Dutch court orders carbon emissions cut to protect citizens

[webfact]

Dutch court orders carbon emissions cut to protect citizens
MIKE CORDER, Associated Press

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — A Dutch court ordered the government to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 percent by 2020 in a groundbreaking ruling Wednesday that activists hope will set a worldwide precedent.

The Hague District Court made the ruling in a case brought by a sustainability organization on behalf of some 900 citizens, claiming that the government has a duty of care to protect its people against looming dangers, including the effects of climate change on this low-lying country.

Climate activists in the packed courtroom cheered as Presiding Judge Hans Hofhuis read the ruling.

"A courageous judge. This is fantastic," said Sharona Ceha, who works for the Urgenda group that took the government to court. "This is for my children and grandchildren."

Dutch government lawyers swiftly left the courtroom after the judgment and could not immediately be reached for comment.

The court said that based on current government climate policy the Netherlands will cut its emissions by only 17 percent by 2020, compared with benchmark 1990 levels.

"The state must do more to avert the imminent danger caused by climate change, also in view of its duty of care to protect and improve the living environment," read a statement from the court.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-06-24

[stevenl]

3 things are missing from this report:

1. the decision was based on an almost unanimous scientific opinion that it is necessary to reduce the climate heating up;

2. the government did not contest the scientific reports;

3. 25% because the reports indicated 25-40% reduction is necessary.

[Pimay1]

Well these wing nuts couldn't get anywhere pushing global warming so they dropped that moniker for climate change. But as we can see below they have a valid argument which is supported by the Washington Post.

The Washington Post says:
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at
Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a
radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of
temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that
scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very
warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers
have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found
in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which
have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the
old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due
to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities
uninhabitable.
* * * * * * * * *
I must apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from
November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The
Washington Post - 93 years ago.

[Robby nz]

Meanwhile in NZ the temperature in one part of the South Island has dropped to -21c not far short of the countries all time record low of -25c and it is snowing in parts of the North Island.

Global warming is obviously here to stay.

[Steely Dan]

Meanwhile in NZ the temperature in one part of the South Island has dropped to -21c not far short of the countries all time record low of -25c and it is snowing in parts of the North Island.

Global warming is obviously here to stay.

More hot air from the warmist lobby should counteract that I expect.

[RickBradford]

People have to decide whether to believe:

a ) the satellite data and the ocean buoy data, which show no temperature rise, no acceleration in sea level rise, and no loss of polar ice, or

b ) people like the Pope, Bob Geldof and Prince Charles, who believe we are doomed unless we dismantle capitalism with immediate effect.

I thought the Dutch were smarter than that. After all, if anyone knows about dealing effectively with the sea, they do.

[uksomchai]

And today the UK Met Office issued warnings of a coming mini Ice Age.

Another country buying into the man made warming scam so they can tax their people even more and all in the name of saving the planet.

A politicians dream come true !

[JetsetBkk]

And today the UK Met Office issued warnings of a coming mini Ice Age.

Another country buying into the man made warming scam so they can tax their people even more and all in the name of saving the planet.

A politicians dream come true !

Saving the planet? Meh! The planet will be fine, it's just the people who will die. Hopefully, Al Gore et al will go first.

[Seastallion]

Some posters still talk about warming, when the science is about change.....but never mind...this thread could rapidly go downhill in the ongoing climate change argument, and ignore the pertinent point of the court decision. Put climate change aside...we know the arguments for and against.

This is a laudable decision because it is ordering the government to look after the citizens, to help alleviate the pollution that they are breathing and that their food is growing in.

Who wants to wear face masks to go outside like they do in Shanghai and Beijing?

Cut the emissions for the sake of the air we breathe!

[RickBradford]

This is a laudable decision because it is ordering the government to look after the citizens, to help alleviate the pollution that they are breathing and that their food is growing in.

Excuse me, but without wishing to be harsh, that statement takes win, place and show for the most scientifically illiterate post of the year.

