The Dutch Supreme Court’s Climate Judgment: Its Consequences and Implications for Business – Revolution Through Litigation

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Urgenda climate case requires that the Netherlands government step up the fight against climate change to reduce CO2 emissions by the end of 2020 by 25% (relative to 1990). Urgent action against ‘dangerous climate change’ was deemed scientifically necessary to safeguard the right to life of Netherlands residents. Upon close analysis, however, this revolutionary judgment appears to be based on uncritical examination of the factual evidence presented by Urgenda, judicial misappropriation of legislative power, expansive interpretations of the applicable law, careless or incomplete reasoning, and intentional omissions. Due to these deficiencies, the court’s ruling will have serious consequences for future policy-making in The Netherlands and the liability exposure of companies in relation to climate change. This article analyses the judgment and discusses its implications. climate change litigation, public interest litigation, value judgments, scientism, right to life, right to a safe climate, partial responsibility, proportional causation, separation of powers, political question doctrine