European Court of Human Rights Broadens Scope of Human Rights Convention to Incorporate Climate-related Damage

In a groundbreaking ruling, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has expanded the scope of the Human Rights Convention to include climate-related damage. The court’s decision highlights the need for governments to consider the impact of climate change on individuals’ health. This landmark judgment could have far-reaching effects on climate change law and litigation worldwide.

The case before the ECHR involved a group of elderly women over the age of 70 who argued that the Swiss authorities had violated their right to respect for private and family life by not taking effective measures to mitigate the impact of climate change. The women claimed that government inaction had harmed their health and endangered future generations.

The ECHR’s ruling is based on Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to respect for private and family life. While many may interpret this provision as dealing with personal decisions such as family planning or choosing where to live, the court has given it an extended meaning through judicial activism. This interpretation expands the convention’s applicability to include a right to protection from the adverse effects of climate change on individuals’ quality of life.

The court relied on international climate change declarations, specifically referencing the 2015 Paris Agreement, to support its decision. According to the court, Article 8 must be seen as encompassing a right for individuals to effective protection from serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being, and quality of life.

However, there is room for doubt when it comes to climate science. Some scientific evidence suggests that carbon dioxide (CO2) does not cause higher temperatures on the planet. Recent research conducted by Ian McNaughton in Australia challenges the link between CO2 and rising temperatures. McNaughton’s study, which analyzed temperature gauge records from Australian capital cities and London over the past century, found that population growth and food production are more influential factors than CO2 concentration in temperature changes.

Despite this dissenting view, the ECHR’s ruling stands, expanding the Convention on Human Rights to include protection against climate-related harm. This decision has implications not only for Europe but also for countries worldwide, including Australia.

While the ruling may be welcomed by climate change activists in Australia, it is essential to consider the potential harm that the settled science of climate change can inflict on people. The euphoria surrounding the judgment should not overshadow the need for a dispassionate assessment of the evidence and its implications.

The ECHR’s decision sets a precedent for governments to take climate change seriously and prioritize measures to mitigate its impact on individuals’ health and well-being. It remains to be seen how this ruling will influence future climate change litigation and policy-making worldwide.