5 ms·

Is it me or does this seem wrong. Climate action or inaction is a decision we make as a society to tackle or not tackle. Not a "Human Right".

constantcrying 3y ago
Switzerland is the most democratic country you can find on earth. The population has an enormous power to compell the government. If Switzerland does too little for the environment it can not happen against the will of the population. Surely having some foreign court compell them makes them overthink their wrong choices.
- unglaublich 3y ago
  Well, actually it can. For example, there was 'Popular initiative “For responsible companies – to protect people and the environment”' [0] which got voted NO because of electoral votes, even though it received the popular vote at 50.7%. Same reason as in the US: electoral votes overrepresent low density, conservative areas. [0]: https://www.ejpd.admin.ch/ejpd/de/home/themen/abstimmungen/verantwortungsvolle-unternehmen.html https://www.ejpd.admin.ch/ejpd/de/home/themen/abstimmungen/v...
- erinnh 3y ago
  Not sure what the point of this argument is. Are you saying that human rights cannot be violated if a democratic decision was made beforehand?
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    No, but the human rights violation here is being committed by the Swiss, who apparently didn't vote hard enough for climate change laws.
    - morby 3y ago
      You seem very confused by this in your comments. Did you read the article? The Swiss government was found to be out of line with its own policies and laws.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Said democracy voted to ratify the ECHR in the 70s and re-voted to retain it in 2018. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2018/11/switzerland-defends-human-rights-in-referendum/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2018/11/swit...
hackerlight 3y ago
It should be a human right for people living near the equator. Wet bulb temperatures there are hot, and increases of 2+ degrees C is genuinely very dire for them. It's easy for this to be out of sight out of mind for anyone living in a colder climate or with enough income to ensure indoors air conditioning.
alistairSH 3y ago
The majority of people are short-sighted and/or greedy. The only way to make change is through action such as this. Or violence. But let’s try this first.
- misja111 3y ago
  But why Switzerland? They have taken some climate actions, although they of course could have done more. Why not sue major offenders like India or Russia, just to name a few, who could actually make a difference to world climate? Or if you want to stay closer to Europe, sue some country that still uses coal plants, like Poland, Germany or Slovakia. It all feels quite hypocrite to me.
  - erinnh 3y ago
    In Germany this has already been litigated. The government lost that case as well back in 2021: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2021/bvg21-031.html https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemit...
  - antientropic 3y ago
    Because the plaintiffs are Swiss. Who else should they sue? Similar cases have happened elsewhere, e.g. the Urgenda case in the Netherlands. Pointing to the inaction of other countries as an excuse for one's own inaction is a weak argument. Good luck suing Russia. (They were actually a member of the Council of Europe until 2022, so this decision would have applied to them...)
    - misja111 3y ago
      > Good luck suing Russia. But then this feels like suing somebody for emptying his ashtray in a canal where 100 meter further a factory is discharging chemical waste. Good luck suing the factory.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        OTOH — and for unrelated reasons — the factory (Russia) just had half its customers (Europe) not only boycott the factory itself, but also arrange a global price ceiling for all the other customers who weren't ready to transition away just yet.
unglaublich 3y ago
Okay, so we can decide as a society to enslave some minority, and then it's not a "human right" to be free?
arghwhat 3y ago
To play devil's advocate, it seems fair that a human has the right to not have their air poisoned, or to have a future on the planet for their kids. No idea if that matches any of its articles though. However, the European Convention of Human Rights was a decision we as a larger society made, as a deliberate safe-guard against having other decisions (or lack thereof) conflict with what we considered the basic requirements for a decent human life. Unless the convention is abandoned, no society that agreed to it can decide (including inaction through indecision!) on something that conflicts with it.
- CarRamrod 3y ago
  >carbon dioxide is air poison I know of a certain kingdom of life that would strongly disagree
  - arghwhat 3y ago
    CO2 isn't poison unless it doubles. The other air pollutants are though, although I'm also sure that certain kingdom of life wouldn't appreciate the collapse of biological ecosystems as CO2 further insulates the planet. You'll have to consult that kingdom's appropriate court of rights though. The European Convention for Human Rights had a quite narrow scope in that regard.
  - throw0101d 3y ago
    > I know of a certain kingdom of life that would strongly disagree Do the members of that kingdom have standing when it comes to Swiss law?
  - wtfwhateven 3y ago
    Lying about what the commenter said isn't helpful.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Are you suggesting that humans are a type of vegetable?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
aaomidi 3y ago
?? The impacts of climate change are going to be seen and felt initially by people who had literally no say in the matter. So no, human rights and climate change are completely intertwined.

