The Supreme Court has rejected the request made by the State Attorney and will not close one of the processes of the so-called 'Trial for the climate' considering that the Government has not complied with the commitment reached in the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, which aims to reduce greenhouse gases.
This is the second refusal that the High Court transfers to the Legal Profession after last June 14 it rejected the request to shelve the appeal presented by Greenpeace, Ecologistas en Acción and Oxfam Intermón. The three organizations insisted that the approval of the National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan (PNIEC) last March did not satisfy the obligations committed by Spain.
Now, the Supreme Court makes it clear in an order dated September 14 that "the legitimate interest of obtaining judicial protection by the plaintiff organizations has not ceased to exist." As Greenpeace has pointed out, "the inactivity of the Administration still persists as it has not fully complied with the commitment acquired, which has its origin in an international treaty ratified by the Spanish State and by the European Union."
Specifically, the organizations opposed the closure of the litigation, considering that the approval of any PNIEC was not enough, but that it should be a plan ambitious enough to limit the increase in global temperature by 1.5 ° C. "To meet this objective, according to science, CO2 emissions should be reduced by 55% in 2030 throughout the planet. This figure is very far from the 23% reduction in emissions for 2030 planned by the Government in its PNIEC," they recall from Greenpeace.
That was precisely the criterion to which the Supreme Court alluded in its order of June 14, which came to respond to the first request by the State Attorney to close the process. "The claim remains that the Government of the Spanish State be ordered to, in accordance with the provisions of article 2.1. A) of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, meet the objective of reducing greenhouse gases in any case lower than 55% in 2030 compared to 1990, "the writing pointed out.
Associations celebrate the ruling
For Greenpeace lawyer Lorena Ruiz-Huerta, the latest pronouncement of the High Court represents "a very important victory." On the other hand, he has described as "regrettable that the State Lawyers behave as a defender of the actions of the Government, instead of defending the general interests of the citizens, linked to the protection of the environment and the climate."
For his part, the climate and energy coordinator of Ecologistas en Acción, Javier Andaluz, has argued that "the Supreme Court ruling supports many of the demands heard on the streets in recent years, in which it has been shown" that there is still it is "far from facing the climate emergency."
Finally, the head of climate and resilience at Oxfam Intermón, Lourdes Benavides, has demanded "ambitious and urgent commitments" from the Executive and that it fulfill its "responsibility". In addition, he has urged the judges to listen to his "arguments, supported by numerous studies and scientific evidence"