A Paris court condemned the French state for failing to address the climate crisis and for failing to deliver on its promises to combat greenhouse gas emissions.
In what was hailed as a historic decision, the court found the state guilty of “not respecting its commitments” in order to combat global warming.
Considered the “case of the century”, the lawsuit was filed by four French environmental groups after a petition signed by 2.3 million people.
“This is a historic victory for climate justice. The decision not only takes into account what scientists say and what people want from French public policies, but it should also inspire people around the world to hold their governments accountable for climate change in their courts, ”said Jean-François Julliard , the executive director of Greenpeace France, one of the plaintiffs.
He said the decision would be used to pressure the French state to act against the climate emergency. “No more blah, blah,” he added.
Cécilia Rinaudo, director of Notre Affaire à Tous, another plaintiff, said it was an “immense victory” for climate activists around the world.
“It is a victory for all people who are already facing the devastating impact of the climate crisis that our leaders are unable to face. The time has come for justice, ”said Rinaudo.
“This lawsuit brought millions of people together in a common struggle: the struggle for our future. The judge’s historic decision proves that France’s inaction on the climate is no longer tolerable, it is illegal. But the fight is not over. Recognizing the State’s inaction is only a first step towards implementing concrete and efficient measures to combat climate change. “
The court ruled that compensation for “ecological damage” was admissible and declared that the state “should be held responsible for part of that damage if it had not fulfilled its commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”.
It did not accept the request for symbolic compensation, stating that the compensation should be made “in kind”, with the compensation granted “only if the remedial measures were impossible or insufficient”.
However, the court ruled that claimants had the right to seek compensation in kind for “ecological damage caused by failure to meet the targets set by France for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He said that further investigation was needed and gave the state two months to respond.
He attributed to each organization a symbolic € 1 for “moral prejudice”, stating that the failure of the State to fulfill its climate commitments was “harmful to the collective interest”.
Wednesday’s trial was considered “revolutionary” by the four NGOs – including Greenpeace France and Oxfam France – who filed a formal complaint with the French Prime Minister’s office in December 2018. When they received what they considered an inadequate response, they entered with a legal process in March 2019.
The Paris agreement signed five years ago aimed to limit global warming to less than 2ºC above pre-industrial levels. Donald Trump pulled the United States out of business in 2017, although Joe Biden plans to return. Environmental experts say governments, including the French government, have not kept their commitments.
The French government has pledged to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.
NGOs say the state is exceeding its carbon budgets and is not moving fast enough to renovate buildings to make them energy efficient or to develop renewable energy. They say this is having a serious impact on the quality of daily life and the health of people in France.
In a report last July, the High Climate Council of France severely criticized government policies. “Climate action is not up to the challenges and objectives,” he said.
France’s greenhouse gas emissions fell 0.9% in 2018-19, when the annual drop needed to reach its targets is 1.5% by 2025 and 3.2% thereafter.
In a written defense, the French government rejected the inaction charges and asked the court to reject any claim for damages. He argued that the state could not be held solely responsible for climate change when it was not responsible for all global emissions.