This greenhouse gas "pollution" that the food is growing in is carbon dioxide or CO2. It's what plants breathe. It's how they grow. It's all that sustains them. Without it, they die. And so do we, because without plants, we wouldn't have anything to eat either.

Really ....

[uksomchai]

Some posters still talk about warming, when the science is about change.....but never mind...this thread could rapidly go downhill in the ongoing climate change argument, and ignore the pertinent point of the court decision. Put climate change aside...we know the arguments for and against.

This is a laudable decision because it is ordering the government to look after the citizens, to help alleviate the pollution that they are breathing and that their food is growing in.

Who wants to wear face masks to go outside like they do in Shanghai and Beijing?

Cut the emissions for the sake of the air we breathe!

I'm sorry but you are just another deluded fool if you think CO2 is a pollutant. Without CO2 there would be no life yet it has been hijacked as some kind of poison by the Eco Nazi's and Governments around the world. CO2 is a tiny percentage of so called green house gases and is responsible for 2% of the total. The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour but as the Governments can't tax that YET they have latched onto CO2 which they can.

Do these people honestly think that by introducing a tax on a gas will somehow stop mother nature from doing what she has been doing since the world began ? The world has been warming and cooling since it was created and all this before man started creating more CO2 into the atmosphere yet this is simply ignored. Even now the world stopped warming around 18 years ago but the levels of CO2 have continued to rise. Something that is against everything the Eco Nazi's tell us all should happen.

People will look back on this period of time and wonder just how so many people could be so stupid !

[Seastallion]

This is a laudable decision because it is ordering the government to look after the citizens, to help alleviate the pollution that they are breathing and that their food is growing in.

Excuse me, but without wishing to be harsh, that statement takes win, place and show for the most scientifically illiterate post of the year.

This greenhouse gas "pollution" that the food is growing in is carbon dioxide or CO2. It's what plants breathe. It's how they grow. It's all that sustains them. Without it, they die. And so do we, because without plants, we wouldn't have anything to eat either.

Really ....

Well, if the real scientific illiterates such as yourself and Uksomchai thought about it a little deeper, you'd realise my argument is not about CO2 per se. Do you really think emissions from cars and factories are just CO2?

If you think the discussion is about CO2, perhaps you should go and concentrate on the climate change thread.

[RickBradford]

Clearly your argument was about CO2, because you were referring to the 'laudable decision' by the Dutch court, and that court's decision was all about CO2.

Quote: "The court is ordering the Netherlands to reduce CO2 emission by a minimum of 25% (compared to 1990) by 2020, while current ambitions are hovering at 16%."

It shows how difficult it is to hold any sort of sensible debate on this topic, when so many people don't know the difference between pollutants (particulates, SOx, and NOx etc) and the entirely benign gas CO2 which is crucial to our survival.

If you want to talk about particulate pollution in Shanghai, I'm sure there's a thread for that somewhere. You don't need a face mask as protection against CO2....

Edited June 25, 2015 by RickBradford

[RickBradford]

Reducing CO2 would also result in reduction of particulates.

Complete nonsense. China emits far more particulates than the US, from less or equivalent CO2 emissions, because its factories and power plants are dirty. Diesel engines were thought to be good because they emit less CO2, but they emit 20 times as much particulate matter as gasoline engines.

Power plants in the west are so clean these days that they emit virtually nothing but CO2 and steam.

The main greenhouse gases are water, CO2 and methane. None of these are pollutants, and none of them are particulate. Furthermore, despite what the newspaper headline said, the Dutch court decision specified CO2 emissions for reduction.

I hope you are clearer now on the difference between pollution, and greenhouse gases.

Edited June 25, 2015 by RickBradford

[Seastallion]

Oh dear.

How do you reduce CO2? What steps does one take to follow the court's order?

What will be affected? think it through.....do you think it will have anything to do with reducing fossil fuel use or cleaning it's emissions?

A reduction in fossil fuel burning, or cleaning it's emissions results in what???

[RickBradford]

You can engage in as much heroic revisionism as you want.

