Search

Climate litigation based on the constitutional rights of future generations is an emerging and promising approach to enforcing long-term policies based on intergenerational and climate justice. In Germany, a high-profile constitutional judgment triggered by climate activists ruled that the German climate policy infringes future freedom rights. Based on an assessment of legal opportunity structures and interviews with key actors, this research finds that the complainants utilised the opportunity to facilitate a strong public perception of intergenerational injustice set by the Fridays for Future movement. While the court's response in the form of the intertemporal effect doctrine is ambiguous and does not constitute clear fundamental rights of future generations, the complainants reached their strategic goal to directly influence policymakers and draw public attention to the issue of climate protection as an intergenerational responsibility. An interplay of four different legal arguments and numerous actors associated with the climate movement was crucial to triggering this outcome. These findings from a sociolegal bottom-up perspective are of great relevance as they show that impactful climate litigation through intergenerational principles relies on the strategic utilisation of the cultural context beyond the legal sphere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This policy-oriented article explores the sustainability dimension of digitalisation and artificial intelligence (AI). While AI can contribute to halting climate change via targeted applications in specific domains, AI technology in general could also have detrimental effects for climate policy goals. Moreover, digitalisation and AI can have an indirect effect on climate policy via their impact on political processes. It will be argued that, if certain conditions are fulfilled, AI-facilitated digital tools could help with setting up frameworks for bottom-up citizen participation that could generate the legitimacy and popular buy-in required for speedy transformations needed to reach net zero such as radically revamping the energy infrastructure among other crucial elements of the green transition. This could help with ameliorating a potential dilemma of voice versus speed regarding the green transition. The article will further address the nexus between digital applications such as AI and climate justice. Finally, the article will consider whether innovative governance methods could instil new dynamism into the multi-level global climate regime, such as by facilitating interlinkages and integration between different levels. Before implementing innovative governance arrangements, it is crucial to assess whether they do not exacerbate old or even generate new inequalities of access and participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While nudging has garnered plenty of interdisciplinary attention, the ethics of applying it to climate policy has been little discussed. However, not all ethical considerations surrounding nudging are straightforward to apply to climate nudges. In this article, we overview the state of the debate on the ethics of nudging and highlight themes that are either specific to or particularly important for climate nudges. These include: the justification of nudges that are not self-regarding; how to account for climate change denialists; transparency; knowing the right or best behaviours; justice concerns; and whether the efficacy of nudges is sufficient for nudges to be justified as a response to the climate crisis. We conclude that climate nudges raise distinct ethical questions that ought to be considered in developing climate nudges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper suggests how the regulation of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) field research in Europe could be designed to maximise the possibility of securing legitimacy. It argues that legitimacy is maximised when regulatory frameworks are legal, and also responsive, flexible, deliberative and inclusive. By adopting an 'incorporated' approach to assessing the risk of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) field research, the EU can import elements of 'directly deliberative polyarchy' into its otherwise orthodox constitutional regulatory approach thereby maximising legitimacy. The argument is new in so far as it juxtaposes two conceptions of procedural legitimacy - one institutional and the other functional - in the context of significant scientific uncertainty in the technocratic regulatory paradigm of the EU. The significance of the work is that it draws on these conceptions of legitimacy to advance a pragmatic model of institutional design which comprises procedures that maximise legitimacy with minimal disruption to the EU's institutional balance of powers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate engineering in general and solar radiationmanagement (SRM) in particular raise profound and complex political, legal, social, and ethical questions that go well beyond technicalfeasibility issues. We consider three such questions. First, can existing EU decision-making processes accommodate sufficient public engagement to ensure legitimate decisions on SRM? Second, does politics influence the choice of legislative procedure for SRM regulation? Third, does the choice of legislative procedure influence the likelihood of SRMimplementation? Three main conclusions emerge from our analysis. First, existing EU decision-making processes can - given certain conditions - accommodate considerable public engagement and hence ensure legitimate decisions on SRM. Second, politics matters; indeed, the EU's choice of legislative procedure concerning SRM may well become subject to political negotiations. Finally, the choice of legislative procedure may substantially influence the likelihood of SRM implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the prospects for the European Union (EU) to develop a coherent policy regarding climate engineering (CE). It discusses significant legal parameters derived from EU law from which such a future EU policy would have to arise. . It is opined that climate engineering carries risks unlike any of the previous policy responses to climate change.

This brief opinion piece draws upon behavioural and cognitive research to argue that the Paris Agreement's goal of keeping global temperature change below 2 degrees Celsius sets a psychologically powerful baseline against which future policy failures can be measured. When international law successfully triggers perception of a baseline, it can lead decisionmakers to perceive deviations from that baseline as "losses." This implicates loss aversion, which provides an additional motivation to achieve international norms. The psychological impacts of this new status quo may end up being more powerful and more durable than either the unusual structure of the document or the domestic implementation questions that have already attracted so much scholarly debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the author's views on the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. It is opined that the definitions of climate change under the Paris Agreement's policy and science sphere are inconsistent and apocryphal, which impedes the scientific enterprise of climate research. It is stated that climate science is policy-led instead of climate policy being science-led, as the Paris Agreement seems to require.

The article presents the author's views on how agriculture and food security issues are related to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. It is opined that it is difficult to measure emissions at the individual farm level since a variety of factors determine the amount of emissions. It is stated that agriculture is among the sectors that will be badly affected by climate change.

The Dutch State has to ensure that the Dutch emissions in the year 2020 will be at least 25% lower than those in 1990. The parties agree that the severity and scope of the climate problem make it necessary to take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the State's current policy, the Netherlands will achieve a reduction of 17% at most in 2020, which is below the norm of 25% to 40% for developed countries deemed necessary in climate science and international climate policy. With this order, the court has not entered the domain of politics. The court must provide legal protection, also in cases against the government,while respecting the government's scope for policymaking. For these reasons, the court should exercise restraint and has limited therefore the reduction order to 25%, the lower limit of the 25%-40% norm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]