constantcrying 3y ago

Switzerland is the most democratic country you can find on earth. The population has an enormous power to compell the government. If Switzerland does too little for the environment it can not happen against the will of the population. Surely having some foreign court compell them makes them overthink their wrong choices.

unglaublich 3y ago
Well, actually it can. For example, there was 'Popular initiative “For responsible companies – to protect people and the environment”' [0] which got voted NO because of electoral votes, even though it received the popular vote at 50.7%. Same reason as in the US: electoral votes overrepresent low density, conservative areas. [0]: https://www.ejpd.admin.ch/ejpd/de/home/themen/abstimmungen/verantwortungsvolle-unternehmen.html https://www.ejpd.admin.ch/ejpd/de/home/themen/abstimmungen/v...
erinnh 3y ago
Not sure what the point of this argument is. Are you saying that human rights cannot be violated if a democratic decision was made beforehand?
- constantcrying 3y ago
  No, but the human rights violation here is being committed by the Swiss, who apparently didn't vote hard enough for climate change laws.
  - morby 3y ago
    You seem very confused by this in your comments. Did you read the article? The Swiss government was found to be out of line with its own policies and laws.
ceejayoz 3y ago
Said democracy voted to ratify the ECHR in the 70s and re-voted to retain it in 2018. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2018/11/switzerland-defends-human-rights-in-referendum/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2018/11/swit...

hackerlight 3y ago

It should be a human right for people living near the equator. Wet bulb temperatures there are hot, and increases of 2+ degrees C is genuinely very dire for them. It's easy for this to be out of sight out of mind for anyone living in a colder climate or with enough income to ensure indoors air conditioning.

alistairSH 3y ago

The majority of people are short-sighted and/or greedy. The only way to make change is through action such as this. Or violence. But let’s try this first.

misja111 3y ago
But why Switzerland? They have taken some climate actions, although they of course could have done more. Why not sue major offenders like India or Russia, just to name a few, who could actually make a difference to world climate? Or if you want to stay closer to Europe, sue some country that still uses coal plants, like Poland, Germany or Slovakia. It all feels quite hypocrite to me.
- erinnh 3y ago
  In Germany this has already been litigated. The government lost that case as well back in 2021: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2021/bvg21-031.html https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemit...
- antientropic 3y ago
  Because the plaintiffs are Swiss. Who else should they sue? Similar cases have happened elsewhere, e.g. the Urgenda case in the Netherlands. Pointing to the inaction of other countries as an excuse for one's own inaction is a weak argument. Good luck suing Russia. (They were actually a member of the Council of Europe until 2022, so this decision would have applied to them...)
  - misja111 3y ago
    > Good luck suing Russia. But then this feels like suing somebody for emptying his ashtray in a canal where 100 meter further a factory is discharging chemical waste. Good luck suing the factory.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      OTOH — and for unrelated reasons — the factory (Russia) just had half its customers (Europe) not only boycott the factory itself, but also arrange a global price ceiling for all the other customers who weren't ready to transition away just yet.

unglaublich 3y ago

Okay, so we can decide as a society to enslave some minority, and then it's not a "human right" to be free?

arghwhat 3y ago

To play devil's advocate, it seems fair that a human has the right to not have their air poisoned, or to have a future on the planet for their kids. No idea if that matches any of its articles though. However, the European Convention of Human Rights was a decision we as a larger society made, as a deliberate safe-guard against having other decisions (or lack thereof) conflict with what we considered the basic requirements for a decent human life. Unless the convention is abandoned, no society that agreed to it can decide (including inaction through indecision!) on something that conflicts with it.

CarRamrod 3y ago
>carbon dioxide is air poison I know of a certain kingdom of life that would strongly disagree
- arghwhat 3y ago
  CO2 isn't poison unless it doubles. The other air pollutants are though, although I'm also sure that certain kingdom of life wouldn't appreciate the collapse of biological ecosystems as CO2 further insulates the planet. You'll have to consult that kingdom's appropriate court of rights though. The European Convention for Human Rights had a quite narrow scope in that regard.
- throw0101d 3y ago
  > I know of a certain kingdom of life that would strongly disagree Do the members of that kingdom have standing when it comes to Swiss law?
- wtfwhateven 3y ago
  Lying about what the commenter said isn't helpful.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Are you suggesting that humans are a type of vegetable?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

aaomidi 3y ago

?? The impacts of climate change are going to be seen and felt initially by people who had literally no say in the matter. So no, human rights and climate change are completely intertwined.