But a plain reading of your original post shows that you do not (or did not) understand the difference between pollution (of the face-mask variety), and CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, which were the subject of the Dutch court's ruling.

It's one of the undoubted triumphs of Green/Left agit-prop over the past decade that dim-bulb activists all over the globe believe that "CO2 is pollution".

[MaxYakov]

For posters such as Seastallion who are concerned about gas pollutants that are unhealthy here is the Bangkok Air Quality Index (AQI) for today:

Notes:

The AQI for other cities in Thailand is available.

CO (carbon monoxide) appears to be both directly harmful and is also considered an indirect greenhouse gas.

Info about PM10 and smaller (particulate matter) here

[stevenl]

First of all, this is not about climate change but about a court's decision to order a government to cut emissions.

Secondly, this discussion about climate control does not surprise me. The scientific community, the people who know what they're talking about, almost unanimously agree that it is happening, some Thai Visa posters, real experts of course, disagree. Just as some people also claim evolution is just a theory.

[RickBradford]

The scientific community, the people who know what they're talking about, almost unanimously agree that it is happening

Agree that what is happening, precisely? And how does evolution come into it?

UPDATE: Sorry, I'm a bit slow off the mark today -- presumably the 'evolution' comment was to suggest that people who don't believe in the theory of evolution are nitwits who can't grasp basic science.

People, in fact, like the Pope, who believes that God created the universe, and also believes that global warming is an existential threat to mankind.

It's a good point you made.

Edited June 25, 2015 by RickBradford

[stevenl]

The scientific community, the people who know what they're talking about, almost unanimously agree that it is happening

Agree that what is happening, precisely? And how does evolution come into it?

Please quote in full, don't leave out parts, especially not when you're reacting to a part you left out.

Edit, original post edited at about the same time as this post was made.

Edited June 25, 2015 by stevenl

[stevenl]

The scientific community, the people who know what they're talking about, almost unanimously agree that it is happening

Agree that what is happening, precisely? And how does evolution come into it?

UPDATE: Sorry, I'm a bit slow off the mark today -- presumably the 'evolution' comment was to suggest that people who don't believe in the theory of evolution are nitwits who can't grasp basic science.

People, in fact, like the Pope, who believes that God created the universe, and also believes that global warming is an existential threat to mankind.

It's a good point you made.

Man made climate change.

It is going off topic, but does the pope personally believe that God created the universe, or is that 'just' the official catholic theory? No, the comparison was not made to suggest people can not grasp basic science but to suggest some people don't want to grasp basic science because there is a conflict. That conflict can be economical or spiritual or even opportunistic.

Edited June 25, 2015 by stevenl

[RickBradford]

Man made climate change.

Rather a broad definition. Even I believe in man-made climate change. I just haven't seen any evidence that it is dangerous, or that reducing CO2 emissions will do any good at all. And the 'unanimous' scientific community agrees with me to that extent -- none of the questions they were asked had anything to do with dangerous climate change or CO2 policies.

It is going off topic, but does the pope personally believe that God created the universe, or is that 'just' the official catholic theory?

I would doubt that the Pope opposes official Catholic theory. He could hardly have become Pope if he did.

No, the comparison was not made to suggest people can not grasp basic science but to suggest some people don't want to grasp basic science because there is a conflict. That conflict can be economical or spiritual or even opportunistic.

That is undoubtedly true. And it holds equally for extreme climate alarmists as it does for extreme climate skeptics.

[eliotness]

The biggest threat to man's existence on this planet is man himself, because we continue to breed at an unsustainable rate. All other "factors" are just smoke screens to hide a truth no one wants to address, especially people like the Pope.

Producing more energy efficient machines/cars just makes good sense. Wasting energy is wasting a resource and money.

The Netherlands intensive agricultural industry is a major contributor to the country's greenhouse gas emissions, so are they proposing to reduce the cows and pigs by 25% - I doubt it

[stevenl]

Man made climate change.

