The Dutch state recognizes that climate change “has negative consequences for people and their environment all over the world”, including in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom. But, the State Attorney stated in the court in The Hague on Tuesday, the Netherlands is “definitely pursuing an adequate and timely adaptation policy” to protect Bonaire and its residents, and there is no obligation to do more. The Netherlands would also not have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions any faster. Moreover, the lawyer added, the judge has no authority to interfere in national climate policy.
Also read
Bonaireans want to protect their island against the sea through the courts. ‘The Netherlands must take us seriously’
On Tuesday and Wednesday, the court in The Hague heard the case that Greenpeace Netherlands, together with eight Bonaireans, filed against the Dutch state. According to them, the Caribbean Netherlands is already experiencing major consequences of global warming: heat waves are increasing, sea levels are rising, the weather is becoming more extreme. Yet, they say, the Netherlands takes no responsibility for this.
The plaintiffs want equal treatment for the residents of Bonaire, a special municipality of the Netherlands since 2010, compared to the European Netherlands. There, according to Greenpeace, the government is pursuing an active policy to adapt the country to climate change (adaptation). They also demand that the Netherlands do more to limit global warming (mitigation).
We are trapped in an oven, where it is impossible to sleep. The heat affects our bodies
Mitigation
Both parties spoke extensively during the two days of hearings. The first day was all about mitigation: reducing emissions. The hearing began with testimony from three co-plaintiffs from Bonaire, who shared their concerns about the future of their island. “The climate on Bonaire has changed in a generation,” said Onnie Emerenciana, a farmer on the island. “It has always been warm, but where we used to work, play and fish outside, it is now too hot. Air conditioners are on, for those who can afford it. We are trapped in an oven, where it is impossible to sleep. The heat is affecting our bodies.”
Some of the claimants from Bonaire.
Photo Lina Selg/ANP
According to Greenpeace, the Netherlands presents itself internationally “as a champion of ambitious climate policy”, but does not act accordingly. “It has been clear for decades that emissions must be reduced more quickly,” said the lawyer, “but successive governments have postponed the problem.” Based on research Greenpeace states that the Netherlands can be climate neutral as early as 2040 – and is therefore obliged to pursue that goal.
The Netherlands’ climate target for 2030, reducing emissions by 55 percent, is virtually out of reach, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency noted in September in the annual Climate and Energy Outlook.
As if we in the European Netherlands would say that it is not a problem if the dikes break, as long as it is not built up
The state argued that the Netherlands is bound by European climate legislation, in which 2050 is the target year for net zero emissions. “That is binding and nothing more than that,” said the state attorney. Moreover, he said, the scenario in which temperatures rise the most is “not the most likely at this time.”
According to the state, Greenpeace has not demonstrated that there is a “risk and immediate threat to life” for Bonaireans – a requirement to be able to invoke the European Convention on Human Rights. Flood maps, made on behalf of the government, apparently show that the two largest residential areas on Bonaire are “not or hardly affected by coastal flooding.” “A shocking observation,” Greenpeace responded. “As if we in the European Netherlands would say that it is not a problem if the dikes break, as long as it is not built up.”
Adaptation
The second day focused on adapting to climate change: adaptation. It is one of the first lawsuits in Europe that is so explicitly about this. Greenpeace argued that Bonaire needs a solid plan to protect itself against sun, sea and wind – and that residents there are treated unequally compared to the European Netherlands. Municipalities in the Netherlands fall under the Delta Program and the National Adaptation Strategy, for which integrated policy has been drawn up, implemented and monitored for years, and for which money is available. There is no such plan for Bonaire. “The fact that there is not yet an integrated climate plan for Bonaire does not mean that there is too unequal treatment,” the country’s lawyer responded.
This made it clear how fundamentally the views of both parties differ – something that was reflected at several points in the case. For example, the state views measures such as securing drinking water and tackling wastewater as adaptation, while Greenpeace sees them as a human rights issue. Opinions also differ about the cultural consequences of climate change: according to the state, there is no tangible effect yet, while Greenpeace points to crumbling foundations of historic slave houses.
One of the key questions
One of the key questions is whether the judge is even allowed to judge whether the Netherlands is doing enough to limit emissions. According to the state, that responsibility lies with the European Commission; Greenpeace believes that the national court should also be able to rule on this. “The state has some freedom to set climate goals,” said Greenpeace’s lawyer, “but there is a lower limit – and it is up to the courts to monitor it.” He added: “The state relies on freedom of policy, but turn it around: if I incur a tax debt, I cannot say that I no longer have to pay it because it has become too large?”
Also read
To save the coral you must first understand the fish that swim around it
NEW: Give this item as a gift
As an NRC subscriber you can subscribe every month 10 articles give as a gift to someone without an NRC subscription. The recipient can read the article directly, without a paywall.