22 ms·

Farmers sue German government over climate change failures

63 points by reddotX 7y ago

panny 7y ago
Submission link is a little light on detail. https://www.dw.com/en/german-farmers-sue-government-over-climate-change-failures/a-51010598 https://www.dw.com/en/german-farmers-sue-government-over-cli... Funny, when you consider the largest source of CO2 emissions on the planet. They're plowing up wetlands and blaming German govt for CO2. Mind boggling.
- Xylakant 7y ago
  > Funny, when you consider the largest source of CO2 emissions on the planet. They're plowing up wetlands and blaming German govt for CO2. Mind boggling. Not at all. Agriculture may be a large producer of CO2, but the plaintiffs are organic farmers that work hard to reduce the impact that farming has on CO2 production.
  - panny 7y ago
    Plowing. Wetlands. https://www.ramsar.org/news/wetlands-and-climate-change https://www.ramsar.org/news/wetlands-and-climate-change >The science is clear. Wetlands are the most effective carbon sinks on our planet. Let me guess the next story headline, "Brazilian slash and burn farmers sue government for failing to meet CO2 reduction targets." The downvotes here prove to me the people reading HN are rabid zealots who are not interested in truth or science at all.
- chme 7y ago
  > Funny, when you consider the largest source of CO2 emissions on the planet. They're plowing up wetlands and blaming German govt for CO2. Mind boggling. That is something that annoys me about current political discussions: Always trying to attack the messenger instead of the message. Even if that would have been people responsible for producing the most CO2 on the planet, that would and should have no effect on the validity of the message and their claim that there is to much CO2 produced and that the government should have prevented them doing so.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  Ad hominem fallacy.
the-dude 7y ago
In NL a similar trial has already taken place : https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/ https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/ The government 'lost'.
- tremon 7y ago
  The Urgenda case was slightly different though. In NL, they argued their case on behalf of the next generation (broadly speaking), and the outcome of the trial was a 25% emissions reduction target for the government to meet. The German case seems easier (on the surface), because it is about the government failing to meet the targets it has set itself.
_aleph2c_ 7y ago
The sun is the most significant contributor to the temperature on the planet earth. For now, this contribution seems stable, but in the past, the heat of the sun has fluctuated quickly. CO2 may be the primary contributor to our climate temperature at the moment, but to think that a government is entirely responsible for climate temperature is like saying your parents are responsible for the current behaviour of the sun. It is too simplistic, and it will encourage people to believe that a government has more say about reality than it does. We should prepare for warmer and colder climates: In our near future, there could be a small scale nuclear war between Pakistan and India, there could be a massive volcanic eruption or a meteor strike. This last era of climatic temperature stability was a lucky thing that let civilization rise as quickly as it did. A responsible government would harden it's seed stocks against warmer/colder temperatures and train up its youth to be dynamic and imaginative problem solvers.
- JonnyaiR 7y ago
  They aren't suing the German Government because they say it's responsible for Global Warming, they're suing because the German Government publicly announced Goals for CO2 reduction till 2020 by 40% which they failed to deliver by a wide margin. By the way the scientific consensus is that CO2 is the biggest contributor to global Warming, proven time and time again.
  - ratboy666 7y ago
    I imagine that the "consensus" has been proven, sure. "scientific consensus" is not a thing. Also, "proven time and time again"? Just to let you know, water vapour is a much larger contributor. Sure, sue because the Government lied. Why don't you vote them out? Can you sue them?
    - pjc50 7y ago
      Yes, water vapor is a contributor - but at an equilibrium rate determined by the temperature! In the narrow band of temperature we live in, increases in CO2 drive an increase in vapor which magnifies their effect. There's even a nice explainer in IPCC AR5 about this ("FAQ 8.1"): https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapt... > Currently, water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. However, other greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are necessary to sustain the presence of water vapour in the atmosphere. Indeed, if these other gases were removed from the atmosphere, its temperature would drop sufficiently to induce a decrease of water vapour, leading to a runaway drop of the greenhouse effect that would plunge the Earth into a frozen state. So greenhouse gases other than water vapour provide the temperature structure that sustains current levels of atmo-spheric water vapour. Therefore, although CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate, water vapour is a strong and fast feedback that amplifies any initial forcing by a typical factor between two and three. Water vapour is not a significant initial forcing, but is nevertheless a fundamental agent of climate change.
jussij 7y ago
> these farmers have seen dramatic floods in 2017 and then droughts in 2018 They should be so lucky. Here in Australia we have large swaths of the country entering their fourth, fifth and sixth years of drought with cities and towns now running low on water. Add to that we are now going into summer, just as we leave one of the hottest and driest springs on recorded. With climate change smashing Australia in the face we just re-elected a government that thinks climate change is a hoax. At the turn of the century Australia went through the devastating millennium drought and less that ten years later we face a drought that easily eclipses that disaster. I suspect what many have failed to realise is Australia is not really in drought, but instead is facing it's new norm.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > With climate change smashing Australia in the face we just re-elected a government that thinks climate change is a hoax. For all practical purposes, this isn't an issue. If you have a depletion of water coming up then spending resources on curbing CO2 (which may or may not have an impact decades down the line[1]) is not going to be your first priority. You'll need desalination plants and you'll need to re-orient agriculture around what works in the future, not the past. edit: [1] Hold your pitchforks! What I mean here is that the efforts for curbing CO2 may or may not have an impact. I solemnly swear that I believe anthropogenic CO2 affects climate change!
