Solutions campaigner und lead link climate+energy bei Greenpeace. Aktiv für eine regenerative, effizientere und tierleidfreie Landwirtschaft als Bauer
Dear Franz Perrez, I am quite astonished that you seem to ignore the recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (News ECHR). It is simply not true that "on the basis of current international law it is not possible to set binding #emission_reduction_targets or individual #emission_budgets for individual States." You yourself were in court. In the case of Verein #KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and others v. #Switzerland, the Grand Chamber of the ECHR explicitly and bindingly stated, in response to similar submissions from Switzerland, that there is a human rights obligation to quantify, through a CO2 budget or otherwise, national GHG emissions limitations (KlimaSeniorinnen, §§570 and 550 (a)). It is indeed possible to determine the national CO2 budget, based on, inter alia, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement (KlimaSeniorinnen, §§571, 254, 215-29). This principle requires the States to act on the basis of equity and in accordance with their own respective capabilities (KlimaSeniorinnen, §571). § 571. "In this regard the Court cannot but note that the IPCC has stressed the importance of carbon budgets and policies for net-zero emissions (see paragraph 116 above), which can hardly be compensated for by reliance on the State’s NDCs under the Paris Agreement, as the Government seemed to suggest. The Court also finds convincing the reasoning of the GFCC, which rejected the argument that it was impossible to determine the national carbon budget, pointing to, inter alia, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement (see Neubauer and Others, cited in paragraph 254 above, paragraphs 215-29). This principle requires the States to act on the basis of equity and in accordance with their own respective capabilities. Thus, for instance, it is instructive for comparative purposes that the European Climate Law provides for the establishment of indicative GHG budgets (see paragraph 211 above)." For those who want to read the ruling: https://lnkd.in/d-qWNe7M Cordelia Bähr, Martin Looser, Raphael Mahaim, Louise Fournier, Jessica Simor KC, Marc Willers KC, Corina Heri, Sébastien Duyck
Ambassador, Director General; Directorate of International Law, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Switzerland
It was an honor to represent #Switzerland in the #ICJ #Advisory_Proceedings on 'Obligations related to #Climate_Change' at the #International_Court_of_Justice. Switzerland’s main arguments today were: The customary obligation of #due_diligence to prevent significant damage has been binding on all States, in parallel with the conventional climate change system, since the 1990s when the #IPCC's first report created a sufficiently robust basis for reasonably anticipating the risks of significant damage. In fact, the duty of due diligence requires knowledge or foreseeability (i) of a risk of potential significant harm, (ii) of its gravity and (iii) of the causality between the activity and the harm. It is only when a State is in a position to know or foresee these elements, and therefore the effects of activities conducted under its jurisdiction, that it can and must exercise due diligence to prevent harm from occurring. The IPCC’s first report in 1990 created a sufficiently robust basis for reasonably anticipating the risks of significant damage. It thus marks the beginning of the temporal scope of the obligation of due diligence for greenhouse gas emissions. The standard of care required has been rising since 1990, in line with #scientific_knowledge and the #technologies available, and the standard is more stringent for those States that contribute more to current and future #global_greenhouse_gas_emissions and for those that have significant national capacities. On the basis of current international law, it is not possible to set binding #emission_reduction_targets or individual #emission_budgets for individual States. It is therefore also not possible to attribute a quantifiable and specific obligation of #reparation to individual States. However, the #polluter_pays_principle should guide political negotiations and the Court's deliberations on determining the #responsibilities of States. Moreover, due to the complexity and the collective nature of climate change, only a collective response, founded on #cooperation, will be capable of resolving this problem. Switzerland’s submission can be found here: https://lnkd.in/e-RnVa4S EDA - DFAE - FDFA Steeve Guillod Sébastien Nguyen-Bloch Lydie-Line Paroz Felix Wertli Jacob Werksman Felix Dodds Archie Young CMG Camila Zepeda Benito Müller Reto Burkard Blatter Gabriela Veronika Elgart Martine Rohn-Brossard Simon Fellermeyer John Scanlon AO Ana Barreira Professor Dr. Chiara Giorgetti Nathalie Guillet
Franz Perrez: schlichtweg lächerlich …
Programme Director: Renewable Energy and Environmental Technology at OST – Ostschweizer Fachhochschule
6dThe only way to solve the climate crisis is through a #polluters_pay_principle implemented globally as a #carbontax with redistribution. I suggested this in my first climate lecture in 2013 and have been suggesting it ever since. Unfortunately, the #ParisAgreement tried to put the cart before the horse by asking countries to agree to voluntary reductions without any financial incentives to do so. In this sense, it was a complete and utter waste of time. More details can be found here Global Climate Compensation