4 ms·

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

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.
alistairSH 3y ago
But why Switzerland? The women who filed the suit are Swiss. I'm all for suing other nations as well, but we (wealthy western nations) need to get our ducks in a row first. No point suing Poland about coal use while we (USA) also burn coal.
tzs 3y ago
> Why not sue major offenders like India or Russia, just to name a few, who could actually make a difference to world climate? India is not by any sensible measure a "major offender". They do have the third highest total emissions but that is because they have the largest or second largest population. Their per capita emissions are half of Switzerland's. And yes, per capita is a far better measure than per country unless you can make a case that the people of some countries have some sort of natural or divine right to live a higher CO2 lifestyle.

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.

alistairSH 3y ago

But why Switzerland? The women who filed the suit are Swiss. I'm all for suing other nations as well, but we (wealthy western nations) need to get our ducks in a row first. No point suing Poland about coal use while we (USA) also burn coal.

tzs 3y ago

> Why not sue major offenders like India or Russia, just to name a few, who could actually make a difference to world climate? India is not by any sensible measure a "major offender". They do have the third highest total emissions but that is because they have the largest or second largest population. Their per capita emissions are half of Switzerland's. And yes, per capita is a far better measure than per country unless you can make a case that the people of some countries have some sort of natural or divine right to live a higher CO2 lifestyle.