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