3 ms·

I agree that the ruling is troubling - if we take the article on face value. It bothers me for the same reason that some people are dismayed by attempts at com

I agree that the ruling is troubling - if we take the article on face value. It bothers me for the same reason that some people are dismayed by attempts at compelled speech. Because it gets a problem ass backwards. One cannot claim that inaction is a violation of human rights. All of us have the right to just look at the world and throw our hands up in the air, and cry, and say "I just don't know what to do!". Climate change is a tragedy that makes the greatest people, the most compassionate, motivated experts freeze in fear an inaction. What is wrong and is a blatant violation of human rights in the face of looming catastrophe is inhibiting or sabotaging action. For example, the UK government has gone out of its way to spitefully outlaw legitimate peaceful protest by environmentalists. Complaining about inaction while failing to step up and defend rights to action is hypocritical and a passive.

alistairSH 2y ago
Switzerland is party to treaties that concern climate change and action. Switzerland is failing to meet these obligations. So, some women sued in international court. That's what the court ruled - that Switzerland is failing to meet its obligations under the law.
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  So this is about broken promises. The Swiss overcommited.
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    Basically, yes. The Swiss promised to do their part to mitigate climate change. They failed to do so. So, a group of Swiss citizens took the government to court to compel action. Nothing that seems particularly unreasonable to me.
    - nonrandomstring 2y ago
      I guess I find it troubling because my own government are working so hard in the opposite direction. Maybe a bit of jealousy that the Swiss get to call their government to account. Now, whether this ruling can actually move anything... who knows. How can you make governments do something? Meaningless fines, strong words and other toothless gestures? I am not optimistic. For 40 years I'm used to being actively lied to by a corrupt and inept government. They will burn the planet rather than concede a single penny of profit for their cronies. That's why I say, the ECHR would be much better off defending the rights to action. That would give encouragement to people. It should be illegal for the UK or any government to inhibit lawful protest (including making laws to do that).

alistairSH 2y ago

Switzerland is party to treaties that concern climate change and action. Switzerland is failing to meet these obligations. So, some women sued in international court. That's what the court ruled - that Switzerland is failing to meet its obligations under the law.

nonrandomstring 2y ago
So this is about broken promises. The Swiss overcommited.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  Basically, yes. The Swiss promised to do their part to mitigate climate change. They failed to do so. So, a group of Swiss citizens took the government to court to compel action. Nothing that seems particularly unreasonable to me.
  - nonrandomstring 2y ago
    I guess I find it troubling because my own government are working so hard in the opposite direction. Maybe a bit of jealousy that the Swiss get to call their government to account. Now, whether this ruling can actually move anything... who knows. How can you make governments do something? Meaningless fines, strong words and other toothless gestures? I am not optimistic. For 40 years I'm used to being actively lied to by a corrupt and inept government. They will burn the planet rather than concede a single penny of profit for their cronies. That's why I say, the ECHR would be much better off defending the rights to action. That would give encouragement to people. It should be illegal for the UK or any government to inhibit lawful protest (including making laws to do that).