Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
principle, governments, not courts, are best placed to decide which policies will best solve environmental and social problems.Meeting at the "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro, they agreed to stabilize greenhouse gases "at a low enough level to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".The agreement did not specify what level is low enough to prevent such dangerous interference with our climate, but the scientific consensus is that to allow the global temperature to rise to an average of more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels is to risk catastrophe. The first climate litigation to win a positive decision was Urgenda Foundation vs. the state of Netherlands, in which a Dutch court ruled, in 2015, that the government must ensure that the country's emissions are cut by one quarter within five years.Important as Urgenda has been, Juliana vs. United States is by far the most significant climate case to date. Instead, the Court will have to decide whether it is willing to heed the scientific evidence that the actions of the U.S. government are indeed jeopardizing the survival of human life on our planet.
Proof the world’s not so bad
Looking beyond the idea of traditional family
Dirty money and tainted philanthropy
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE