The largest climate action lawsuit against 32 countries (The Hindu , Page No III)

Relevance: GS-III Environment Conservation

Mains Take away: Global Climate Action 

Why In News: 

The lawsuit filed by six young people from Portugal against 32 European governments, including the U.K., Russia, and Turkey, at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg marks a significant development in the global climate action movement.

What is the Law Suit 

1. The wildfires in Leiria, which claimed many lives and caused substantial environmental damage, are seen as a clear example of the catastrophic consequences of climate change. The case underscores that events like these are becoming more frequent and intense due to rising global temperatures. 
2.  The plaintiffs argue that exceeding the 1.5°C temperature threshold, as outlined in the Paris Agreement, could lead to catastrophic consequences, intensifying "multiple and concurrent hazards." This aligns with the warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about the need to limit global warming to avoid severe climate impacts. 
3.  The young activists claim that European nations, including Portugal, have failed to meet their climate emission goals and have thus violated fundamental rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. These rights include the right to life, the right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to privacy and family life, and the right to be free from discrimination.
4. The lawsuit calls for a rapid escalation of emissions reductions by the 32 European countries involved, in line with scientific evidence 
5. The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC) has recommended more ambitious emissions reduction targets, advocating for a 75% reduction below 1990 levels, exceeding the EU's current goal of 55%. This aligns with the plaintiffs' argument that European countries have overstated their carbon budget claims. 
6. UNICEF has characterized the climate crisis as a "child rights crisis" because carbon emissions and extreme weather events threaten children's access to education, health, nutrition, and their future. Air pollution and heatwaves are already associated with adverse health effects.

How have governments responded? 

1. Scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that climate change has direct and immediate impacts on human health. These impacts include heat-related illnesses, air pollution-related diseases, vector-borne diseases, mental health issues, and health risks from extreme weather events like wildfires and flooding. 
2. Despite scientific consensus, some countries, including Greece, have denied the direct link between climate change and its effects on human health. Greece's submission claimed that climate change does not directly affect human life or health, despite recent evidence of wildfires and flooding in the country. 
3. The Portuguese and Irish governments have dismissed concerns about climate change's health impacts as "future fears" and argue that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate an immediate risk to their citizens' lives. 

Conclusion 

The rejection of this link between climate change and human health by some countries is concerning, as it may hinder global efforts to address the urgent need for climate action. It is crucial for governments and international organizations to recognize the scientific consensus on this issue and take meaningful steps to mitigate climate change and protect human health. The expected ruling on this matter in 2024 will be an important development in this ongoing debate