  - verbify 7y ago
    > curbing CO2 (which may or may not have an impact decades down the line) is not going to be your first priority May or may not have an impact?! 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth's climate has warmed as a result of human activities and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects Sure, we need mitigation efforts, but we also need to prevent things getting much much worse.
    - claytongulick 7y ago
      > 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth's climate has warmed as a result of human activities and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects Citation? I see this number stated a lot, but the actual polls that I've read don't agree with it at all. Where are you getting this number? (Original study source please, not circular news citation)
spodek 7y ago
I consider a major role of government to regulate behavior that hurts others. That is, you can swing your fist around as much as you like by yourself, but I want a law preventing you from swinging it into my face. Polluting the air, land, and water we share seems behavior that hurts others. Similar cases in the U.S. and Canada: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/kids-sue-us-government-climate-change https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/kids-sue-us-... https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canadian-teens-lawsuit-federal-government-over-climate-change-1.5335349 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canadian-tee... This article mentions cases in Colombia, Holland, Norway, India, and Belgium, saying they are progressing https://qz.com/1334102/kids-around-the-world-are-suing-governments-over-climate-change-and-its-working https://qz.com/1334102/kids-around-the-world-are-suing-gover....
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > ...they are progressing What they'll achieve is a bunch of politicians signing makeshift laws into effect, which will not actually be making a dent into global warming, but which will be diverting funds into the pockets of snake oil hucksters. I'm definitely long green tech!
- at-fates-hands 7y ago
  > Polluting the air, land, and water we share seems behavior that hurts others. What happens when the government mandates only electric cars, solar heating for your house and other expensive "green technologies" that low income and poor people can't afford? By the very same measure, your green technologies to try and halt climate change are going to severely impact low income families who can't afford a $40,000 Tesla electric vehicle or the $30,000 up front cost for a small solar array.
  - mikelyons 7y ago
    Is it outside our imagination that society would change? Would it be unreasonable that it could become more communal and unified? (edit: spelling)
Xylakant 7y ago
Seems like the court rejected to hear the case (details to follow) https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute/verwaltungsgericht-berlin-weist-klima-klage-gegen-bundesregierung-ab-100.html#xtor=CS5-62 https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute/verwaltungsgericht-berl...
JackPoach 7y ago
Sorry, but Germany isn't a country that seems to be affected by global warming much.
- yifanl 7y ago
  The whole notion of country shouldn't exist in the conversation of "global warming". Unless Germany plans on building rockets and leaving the planet entirely, they'll be as affected as everyone else on the long-term scale.
  - PeterisP 7y ago
    The notion of country matters very much in the conversation of global warming - while every country will be somehow affected, the effect will be very different for different countries. A rise of sea level will eliminate or devastate some contries while barely affecting others; the change in rainfall and temperature patterns will devastate agriculture in some countries while improving it in others; etc. And a lot of how and why climate change mitigation is (not) working is explainable by the difference between the countries who'd bear the worst consequences of climate change and the countries who'd bear the worst costs to reduce these consequences.
    - belltaco 7y ago
      Apart from droughts and the heat etc. what happens when people try to escape all those consequences in their countries by becoming refugees? Germany would need to do something about it, whether let them in, keep them out by huge military force etc. https://www.climateforesight.eu/migrations/environmental-migrants-up-to-1-billion-by-2050/ https://www.climateforesight.eu/migrations/environmental-mig...
      - PeterisP 7y ago
        Of course, that would affect Germany as well, but it's obvious that the effect of that migration on Germans would be fundamentally different from the effect of that same migration on e.g. Bangladeshis, the choices they need to make (or can make) to mitigate that impact are substantially different.
rkachowski 7y ago
The article title is actually "Farmers fail in bid to sue German government over alleged climate change failures" - the opposite of what's implied by the HN link.
- reddotX 7y ago
  they changed the title

63 points by reddotX 7y ago

Submission link is a little light on detail. https://www.dw.com/en/german-farmers-sue-government-over-climate-change-failures/a-51010598 https://www.dw.com/en/german-farmers-sue-government-over-cli... Funny, when you consider the largest source of CO2 emissions on the planet. They're plowing up wetlands and blaming German govt for CO2. Mind boggling.

