ruled that its Environmental Policy Law, which prohibits the consideration of the climate impact of proposed energy projects, violates of “the right to a clean and healthy environment”, and is based on the constitutional right of that State. The lawyer representing the group of young plaintiffs said that could pave the way for a court-ordered transition away from fossil fuels across the country. Science is the basis of the case.
In March 2022, the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia issued six judgments regarding the appeals filed by six entities involved in motor and transport and which were resolved through a joint legal assessment, suspending the Barcelona City Council Ordinance regulating the Zone. of Low Emissions. (ZBE), considering that the restrictions are not the same. The decision urges that “any limitation or requirement established in accordance with the previous section must correspond to the compelling reason of the general interest requested, and must be such that there is no other less restrictive or distorting means for economic activity.”
The ZBE is widely used in many European cities to limit the use of polluting vehicles to circulate with the aim of improving its air quality, therefore one of the reasons for the ordinance. Response to the obligation of public powers to guarantee the right to a clean and healthy environment. In addition, the Court of Justice of the EU condemned Spain, in December 2022, for systematically failing to comply with the European air quality directive in Madrid and the Barcelona Metropolitan Area. It is estimated that air pollution causes more than 24,000 premature deaths every year in Spain.
From a legal point of view, it can be considered that the implementation of ZBE may involve the confrontation of two rights: the right to health against the right to move. Air pollution, in a well-demonstrated way, clearly affects health, but the right to move is only conditioned, at certain times, to vehicles that are the dirtiest, with alternative mobility systems. But the most important thing: there is no fundamental right to drive the car one wants, because the pollution emitted affects the rest of the citizens. It has been proven that ZBEs do not create social inequalities, the benefits of improving air quality are universal and they reduce health costs. The right that must come first is very clear: health.
Both sentences emit an aroma of prioritizing the current socioeconomic status without knowing that the current model must be overcome. They respond to a priority of the market and low values, compared to the values that should prevail such as the preservation of the quality of life, health, biodiversity and climate support, without knowing how to understand and Appreciation of the game of poker today. playing. playing with the people.
Jose Ma Baldasano He is an emeritus professor of Environmental Engineering at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya and winner of the King James I Award for the Environment.
You can follow CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT on Facebook and Xor sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter
Themen: Climate Change, ESG