Some think that climate activists who throw soup at works of art are simply vandals or hysterics, and some governments have even spoken of them as “terrorists.” But here a ruling from the Strasbourg Court has condemned a State, Switzerland, for its climate inaction. Many of those who consider the activists crazy have also thought that the sentence is delusional. Can an international court hold a State responsible for failing to protect its citizens from the consequences of climate change? Well, although it may seem crazy, yes, it can. Remember the words of Philipp Blom. Science tells us unequivocally that “the decisions made in the next 10 or 20 years will shape the future of life on Earth. It seems crazy to us that these activists throw soup at paintings to attract attention, but what is normal when the world has gone crazy?
Perhaps it is appropriate to change the scale of what we consider normal or delirium, since the path undertaken by an association of more than 2,500 women, most of them over 70 years of age, in denouncing the Swiss State for not adopting the climate policies necessary to protect their health represents a historic extension of human rights to the climate issue. It is just the beginning of an escalation of climate litigation that will shape the scope of what David Lizoain calls “climate crime.” Does it sound exaggerated? Well, it's here, and the best thing about the Swiss case is that there have been 2,500 ladies who, fed up with their timid representatives, have transformed their fury into citizen mobilization. The example shows that the idea that the fight for climate is for young people is a fallacy. Intergenerational solidarity is possible and desirable, but it is paradoxical that the ECtHR rejected another process initiated by young Portuguese for formal reasons. And there is also an inevitable feminist reading. The “white-haired ladies,” as another European media describes them, draw a line with other generations of women from a feminism that changes and evolves, but is linked to a deep democratic and civic consciousness.
The ruling is an example of more things, such as geographical solidarity: the rich country must step up to the plate to set an example. There are activists in the reviled global north who are fighting for transnational institutions to force rich states to develop a global climate consciousness, thus amplifying the voices of less powerful countries in international debates. The case, in short, tells us about the other great struggle of our time: the battle for universalism, human rights and the global governance institutions that protect them. It is eloquent that the reaction of a Swiss conservative deputy was to denounce the interference of the ECtHR: “It is up to the democratic authorities to establish the political agenda of the States on climate matters, not to the judges.” Or that another from the extreme right asked to leave the Council of Europe: “The condemnation of Switzerland is a scandal, unacceptable for a sovereign country,” adding that he did not take into account “massive immigration.” He takes delirium. Now we know that there is criminal responsibility attributable to States, and that there is another policy that challenges us to take responsibility for the consequences of the climate emergency and take collective action. A simple change in consumption patterns is not enough. These Swiss ladies have taught us all a lesson.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_
#Climate #crime