Xylakant 7y ago
> Funny, when you consider the largest source of CO2 emissions on the planet. They're plowing up wetlands and blaming German govt for CO2. Mind boggling. Not at all. Agriculture may be a large producer of CO2, but the plaintiffs are organic farmers that work hard to reduce the impact that farming has on CO2 production.
- panny 7y ago
  Plowing. Wetlands. https://www.ramsar.org/news/wetlands-and-climate-change https://www.ramsar.org/news/wetlands-and-climate-change >The science is clear. Wetlands are the most effective carbon sinks on our planet. Let me guess the next story headline, "Brazilian slash and burn farmers sue government for failing to meet CO2 reduction targets." The downvotes here prove to me the people reading HN are rabid zealots who are not interested in truth or science at all.
chme 7y ago
> Funny, when you consider the largest source of CO2 emissions on the planet. They're plowing up wetlands and blaming German govt for CO2. Mind boggling. That is something that annoys me about current political discussions: Always trying to attack the messenger instead of the message. Even if that would have been people responsible for producing the most CO2 on the planet, that would and should have no effect on the validity of the message and their claim that there is to much CO2 produced and that the government should have prevented them doing so.
FussyZeus 7y ago
Ad hominem fallacy.

the-dude 7y ago

In NL a similar trial has already taken place : https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/ https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/ The government 'lost'.

tremon 7y ago
The Urgenda case was slightly different though. In NL, they argued their case on behalf of the next generation (broadly speaking), and the outcome of the trial was a 25% emissions reduction target for the government to meet. The German case seems easier (on the surface), because it is about the government failing to meet the targets it has set itself.

_aleph2c_ 7y ago

The sun is the most significant contributor to the temperature on the planet earth. For now, this contribution seems stable, but in the past, the heat of the sun has fluctuated quickly. CO2 may be the primary contributor to our climate temperature at the moment, but to think that a government is entirely responsible for climate temperature is like saying your parents are responsible for the current behaviour of the sun. It is too simplistic, and it will encourage people to believe that a government has more say about reality than it does. We should prepare for warmer and colder climates: In our near future, there could be a small scale nuclear war between Pakistan and India, there could be a massive volcanic eruption or a meteor strike. This last era of climatic temperature stability was a lucky thing that let civilization rise as quickly as it did. A responsible government would harden it's seed stocks against warmer/colder temperatures and train up its youth to be dynamic and imaginative problem solvers.

JonnyaiR 7y ago
They aren't suing the German Government because they say it's responsible for Global Warming, they're suing because the German Government publicly announced Goals for CO2 reduction till 2020 by 40% which they failed to deliver by a wide margin. By the way the scientific consensus is that CO2 is the biggest contributor to global Warming, proven time and time again.
- ratboy666 7y ago
  I imagine that the "consensus" has been proven, sure. "scientific consensus" is not a thing. Also, "proven time and time again"? Just to let you know, water vapour is a much larger contributor. Sure, sue because the Government lied. Why don't you vote them out? Can you sue them?
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Yes, water vapor is a contributor - but at an equilibrium rate determined by the temperature! In the narrow band of temperature we live in, increases in CO2 drive an increase in vapor which magnifies their effect. There's even a nice explainer in IPCC AR5 about this ("FAQ 8.1"): https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapt... > Currently, water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. However, other greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are necessary to sustain the presence of water vapour in the atmosphere. Indeed, if these other gases were removed from the atmosphere, its temperature would drop sufficiently to induce a decrease of water vapour, leading to a runaway drop of the greenhouse effect that would plunge the Earth into a frozen state. So greenhouse gases other than water vapour provide the temperature structure that sustains current levels of atmo-spheric water vapour. Therefore, although CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate, water vapour is a strong and fast feedback that amplifies any initial forcing by a typical factor between two and three. Water vapour is not a significant initial forcing, but is nevertheless a fundamental agent of climate change.

jussij 7y ago

> these farmers have seen dramatic floods in 2017 and then droughts in 2018 They should be so lucky. Here in Australia we have large swaths of the country entering their fourth, fifth and sixth years of drought with cities and towns now running low on water. Add to that we are now going into summer, just as we leave one of the hottest and driest springs on recorded. With climate change smashing Australia in the face we just re-elected a government that thinks climate change is a hoax. At the turn of the century Australia went through the devastating millennium drought and less that ten years later we face a drought that easily eclipses that disaster. I suspect what many have failed to realise is Australia is not really in drought, but instead is facing it's new norm.

