International court rules Switzerland violated human rights in landmark climate case brought by 2,000 women | CNN
www.cnn.com
An international court ruled Switzerland’s failure to tackle the climate crisis violated human rights, in a judgment experts say could have a ripple effect across the globe.

An international court in France on Tuesday ruled Switzerland’s failure to adequately tackle the climate crisis was in violation of human rights, in a landmark climate judgment that could have a ripple effect across the globe.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, France delivered its ruling in a case brought by more than 2,000 Swiss women, the majority of whom are in their 70s, against Switzerland’s government. They argued that climate change-fueled heat waves undermined their health and quality of life, and put them at risk of dying.

The court ruled that the Swiss government had violated some of the women’s human rights due to “critical gaps” in its national legislation to reduce planet-heating emissions, as well as a failure to meet past climate targets.

  • @aeronmelon@lemmy.worldEnglish
    -3•8 months ago

    So far you have baselessly concluded that I personally do nothing to combat climate change, that I am attacking someone for pointing out that getting arrested over and over again is not a meaningful substitute for challenging government inaction on the international stage, and that I am (in)advertently some kind of ally to fossil fuel companies.

    The very definition of a smear campaign.

    Also, what’s the point of quoting something I wrote if you’re not going to address it?

    Absolutely none of this is useful to anyone.

    Then ignore it. Just like I’m ignoring all the personal attacks and actual hate that pointing out how climate change doesn’t need a pop star to be properly addressed is generating.

    • MushuChupacabraEnglish
      4•8 months ago

      Environmental activist Greta Thunberg, who attended a demonstration, told reporters outside the court that “this is only the beginning of climate litigation.”

      This was the only reference to Greta Thunberg that I could see attached to the CNN story. It appears as though she enthusiastically endorses the ruling, and is in favor of ongoing use of legal action for fighting the climate crisis.

      So far you have baselessly concluded that I personally do nothing to combat climate change…

      So far, on the basis of what you’ve said, I have concluded that you are a part of the drag coefficient on progress.

      Quite literally, if this is you trying to be helpful, maybe sit this one out.

      • @aeronmelon@lemmy.worldEnglish
        -3•8 months ago

        Environmental activist Greta Thunberg, who attended a demonstration, told reporters outside the court that “this is only the beginning of climate litigation.”

        This was the only reference to Greta Thunberg that I could see attached to the CNN story. It appears as though she enthusiastically endorses the ruling, and is in favor of ongoing use of legal action for fighting the climate crisis.

        …and that’s the definition of a non sequitur.

        If it was your intention to have civil discussion about the court ruling or Greta’s (lack of) involvement in it, that’s what you would have led with.

        you are a part of the drag coefficient on progress.

        But you believe the way you’ve been treating me isn’t?

        sit this one out.

        No.

        At least I can disagree and be critical without slandering other people.

        • MushuChupacabraEnglish
          5•8 months ago

          At least I can disagree and be critical without slandering other people.

          Dear Greta, this is what real climate activism looks like. Not smiling to the cameras as you get arrested, working thanklessly behind the scenes to create real awareness and enact real change.

          Here’s you being smarmy and condescending as fuck. Greta endorsed the action and the ruling, and there is no signaling from the legal team stating that Greta Thunberg interfered or detracted from anything that they were striving for. They’re on the same page, and the same team. Meanwhile, you’re being divisive, and heavily implying that protesting is not an effective means of resistance.

          Do you seriously not grasp why you’re getting no traction here?