Rather a broad definition. Even I believe in man-made climate change. I just haven't seen any evidence that it is dangerous, or that reducing CO2 emissions will do any good at all. And the 'unanimous' scientific community agrees with me to that extent -- none of the questions they were asked had anything to do with dangerous climate change or CO2 policies.

It is going off topic, but does the pope personally believe that God created the universe, or is that 'just' the official catholic theory?

I would doubt that the Pope opposes official Catholic theory. He could hardly have become Pope if he did.

No, the comparison was not made to suggest people can not grasp basic science but to suggest some people don't want to grasp basic science because there is a conflict. That conflict can be economical or spiritual or even opportunistic.

That is undoubtedly true. And it holds equally for extreme climate alarmists as it does for extreme climate skeptics.

"And it holds equally for extreme climate alarmists as it does for extreme climate skeptics."

Not correct, since there is no conflict.

[RickBradford]

Eh?

[stevenl]

Eh?

If everybody says 'a', except for a few people who claim 'b', there is a conflict. The extremist may say 'a+', they're still saying 'a', so there is no conflict.

[RickBradford]

^^

Yes, and when 'b' turns out to be correct, as it increasingly appears to be, the lack of conflict will be seen as a devastating weakness.

Even the UK Met Office is now warning of a mini Ice Age. Northern Europe, they estimate, will see cooling in the range -0.4 to -0.8 °C over the next few decades.

Climate experts warn the amount of light and warmth released by the sun is nosediving to levels "not seen for centuries".

They fear a repeat of the so-called 'Maunder Minimum' which triggered Arctic winter whiteouts and led to the River Thames freezing 300 years ago.

[Scott]

Please get back on topic or face a warning and possible suspension.

[stevenl]

^^

Yes, and when 'b' turns out to be correct, as it increasingly appears to be, the lack of conflict will be seen as a devastating weakness.

Even the UK Met Office is now warning of a mini Ice Age. Northern Europe, they estimate, will see cooling in the range -0.4 to -0.8 °C over the next few decades.

Climate experts warn the amount of light and warmth released by the sun is nosediving to levels "not seen for centuries".

They fear a repeat of the so-called 'Maunder Minimum' which triggered Arctic winter whiteouts and led to the River Thames freezing 300 years ago.

The next few decades are nothing for the timeframes we're talking about.

I can only repeat something I wrote earlier:

"The scientific community, the people who know what they're talking about, almost unanimously agree that it is happening, some Thai Visa posters, real experts of course, disagree."

BTW, an analysis from the MET report, more reliable than the Daily Mail header:

"Naturally the MET thinks that anthropogenic forcing will overwhelm the cooling effect. In the context of farcical model predictions of anthropogenic warming of up to +6.6c by 2100, which the MET still officially treats as serious science, a degree or so of cooling, due to a lull in solar activity, might not seem a big deal.

Nevertheless, the fact the MET have raised the risk of significant global cooling from their 8% estimate, produced in 2010, to 15 – 20% is intriguing. The MET assures us however, that any reprieve from global warming will be temporary – potentially leaving open the option of running global warming scares, in the midst of brutal little ice age style winters."

Edited June 25, 2015 by stevenl

[RickBradford]

"The scientific community, the people who know what they're talking about, almost unanimously agree that it is happening, some Thai Visa posters, real experts of course, disagree."

Yes, and your answer to what "it" is that the scientific community unanimously agrees about, was "man made climate change", an answer so trivial as to be almost worthless.

Of course humans can and have changed climate through their activities, from the time 50,000 years ago when the Australian aborigines burnt down large amounts of rainforest and dried parts of the continent out. Agriculture, city building, and industrial activities -- even wind turbines -- all have the ability to change climate to different amounts and on different scales

There is no unanimous agreement that climate change is dangerous, despite the best efforts of a hysterical media; but there is wide scientific and economic agreement that trying to cut CO2 emissions in the West is completely useless in combating climate change.

The Dutch court is engaging in pointless feel-good Green tokenism.