gridlockd 7y ago
> With climate change smashing Australia in the face we just re-elected a government that thinks climate change is a hoax. For all practical purposes, this isn't an issue. If you have a depletion of water coming up then spending resources on curbing CO2 (which may or may not have an impact decades down the line[1]) is not going to be your first priority. You'll need desalination plants and you'll need to re-orient agriculture around what works in the future, not the past. edit: [1] Hold your pitchforks! What I mean here is that the efforts for curbing CO2 may or may not have an impact. I solemnly swear that I believe anthropogenic CO2 affects climate change!
- verbify 7y ago
  > curbing CO2 (which may or may not have an impact decades down the line) is not going to be your first priority May or may not have an impact?! 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth's climate has warmed as a result of human activities and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects Sure, we need mitigation efforts, but we also need to prevent things getting much much worse.
  - claytongulick 7y ago
    > 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth's climate has warmed as a result of human activities and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects Citation? I see this number stated a lot, but the actual polls that I've read don't agree with it at all. Where are you getting this number? (Original study source please, not circular news citation)

spodek 7y ago

I consider a major role of government to regulate behavior that hurts others. That is, you can swing your fist around as much as you like by yourself, but I want a law preventing you from swinging it into my face. Polluting the air, land, and water we share seems behavior that hurts others. Similar cases in the U.S. and Canada: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/kids-sue-us-government-climate-change https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/kids-sue-us-... https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canadian-teens-lawsuit-federal-government-over-climate-change-1.5335349 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canadian-tee... This article mentions cases in Colombia, Holland, Norway, India, and Belgium, saying they are progressing https://qz.com/1334102/kids-around-the-world-are-suing-governments-over-climate-change-and-its-working https://qz.com/1334102/kids-around-the-world-are-suing-gover....

gridlockd 7y ago
> ...they are progressing What they'll achieve is a bunch of politicians signing makeshift laws into effect, which will not actually be making a dent into global warming, but which will be diverting funds into the pockets of snake oil hucksters. I'm definitely long green tech!
at-fates-hands 7y ago
> Polluting the air, land, and water we share seems behavior that hurts others. What happens when the government mandates only electric cars, solar heating for your house and other expensive "green technologies" that low income and poor people can't afford? By the very same measure, your green technologies to try and halt climate change are going to severely impact low income families who can't afford a $40,000 Tesla electric vehicle or the $30,000 up front cost for a small solar array.
- mikelyons 7y ago
  Is it outside our imagination that society would change? Would it be unreasonable that it could become more communal and unified? (edit: spelling)

Xylakant 7y ago

Seems like the court rejected to hear the case (details to follow) https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute/verwaltungsgericht-berlin-weist-klima-klage-gegen-bundesregierung-ab-100.html#xtor=CS5-62 https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute/verwaltungsgericht-berl...

JackPoach 7y ago

Sorry, but Germany isn't a country that seems to be affected by global warming much.

yifanl 7y ago
The whole notion of country shouldn't exist in the conversation of "global warming". Unless Germany plans on building rockets and leaving the planet entirely, they'll be as affected as everyone else on the long-term scale.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  The notion of country matters very much in the conversation of global warming - while every country will be somehow affected, the effect will be very different for different countries. A rise of sea level will eliminate or devastate some contries while barely affecting others; the change in rainfall and temperature patterns will devastate agriculture in some countries while improving it in others; etc. And a lot of how and why climate change mitigation is (not) working is explainable by the difference between the countries who'd bear the worst consequences of climate change and the countries who'd bear the worst costs to reduce these consequences.
  - belltaco 7y ago
    Apart from droughts and the heat etc. what happens when people try to escape all those consequences in their countries by becoming refugees? Germany would need to do something about it, whether let them in, keep them out by huge military force etc. https://www.climateforesight.eu/migrations/environmental-migrants-up-to-1-billion-by-2050/ https://www.climateforesight.eu/migrations/environmental-mig...
    - PeterisP 7y ago
      Of course, that would affect Germany as well, but it's obvious that the effect of that migration on Germans would be fundamentally different from the effect of that same migration on e.g. Bangladeshis, the choices they need to make (or can make) to mitigate that impact are substantially different.

rkachowski 7y ago

The article title is actually "Farmers fail in bid to sue German government over alleged climate change failures" - the opposite of what's implied by the HN link.

reddotX 7y ago
they changed the title