In his recent Forbes article, Tilak Doshi criticizes a landmark ruling by Europe’s highest human rights court, which mandates countries to protect their citizens from the consequences of climate change.
This decision, according to Doshi, exemplifies a growing trend in using legal frameworks to enforce climate policies that lack sufficient scientific substantiation and democratic endorsement. This perspective aligns with a skeptical view of current climate change narratives and the interventions proposed to address these alleged issues.
In the push for “Net Zero” decarbonization policies around the world, rich and powerful foundations have been relentlessly supporting an avalanche of “climate lawfare” initiatives in the West. In early 2020, the UK Court of Appeal’s decision to stop the expansion of Heathrow airport was one outcome of the lawfare waged by climate zealots. As one contemporary commentator put it: “This decision will surely open up a whole new Pandora’s box and allow the likes of Greenpeace to legally challenge any and every project they don’t like in future.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2024/04/21/climate-change-and-the-law-the-lunacy-escalates/
Doshi’s analysis centers on the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) ruling in favor of the KlimaSeniorinnen, a group of elderly Swiss women who claim that their lives are endangered by heatwaves linked to climate change, specifically attributing this to fossil fuel usage. The court’s acceptance of this direct causality without robust debate or conclusive evidence epitomizes the judicial overreach into areas typically reserved for scientific inquiry and legislative discussion.
The ECHR verdict is lawfare gone one step further. Not only is it kosher to stop large infrastructure projects that allegedly affect the climate adversely, but governments now can be compelled, on human rights grounds, to act against normal economic activity that allegedly leads to “climate change” and “extreme weather” events. By requiring European governments to suppress the emission of greenhouse gases on human rights grounds, any economic activity involving the use of fossil fuels – which provide over 80% of total global energy consumption – is now fair game for radical climate policymakers.
The assumption that fossil fuels are the direct cause of specific weather events like heatwaves is not only scientifically debatable but also ignores broader climate dynamics. Such simplifications in judicial decisions risk setting dangerous precedents where policies are shaped not by empirical evidence but by judicial interpretations of contested scientific theories.
The concept of ‘climate lawfare,’ highlighted by Doshi, refers to the strategy of using legal systems to enforce climate policies that fail to secure legislative approval. This approach circumvents the democratic process, allowing unelected entities to impose their environmental agendas on the public. The ECHR’s decision, which effectively bypasses the need for democratically passed legislation, is a stark example of this trend. It shows a concerning shift towards authoritarian-like decisions where the balance of scientific skepticism and public policy is disturbed by the influence of powerful, ideologically driven groups.
Climate lawfare is now a well-established route to avoid the checks and balances of democratic legislation. It subverts the legal system of a country, often with the help of activist judges, to impose the ideological preferences of an elite of the climate industrial complex on wider society. The total number of climate change court cases is growing worldwide and has more than doubled since 2017 according to a 2023 report collating data to December 31st, 2022. The report, published by the UN Environment Program (UNEP) and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, boasts “that climate litigation is becoming an integral part of securing climate action and justice.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2024/04/21/climate-change-and-the-law-the-lunacy-escalates/?sh=3d180c4842a2
Doshi points out the significant role of elite funding in supporting the legal challenges brought by environmental groups. This infusion of capital from influential figures and organizations into climate lawfare efforts suggests an orchestrated attempt to sway public policy through the courts, rather than through public debate and consensus. Such tactics threaten the foundational principles of democratic governance and risk implementing policies that are not only economically detrimental but also poorly justified scientifically.
To be sure, the KlimaSeniorinnen were not without powerful supporters in their legal quest. The sleuthing journalism of Chris Morrison is revealing. Mr. Morrison suggests that the real plaudits over the legal win belong not to the elderly Swiss ladies but “to the elite billionaire paymasters behind lawfare activists such as Greenpeace and Client Earth” who financed the legal action. Client Earth, for example, is supported by the Sir Christopher Hohn’s Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, Hohn is also one of the funders of Extinction Rebellion activists, known for their vandalism and the blocking of ordinary people going about their business (or, in some cases, rushing to hospital for health emergencies). He is also a big contributor to the European Climate Foundation. Others involved in financing these activist climate groups include the green billionaires Michael Bloomberg and Jeremy Grantham.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2024/04/21/climate-change-and-the-law-the-lunacy-escalates/?sh=3d180c4842a2
The article rightly questions the proportionality of focusing legal and policy efforts on combating climate change through restrictive measures on fossil fuels, especially when empirical data suggests that cold weather poses a far greater threat to human life than heatwaves. This selective prioritization of risks illustrates a broader issue within climate policy discussions: the tendency to elevate specific agendas without a comprehensive evaluation of their broader impacts or scientific validity.
In UK regions, cold-related mortality currently accounts for more than one order of magnitude more deaths than heat-related mortality (around 61 and 3 deaths per 100,000 population per year, respectively). In Australian cities, approximately 33 and 2 deaths per 100,000 population are associated every year with cold and heat, respectively. Between 2000 and 2010, 3.9% of the total mortality was attributed to cold, and 1.2% to heat.”
In another study of “the global, regional, and national mortality burden associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures” published in The Lancet – Planetary Health, it was found that, “…9.43% of all deaths were cold-related and 0.91% were heat-related.” That is, cold killed more than heat by over a factor of 10. Curiously, the elderly Swiss ladies seem far more afraid of heat than cold, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is the cold that kills far more often.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2024/04/21/climate-change-and-the-law-the-lunacy-escalates/?sh=3d180c4842a2
Tilak Doshi’s article in Forbes provides a valuable critique of the current direction of climate policy and litigation, advocating for a return to more scientifically grounded and democratically legitimate methods of addressing environmental concerns. For those skeptical of the prevailing climate change narratives, the piece reinforces the importance of maintaining rigorous standards of evidence and democratic accountability in environmental policymaking. As climate litigation continues to expand its influence over public policy, a critical and skeptical approach remains essential to ensuring that such policies are truly in the public interest and not merely the product of ideological zeal or elite manipulation.
Doshi’s article can be found here.
