2 ms·

I have not formed any opinion whatsoever about the decision itself, but regarding the court itself: > This is legitimately insane. You have a court, which was

I have not formed any opinion whatsoever about the decision itself, but regarding the court itself: > This is legitimately insane. You have a court, which was created in an attempt to give legal options to victims of crimes committed by nation state and which could not be heard elsewhere. And people are suing over whatever a tiny European state doesn't do to stop environmental harm. Which may or may not even effect the people who are suing at all. The court was created to evaluate any situation that violates the general principles of the European Convention of Human Rights. There is no rule that only those suffering an injustice is allowed to complain about it. > And these people are from the country on earth where the population has the greatest control over their government. Switzerland isn't some rogue state, the population has legal means to force the government to do essentially whatever they want. So the human rights violation is essentially being committed by the population themselves. The government is still the final party responsible for having policies and nation-level actions adhere to laws and conventions. It would not be fair to sue John and Jane Doe for having voted for a possibly non-compliant government action, or for failing to push policy suggestions sufficiently for them to be voted into action. The regular population only has limited knowledge about statecraft. > If Switzerland is commiting a human rights violation by doing this, what monumental human rights violation is committed by India. A country which uses the oceans to distribute it's waste globally? How about China, burning endless coal? India and China are not parties to the European Convention on Human Rights. Switzerland is. Whataboutism also has no relevance to the court ruling.

CarRamrod 3y ago
It's not really "whataboutism" in the context of the problem when you realize that we're locked in the same closed system as them. It's just absurd to think that the younger generations are being told that if they want to enjoy a similar quality of life as their parents did, they are directly causing the destruction of the world, when in reality the sacrifices they are being asked to make are going to have the net effect of at best kicking the can down the road a few more years.
- arghwhat 3y ago
  It is whataboutism to complain about court action against a bad thing the basis that others, outside the court jurisdiction, will still do the bad thing. > are going to have the net effect of at best kicking the can down the road a few more years. All individual climate initiatives "kick the can down the road N more years" when viewed in isolation. What you need to look at is where the can started, and how to get people to keep kicking until it makes it all the way off the map. Phasing out CFCs kicked the can N years, phasing out HCFCs and HFCs kick it N more, tightening up emission regulations and not having individuals commute in 12 liter hemis with cat delete and coal rolling mods kick it N more, tightening up international shipping emissions another N years, etc.
- morby 3y ago
  It’s a multi generational issue. It’s not a question of fair when the repercussions for not addressing it are massive. Younger generations know this. It’s too bad older generations did nothing to address the issues they saw in front of them. They were too selfish I also think it’s preposterous to put climate change at their feet
- ben_w 3y ago
  A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. The more steps you take towards any goal, the greater the fractional impact of each subsequent step. Reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions needs changes on par with: • "every nation must reduce all emissions to zero, except Ghana who can continue as-is": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous... • or "every source of emissions must be reduced to zero, except for the degradation of grassland which can continue as-is": https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector

CarRamrod 3y ago

It's not really "whataboutism" in the context of the problem when you realize that we're locked in the same closed system as them. It's just absurd to think that the younger generations are being told that if they want to enjoy a similar quality of life as their parents did, they are directly causing the destruction of the world, when in reality the sacrifices they are being asked to make are going to have the net effect of at best kicking the can down the road a few more years.

arghwhat 3y ago
It is whataboutism to complain about court action against a bad thing the basis that others, outside the court jurisdiction, will still do the bad thing. > are going to have the net effect of at best kicking the can down the road a few more years. All individual climate initiatives "kick the can down the road N more years" when viewed in isolation. What you need to look at is where the can started, and how to get people to keep kicking until it makes it all the way off the map. Phasing out CFCs kicked the can N years, phasing out HCFCs and HFCs kick it N more, tightening up emission regulations and not having individuals commute in 12 liter hemis with cat delete and coal rolling mods kick it N more, tightening up international shipping emissions another N years, etc.
morby 3y ago
It’s a multi generational issue. It’s not a question of fair when the repercussions for not addressing it are massive. Younger generations know this. It’s too bad older generations did nothing to address the issues they saw in front of them. They were too selfish I also think it’s preposterous to put climate change at their feet
ben_w 3y ago
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. The more steps you take towards any goal, the greater the fractional impact of each subsequent step. Reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions needs changes on par with: • "every nation must reduce all emissions to zero, except Ghana who can continue as-is": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous... • or "every source of emissions must be reduced to zero, except for the degradation of grassland which can continue as-is": https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector