The insufficient response of the Spanish justice system to current climate change
The earth has undergone numerous climatic changes, as climate deniers stubbornly like to point out, but this is not another one. It differs because it is The Spanish Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Greenpeace, Ecologistas en Acción, Oxfam Intermón and CODA against the lack of climate ambition of the PNIEC 2021-2030. The demand requested a more ambitious review of the objectives to not exceed 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 no case would the reduction of emissions be less than 55% in 2030 compared to 1990. Energy dependence would still be 51% by 2030, which could mean savings of around 90 billion euros in the import of fossil fuels. The Supreme Court declares that, in accordance with our Constitution, it can only assess whether the P NIEC complies with the Law. The ruling also contrasts with that made in the State of Montana last August where it was ruled that its Environmental Policy Law, which prohibits considering the climate impact of proposed energy projects, violates the “right to a clean and healthy environment” and was based on that ruling.
Veröffentlicht : vor 2 Jahren durch WEB DESK in Environment
The earth has undergone numerous climatic changes, as climate deniers stubbornly like to point out, but this is not another one. It differs because it is being caused by the human species due to the abusive use of fossil fuels as a source of energy; and due to the temporal and exponential speed of the same, in less than 200 years. If heat waves are taken as a reference climate indicator, the work of Lhotka and Jan Kysely (2022) clearly shows that they are increasing in number and severity on 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 promoted by Greenpeace, Ecologistas en Acción, Oxfam Intermón and CODA against the lack of climate ambition of the PNIEC 2021-2030—, considering that it is in accordance with the law, not arbitrary and involves integrating into the commitment assumed by the European Union (EU ) in this matter. But, in addition, it bases the ruling on “the obvious consequences that an increase in emissions reductions such as the intended one would entail for the national economy.”
The demand requested a more ambitious review of the objectives to not exceed 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 no case would the reduction of emissions be less than 55% in 2030 compared to 1990. Binding target for the EU, confirmed by Regulation 2021/119 European climate legislation (06/30/2021).
Another issue is the slowness in failing, because the objectives to which the demand referred were those considered in the National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan (PNIEC) 2021-2030, already surpassed. The new PNIEC 2023-2030 increases the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 32% compared to the previous 23%. The review of the PNIEC made by the Government—with upward, although insufficient, objectives—fully justifies the demand. But energy dependence would still be 51% by 2030, which could mean savings of around 90 billion euros in the import of fossil fuels. Bill that we are paying year after year, in addition to the health, environmental and climatic cost of its use.
The Supreme Court declares that, in accordance with our Constitution, it can only assess whether the PNIEC complies with the Law. Therefore, “dogmatic and scientific considerations” are not applicable. For the TS, “it is true that both the Paris Convention and the community regulations constitute minimum limits”, without understanding that environmental deterioration, fully diagnosed by climate science, forces – like it or not – an ambitious and acceleration of the current socioeconomic model. It is not only a process of energy transition.
Constitutional right to the environment
The Spanish Constitution establishes in its article 45.1 that Spanish citizens “have the right to enjoy an environment suitable for the development of the person, as well as the duty to conserve it.” But it is collected in Chapter Three. Of the guiding principles of social and economic policy, not in the second Chapter. Rights and freedoms, that is, it is a right subject to socioeconomic policy. Consequently, this is another fundamental aspect of the Spanish Constitution that should be reviewed.
There are sentences in other countries that have taken into consideration the scientific diagnosis, such as in the case of Urgenda, in the Netherlands. The ruling of the Spanish Supreme Court also contrasts with that made in the State of Montana (United States) last August where it was ruled that its Environmental Policy Law, which prohibits considering the climate impact of proposed energy projects, violates the “ right to a clean and healthy environment”, and was based on the constitutional right of that State. The lawyer who represented the group of young plaintiffs indicates that she could pave the way for court-ordered abandonment of fossil fuels across the country. Science was fundamental to the case.
In March 2022, the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia issued six rulings regarding the appeals filed by six entities linked to motor and transport and which were resolved with a joint legal assessment, suspending the Barcelona City Council Ordinance that regulates the Zone. of Low Emissions (ZBE), considering that the restrictions are disproportionate. The ruling invokes that “any limit or requirement established in accordance with the previous section must be proportionate to the compelling reason of general interest invoked, and must be such that there is no other less restrictive or distorting means for economic activity.”
The ZBE widely used in many European cities limits the use of polluting vehicles to circulate with the aim of improving their air quality, hence one of the reasons for the ordinance. Response to the obligation of public powers to guarantee the right to a clean and healthy environment. Furthermore, the EU Court of Justice 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 annually in Spain.
From a legal perspective, it can be considered that ZBE implementation may involve the confrontation of two rights: the right to health versus the right to mobility. Air pollution, in a well-demonstrated way, clearly affects health, but the right to mobility is only conditioned, at certain times, to the vehicles that pollute the most, having alternative mobility systems. But the most important: There is no fundamental right to drive in the vehicle one wants, since the pollution emitted affects the rest of the citizens.. It is proven that ZBEs do not generate social inequalities, the benefits of improving air quality are universal and they reduce health costs. The right that must be prioritized is very clear: health.
Both sentences exude an aroma of prioritization of the current socioeconomic status that is not aware that the current model needs to be overcome. They respond to a prioritization of market and short-term values, compared to values that must prevail such as the conservation of quality of life, health, biodiversity and climate support, without knowing how to understand and value the poker game that is currently being played. playing humanity.
You can follow CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT in Facebook and xor sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter
Themen: Climate Change, ESG