It would have been more fun if the Parliament had simply said “hey, you Believe, so, why don’t you practice what you preach? Better, yet, let’s pass a law stating that everyone who sued must have a net zero footprint”. Perhaps take a survey and require all who want government to Do Something to have live a carbon neutral lifestyle. No fossil fuels, no cars, no flying. As a start
Swiss parliament defies ECHR on climate women’s case
Swiss women who won a historic ruling on climate change at the European Court of Human Rights say they feel shocked and betrayed by their parliament’s decision not to comply with it.
The women, known as “climate seniors”, previously took their case to the court in Strasbourg, France, arguing the Swiss government’s inadequate response to climate change – and in particular extreme heat events linked to global warming – was damaging their right to health and life.
The court agreed in April and ordered Switzerland, which has so far failed to meet is targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to do more.
The court’s rulings are binding for member states, and this decision was unprecedented.
I wonder if the Swiss rulers and those who do not want this EU ruling foist on them are starting to regret joining the EU, which was supposed to simply be about travel and common economics to make things easier, and morphed into the massive, domineering behemoth which is usurping sovereignty
Climate activists had hoped it would send a signal to other governments that human rights law could be used to defend citizens who believe their health is being harmed by worsening environmental factors.
However Switzerland’s parliament voted on Wednesday to reject the ECHR’s ruling, suggesting it was not “ignoring” it, as some critics have claimed, but rather that Switzerland did not need to react as it already had an effective climate change strategy.
Yeah, well, supposedly it’s plan won’t align with the Paris climate accords non-binding need to hold the world to 1.5C. Seriously, how does a court rule when Paris was non-binding?
But the Swiss are also very proud of their system of direct democracy. They are used to making decisions themselves, and the “foreign judges” jibe resonates with them.
Well, hey, you bought into the EU thing. What are you going to do about it? They aren’t part of NATO, being neutral. How do they stay in the EU? They could simply say we will abide by the original idea, which made it easier to travel through European nations, and made economics and commerce easier, but, beyond that? Nope.
This shows the wisdom of Brexit, in which a smaller European nation decides that no, they are not surrendering their sovereignty.
Think about this case: just another lawfare move by people who were unable to persuade their government to implement changes that the majority didn’t want, going to an unelected court composed primarily of people from other countries to try to force a minority view on the Swiss government. The litigants are trying to get a judicial branch to assume superiority over the legislative and executive branches.
If the people of Switzerland want the laws the “climate seniors” favor, they can vote in new members of parliament who will pass those laws. Wouldn’t that be the “democracy” about which the left keep screaming, even though they only believe in democracy when the government engages in policies that they like?
I’d point out here that Switzerland never adopted the euro, retaining the Swiss franc as their official currency.
Total European carbon emissions have dropped by 30% in the last 30 years due mostly by replacement by renewables energy. This has occured despite their population increasing
Irrelevant as China’s keeps rising.
Another fake statistic from H. It’s one of those nebulous things that you can’t really put your finger on somebody can say it and it’s not untrue but it’s not true either. Depends upon your sourcing and the exact times and the exact admissions that you’re talking about. I did a cursory look about the Internet and the most I could find was that carbon emissions have dropped over the last 30 years but mostly do to replacements of old worn out machines such as cars etcetera and replacement with more efficient modern machines. Has very little to do with the renewable energy. By the way the cost of energy is going up 2000% the same period of time. But that too is a nebulous unprovable statistic simply because stuff floats around the Internet doesn’t mean it’s true.
Just like simply because the Democrats claim that captain shit in his pants got 81 million votes in the last election doesn’t actually really mean he did. Especially when they refuse to recount the votes in an audit. They’re obviously afraid it’s gonna show that he got about 60 million at best. That’s why they’re trying to sue people and throw them in prison for saying it.
Mr L.G.: Another fake statistic from H. It’s one of those nebulous things that you can’t really put your finger on somebody can say it and it’s not untrue but it’s not true either. Depends upon your sourcing and the exact times and the exact admissions (sic) that you’re talking about.
It’s known how much natural gas, gasoline and coal is burned.
Actually, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/450017/co2-emissions-europe-eurasia/ (30 yr) CO2 emissions dropped 43%. It was 28% drop from 1993 to 2022. 30% over the past 30 yrs is a good average.
The US and the EU have both cut CO2 emissions significantly without destroying their economies.
Audits and recounts in GA, AZ, MI, WI and PA confirmed the votes. No one can take you seriously if you continue to claim that Trump won the election. He lost by some 7 million votes and by almost 5% of the vote. It wasn’t a very close election. Trump even lost in battleground states controlled by Republicans.
Can you describe what YOU mean by an electoral audit?
Switzerland isn’t in the EU.