Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
The countries being sued are:
So basicly all of Europe, besides some of the smaller ones. Combined the ghg emissions are higher then that of the USA, but I somehow believe Russia does not care about that ruling.
More than 80 lawyers represent the accused countries, Reuters reported, and the plaintiffs are represented by six lawyers.
They're so fucked. I appreciate their gumption, though.
Eh, lawsuits like this have had success multiple times already and practically nothing changed about the injustice since then.
I think they have a general case that the future rights of younger generations should not be broken by the failure of older generations to reduce luxury consumption, but it's not just about these 32 specified countries, and I doubt that lawyers and judges are the right 'experts' to decide this topic. Maybe it helps to broaden the community beyond scientists and slrpnks, but law mostly builds on precedent and the scale and duration of this problem is unprecedented.
To be clear this is an international court and its rulings are unfortunatly ignored in many cases. However it also happens to be the international court, for which it happens the least and it has a good reputation globally. So a strong precedent set by the European Court for Human Rights would set a strong precedent for European courts and work as a strong argument to bring governments into complying with the Paris Accord.
So the big win is that this can create a field day to sue European fossil fuel companies and the like.