Human influence at least doubled the risk of last year's Europe-wide heatwave. That is the conclusion of leading scientists who say they are more than 90 percent sure of the fact. The research, published in Nature magazine, is a significant milestone on the road to establishing liability for climate change damage.
It boosts the argument that greenhouse gas emissions have increased temperatures both globally and regionally, and it brings nearer the day when courts will be asked to decide where liability lies.
This "detection and attribution science," as it is known, lies behind the many efforts of lawyers and campaigners around the world to enforce the law to combat the causes and impacts of climate change.
In 2001, the world's scientists said that globally, most of the warming was due to human activities. Since then, at least three peer-reviewed papers have revealed human influence on regional temperatures; human influence, found for the first time, on a climate variable other than temperature - sea-level pressure; and now "the first successful attempt to detect man-made influence on a specific extreme climatic event," according to Christoph Schar, at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich, and Gerd Jendritzky, of the German Weather Service.
The courts have already responded positively to these findings. The legal relevance of climate change has now been accepted by US and Australian judges in cases where decisions leading to more coal mining and electricity transmission were found to be illegal. And a California appeals judge has rejected the idea that "injury to all is injury to none" where "global environmental impact is threatened by a federal statutory wrong."
In addition, the range of legal theories used is broadening. Cases began in 2002, with the collaboration of US cities, non- governmental organizations and citizens against the US export-credit bodies. These were followed by US states, American Samoa, cities and NGOs challenging the failure of the US environmental protection agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
These are what lawyers call traditional public law cases. Since then, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference has announced its development of a case against the US in the InterAmerican Commission for Human Rights, alleging violations of Inuit human rights.
Climate change litigation arrived in Europe in June this year, when NGOs went to court under freedom of information rules to challenge the German government's secrecy about export credit support for fossil fuel projects since 1997.
Meanwhile, in Argentina, citizens have successfully used the Accion Informativa mechanism (whereby public bodies, where responsible, are legally required to respond to questions from the public) after the Santa Fe floods, the country's worst climate-related disaster.
The first private law action was brought in July by eight US states, New York city and NGOs against the five main US power companies, arguing for a court order to compel them to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide. And in November, the impact of climate change on some of the most beautiful parts of the planet was highlighted when an alliance of NGOs, climbers and others initiated legal moves in Unesco to protect Mount Everest, world heritage glaciers in the Andes and coral reefs in Belize from the impacts of climate change.
One of the impacts highlighted by the Everest petition is the formation of glacial lakes that have already been officially designated as at risk of bursting their banks. Many of these high altitude lakes did not exist 50 years ago, and experts still do not know how many there are. But we do know that large chunks of melting glaciers can break off and fall into these lakes, or that ice in the dam walls can melt and weaken the dam. If these lakes burst, huge torrents of water and debris would cause catastrophic damage to life and property downstream.
It is unfair and unnecessary for communities in developing countries to remain the passive victims of damaging corporate activities and of inadequate government response. But could, for example, Nepalese people living below these lakes sue to make the companies that have benefited hugely from fossil fuel production now accept the burden of paying for the results of their activities? They will need the kind of science published in Nature to help them, and they will need to identify the companies responsible.
Certainly, pinpointing those responsible is becoming easier, thanks to developments in contribution analysis. Credible efforts have already been made to calculate the contribution of companies such as ExxonMobil to climate change, and next year a Defra-funded group of climate scientists will publish their robust methodology for modelling and assessing contributions to climate change.
Climate change litigation, supported by strong science, has started with a vengeance. Tomorrow we will take this message to the world's governments gathered in Buenos Aires. Several challenges remain, but one thing is clear: for as long as politicians and industry refuse to make the big cuts in emissions that are needed, and to compensate those facing damage, the judges will be asked to sort it out.
Peter Roderick is co-director of the Climate Justice Program. Details: www.climatelaw.org
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.