3. Shine a light on the Integrity Gap, so that govts' Net Zero targets are transparent and responsible about #carbondioxideremoval.

New cases are expected on issues of transparency and reliance on CDR, drawing on new research (e.g. www.science.org/stoken/autho...).

More on this: shorturl.at/qDFTV

2. Close the Implementation Gap, ensuring that governments deliver on their promises.

Inspired by wins in Ireland, the UK and France, more litigation is anticipated to ensure that govts deliver on their 2030 targets.

1. Keep the pressure on the Ambition Gap, raising govts' targets in line w science

Boosted by success in landmark cases in Urgenda (NL), Neubauer (Germany) + Klimaatzaak (Belgium), cases are happening against high-emitting govts in: Australia; South Korea; Sweden; Italy; Canada and many more!

www.theguardian.com/world/2023/d...

12. For more on the Belgian Climate Case, follow @Klimaatzaak and read their press release here. Congratulations to Sarah Tak, legal team leads Carole Billiet and Audrey Baeyens, Roger Cox, Linli Pan-Van de Meulebroek & Ward Reniers!

rvvx.mjt.lu/nl3/eTHNU7BK...

11. As governments fail to act, legal accountability is crucial.

Belgian court is the third globally - after Dutch (2019) & German (2021) – to find that lack of AMBITION in emissions reduction violates legal obligation.
 
Watch out for more cases 🧐 climatelitigationnetwork.org

10. REMEDY: Belgian Government, Flemish Region and Brussels-Capital Region ordered to increase the *ambition* of 2030 GHG reduction target to at least 55% (compared with 47%), in line w best available science (in updated NECP) [286].

9. CAUSATION: Government cannot escape liability by pointing to others. Court rejected the infamous “drop in the ocean” argument and affirmed *individual* legal liability of the State [160, 181]; "every GHG emission counts" [233] -- following other courts globally.

8. HARM: Govt’s inaction “dented” global carbon budget [268]; postponed efforts to address climate change; harmed the plaintiffs’ “fundamental rights” and risk of “undermining the rights of future generations” [266]

7. AMBITION GAP = BREACH: In light of best available science for 1.5C, court found Belgian Govt and 3 authorities’ 2020 and 2030 efforts (under EU law) fell short of legal obligations to protect people from climate harms, under ECHR & Civil Code [para 182; 211; 244]

6. EU TARGETS: For EU Member States, their EU-derived target is a “minimum” but not a "ceiling" of legal obligations. Government cannot “hide behind” its EU target [161]. Similar to Dutch and German courts -- very powerful for litigation in Europe

5. SEPARATION OF POWERS: Courts have an appropriate role in assessing whether governments' emission reduction efforts comply with the law, including "the minimum accepted by best available science" [para 190]

4. FOCUS ON 1.5C: Holding warming to 1.5C is lodestar for governments’ climate efforts: Court assessed Govt's 2020 and 2030 targets in light of global carbon budget for 1.5C [paras 176, 191, 199]

Strongest court finding on 1.5C, since Dutch Court in @milieudefensie (2021)

3. DUTY: Govt must do “its part” to combat climate change [190]; Test: has Govt “take[n] appropriate and reasonable measures … in the light of the best available scientific knowledge at the time … to enable them to prevent ... the crossing of a threshold dangerous to life" [156]

2. STANDING: Individuals have standing to challenge governments’ weak climate efforts in court, due to current and future harms, including "the scale of the consequences of global warming and the magnitude of the risks it poses" [para 133]

1. Climate action is a legal duty: Belgian appeal court affirms that climate action is a legal duty, based on well-established legal principles (Belgian Civil Code & European Convention on Human Rights), following courts in Netherlands, Germany, France, Colombia, Nepal & Pakistan