It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Can We Do? ...Landmark Dutch Lawsuit Puts Governments Around the World on Notice

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Our oceans are becoming rapidly acidic and as a result, life on earth is in danger. (That includes humans, btw.) Our oceans are also rising. and warming, and out weather has become violent and unpredictable. What can we do? ...We can sue our governments for not taking action to protect us and/or our children. This article speaks to the Dutch case, but seems to me there's another one in South America(?).



...The Urgenda Foundation is suing the Dutch government for knowingly endangering its citizens by failing to prevent dangerous climate change.

...an increasing number of legal experts around the world have come to believe that the lack of action represents a gross violation of the rights of those who will suffer the consequences. They also argue that the failure of governments to negotiate international agreements does not absolve them of their legal obligation to do their share in preventing dangerous climate change. These arguments are at the core of the Dutch lawsuit and will undoubtedly be put to the test in other countries before too long.

...In 2011 Dutch attorney Roger Cox wrote the book Revolution Justified, laying out the legal case for using existing tort law and human rights laws to force governments into action. The Urgenda Foundation rose to the challenge and began legal proceedings against the Dutch government the following year. Approximately 900 citizens have signed on to the case, a large number of whom are young people whose very survival may ultimately be at stake.

The Dutch case became even more significant last week as a result of the launch of the so-called Oslo principles by some of the world's leading jurists, including legal scholars and High Court judges. ....




posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

So what are the plaintiffs hoping to change? I am serious, what is the end result they are hoping for?


And I love your avatar, I can so relate!



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Laudable though this is I'd doubt it will have legs. Look at the 2007 banking disaster. Here is a situation of which the government has legal oversight yet not only did they not protect us, in many aspects they exacerbated the situation. And as the SHTF they worked to protect the bankers and wealthy letting the 'little people' take it up the shorts. How many people were wiped out financially, lost their livelihoods and their homes? Not only haven't there been any lawsuits, none of the people accountable for the fiasco have been prosecuted by the government. So I doubt anything will come of this, sadly. Hell, we couldn't even get a boycott against the largest banks involved started here on ATS.


edit on 10-4-2015 by jtma508 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

The UK Government better install 4Kw worth of Solar gear on every UK home if they want to avoid a costly lawsuit.

That's all it would take, a few cheap Solar panels on every homes roof...cost will be about £50 Billion, but that's small potatoes compared to the costs of a handful of nuclear power stations...one has just got the go ahead and that is going to cost around £20 Billion on it's own!

There are plans for 15 or so of them...then you have to pay for security, fuel, reprocessing, disposal of dangerous waste and so on...with 4 or 5 Kw of Solar there'd be no danger, no additional costs and little old people won't have to freeze to death in their tens of thousands each and every year...too easy i expect.

Maybe this legal challenge will give them the kick up the arse they need / deserve.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

Basically, it will light some fires at home instead of relying on the international stage. Here's what the article says:




What the Oslo principles offer is a solution to our infuriating impasse in which governments -- especially those from developed nations, responsible for 70% of the world's emissions between 1890 and 2007 -- are in effect saying: "We all agree that something needs to be done, but we cannot agree on who has to do what and how much. In the absence of any such agreement, we have no obligation to do anything." The Oslo principles bring a battery of legal arguments to dispute and disarm that second claim. In essence, the working group asserts that governments are violating their legal duties if they each act in a way that, collectively, is known to lead to grave harms. ....And when and if Urgenda wins, the political question will change from whether the necessary emissions reductions will be achieved to how.




posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: soficrow

So what are the plaintiffs hoping to change? I am serious, what is the end result they are hoping for?


And I love your avatar, I can so relate!



Ha! Easy, they want money! Just like the "proposed solutions" for climate change (or any other thing they can run a per unit credit scam on with per unit trading and allocations)... money scam.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: soficrow

So what are the plaintiffs hoping to change? I am serious, what is the end result they are hoping for?


And I love your avatar, I can so relate!



Ha! Easy, they want money! Just like the "proposed solutions" for climate change (or any other thing they can run a per unit credit scam on with per unit trading and allocations)... money scam.


No, no no. From the article:




...if Urgenda wins, the political question will change from whether the necessary emissions reductions will be achieved to how.




posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: soficrow

So what are the plaintiffs hoping to change? I am serious, what is the end result they are hoping for?


And I love your avatar, I can so relate!




Ha! Easy, they want money! Just like the "proposed solutions" for climate change (or any other thing they can run a per unit credit scam on with per unit trading and allocations)... money scam.


No, no no. From the article:




...if Urgenda wins, the political question will change from whether the necessary emissions reductions will be achieved to how.






Yes, Yes, Yes,

Carbon Credit Scam... By Force of Law


I challenge anyone to show us some solutions that do not involve a money scam that has already proven to not reduce anything but the people's wallet.

There have been a few, such as turning farm biomass to charcoal, and Algae oil, but none of the proponents want anything except Money Scams and Taxation.
edit on 10-4-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-4-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

I give them an A for effort, but if they want to sue who is responsible. They will have to sue Mother Nature.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

That was my first thought too. The lawyers are big time winners. I feel if they win it will not really change anything other than being able to blame someone. In reality there is no global fix, we don't even know for sure what the cause is.

Soficrow, I did read the article before posting. I see a lot of self righteous finger pointing but little in the way of solutions.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
It's a ploy to get you to live without the excessive consuming. Everyone wouldn't go for it cold turkey. They are propping up the whole world and that's a whole lot of consumers. There's not enough resources for them all. The added benefit is that you'll be more easily controlled.




posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

I think Tesla's inventions need to come to light to the masses for FREE! Its been way to long for all of us to be still sucking from the teet of big energy!
Money has become a tool of HUMAN incarceration in a fictitious way to serve individuals without regard for basic needs.

edit on 10-4-2015 by Raven1354 because: added comment



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raven1354
a reply to: infolurker

I think Tesla's inventions need to come to light to the masses for FREE! Its been way to long for all of us to be still sucking from the teet of big energy!
Money has become a tool of HUMAN incarceration in a fictitious way to serve individuals without regard for basic needs.


I wish,

That will not happen. Even now they are beginning to charge you for solar if you try to not use or use less from the utility. They will get their money as long as they have lobbyist to control the politicians.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

There is not a case to answer to. Next!

The problem is there is no irrefutable evidence of climate change-yet. It took decades before tobacco was directly attributed to many illnesses and that's when we started seeing legal action being taken. The same thing will probably happen with climate change; if their is undeniable proof of climate change in the decades to come then we will see the big polluters being punished.

The legal system is reactive not proactive for many reasons and that is why no one can be legally charged for climate change because we are yet to feel the full effects. But by the time those who are deemed responsible are summoned to court the damage would've been done.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

The case is in court. It will need to be answered to.

And is supported by the Oslo Principles, btw.



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

I have reported extensively on research supporting my hypothesis that our planet's climate and geophysical stability can be -and are- affected by our sun, galaxy, the rest of the universe, and human activity. Here's one:

Ancient Interstellar Collision: May Help Explain Climate Change

Based on my research and analysis, I can only conclude that while other forces are in play, we can -and should- make every effort possible to mitigate the negative effects of human activity on our planet's climate and geophysical stability. A no-brainer, imho.





.
edit on 11/4/15 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/4/15 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

And I was just as passionate as you are now about the coming Ice Age predicted in the 1980s. (also with the man-made hole in the ozone due to floral carbon's. Both theories which now have come for not.

Now I realize that mother nature is a fickle beast and the earth's climate has changed regularly over the millions of years we've been here.

So for Al Gore I subscribe to this theory " Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you."



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

That's fluorocarbons and Chloro-fluorocarbons(CFCs).

Legitimate concern about holes in the ozone layer resulted in world action, the removal of CFC's from use and the regeneration of the ozone layer. ...Is that what you meant to point out? That human actions can have positive effects?






edit on 11/4/15 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Yet they found a volcano that was causing a hole.


USGS volcanoes tied to ozone depletion

We can trade sources all day it's not gonna change either of our opinions. I've seen all yours you seen all mine. So why even bother?
edit on 11-4-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

As I keep saying, many things contribute simultaneously to these effects (be it ozone depletion, climate change and whatever).

Sorry multifactorial is too complicated a concept for you to grasp. So you go with only-one-single-cause-for-any-effect. Stay comfortable.




And have a good day.









edit on 11/4/15 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/4/15 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join