Public, Court Interventions and Climate Change

The Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) this week ruled on a case brought by a group of older Swiss women who stated that a lack of climate action by the Switzerland government was violating their human rights and those of their families. What rights were being violated? The ECHR ruling stated that it was the right to life that was being put in jeopardy by Switzerland’s climate change inaction. The ruling for public actions brought before the courts may lead to many other citizen groups bringing lawsuits against their governments for tardy politics when it comes to climate change.

The Swiss women’s group, KlimaSeniorinnen, represents 2,400 older women, the youngest in the group is 64. These women are active and appear to be in relatively good health. Nonetheless, their lawsuit argued that inaction on carbon emissions was raising global atmospheric temperatures and posing an immediate threat to health using statistics from Europe’s last two summers that showed older women were victims of the abnormally hot temperatures experienced by the continent.

Charlotte Blattner, a specialist in climate law at the University of Berne, told The Guardian, that the ruling makes it urgent for governments to respond to anthropogenic global warming and that it “be held accountable for their lack of adequate action.” The likely outcome of this ruling will spur citizens in other countries to launch similar lawsuits against their governments for inaction.

Studies done at the University of Berne have provided evidence that older women are particularly vulnerable to heat with heat-caused death rates rising in Europe. The threat is European-wide.

An October 24, 2023 study published in the journal Nature Medicine estimated 61,672 deaths from heat in Europe happened between May 30 and September 4, 2022. No similar study has yet to be published for last year although the summer of 2023 was even hotter than that experienced in 2022.

What did the 2022 data show? Weekly temperatures reached between 0.78 to 2.33 Celsius above normal (1.4 to 4.2 Fahrenheit) in June, 0.18 to 3.56  Celsius (0.32 to 6.4 Fahrenheit) above normal in July, and rose 0.91 to 2.67 Celsius (1.6 to 4.8 Fahrenheit) above the norm in August. The highest death counts directly attributed to the 2022 summer heat occurred in these European countries:

• Italy had 18,010 heat-related deaths.
• Spain had 11,324 heat-related deaths.
• Germany had 8,173 heat-related deaths.
• France had 4,807 heat-related deaths.
• The United Kingdom had 3,469 heat-related deaths.
• Greece had 3,092 heat-related deaths.

For all of Europe, women were disproportionately affected by the 2022 summer heatwaves. Women between the ages of 65 and 79 experienced death rates 6% above the norm. Women above 80 saw a death rate 121% above the norm.

What were the Swiss numbers that summer? According to SwissInfo, a branch of the Swiss Broadcasting System, anthropogenic global warming caused 60% of Swiss heat deaths overall, and 3.5% of the total deaths in 2022.

Epidemiologist Ana Vicedo-Cabrera at the University of Berne, told SwissInfo, “Without human-induced climate change, more than 370 people would not have died in Switzerland in the summer of 2022 as a result of the heat.” 

In other words, these were avoidable deaths if the Swiss government had chosen to enact policies to mitigate climate change. That was the conclusion of the ECHR.

For other citizen groups seeking action on climate, the KlimaSeniorinnen victory should inspire them to use the courts as a prod to get more aggressive climate change mitigation policies enacted by their governments.

A Reuters news report describes the implications of the ECHR ruling. It quotes Joie Chowdhury, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environment Law, who stated: “We expect this ruling to influence climate action and climate litigation across Europe and far beyond. The ruling reinforces the vital role of courts, both international and domestic, in holding governments to their legal obligations to protect human rights from environmental harm.”

Described as a “watershed legal moment for climate justice and human rights,” the case is seen as a blueprint for similar cases. Reuters reports there are six other cases to be heard by the ECHR including one against the Norwegian government which has been accused of violating human rights through the issuing of licences to explore for oil and gas in the Barents Sea.

In Canada, Fraser Thomson, an Ecojustice lawyer, describes the European ruling as a turning point for Canadian climate law stating “It represents the growing chorus, the growing recognition that climate change is a human rights crisis, and that the 2020s is the most critical decade.” Thomson represents seven young people who have challenged the government in the Province of Ontario related to climate change and its violation of their rights under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University tracks global cases launched by citizens against governments failing to act. As of the end of 2022, the number reached 2,180.