Claim: A Canadian Climate Lawsuit May Succeed Because of a Dutch Climate Activist Victory

2019 Dutch Farmer Protest, provoked by attempts to force a GHG reduction on the Dutch agricultural sector. Image source Breitbart

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Dutch Supreme Court in 2015 ruled that that the Netherlands had until 2020 to reduce CO2 emissions by 25%, a ruling which was upheld in a 2019 appeal.

Canadian assistant law professor Karinne Lantz thinks that the decision of the Dutch court might impact an ongoing Canadian climate lawsuit, because Canada is a signatory to the same treaties which got the Dutch Government into trouble.

What a Dutch Supreme Court decision on climate change and human rights means for Canada

October 4, 2020 10.16pm AEDT
Karinne Lantz
PhD Student and Assistant Professor (part-time), Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University

Late last year, the Dutch Supreme Court issued a decision that could have implications for countries around the world. 

The case, The Netherlands vs. Urgenda, established that a country’s inadequate action on climate change can violate human rights. For the first time, a court imposed a legally binding target and deadline for a government to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, by at least 25 per cent from 1990 levels by the end of 2020. 

Urgenda was a major victory for climate justice activists, who have launched human rights lawsuits attempting to require governments to take more substantial and timely action against climate change. This landmark decision could prove influential in Canada, where similar cases will be decided.

Urgenda and Canadian climate litigation

There are now at least four pending Canadian climate cases invoking human rights, including La Rose et al vs. Canada, in which the federal government’s effort to have the lawsuit stopped before it goes to trial was argued last week.

Why could Urgenda be relevant?

In Urgenda, the court concluded climate change poses a “real and immediate” threat to the right to life, which the Netherlands has a legal obligation to address under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). While this convention is not binding in Canada, Section 7 of the charter protects the right to life. Canada is also bound by international treaties recognizing the right to life.

Read more: https://theconversation.com/what-a-dutch-supreme-court-decision-on-climate-change-and-human-rights-means-for-canada-146383

The Dutch government has no big plans to build more nuclear plants, and the timeframe is extremely short, so it seems unlikely the Dutch will meet the court imposed GHG obligation.

A recent Dutch Government attempt to reduce GHG emissions by sacrificing their Agricultural Sector ended badly for the government, after efforts to force farmers to reduce nitrate fertiliser use provoked a confrontation between farmers and the Dutch Army.

As for Canada, it seems absurd for anyone to argue that global warming poses an imminent threat to the Canadian way of life. Almost all of the Canadian population lives in a narrow habitable zone just North of the US border, because the rest of the country is too cold for most people.

But Canadian politicians have said some unwise things about climate change over the years, and signed virtue signalling international treaties with onerous provisions. Canadian politicians have nobody to blame but themselves if their grandstanding political recklessness comes back to bite them.

64 thoughts on “Claim: A Canadian Climate Lawsuit May Succeed Because of a Dutch Climate Activist Victory

  1. Politicians can become their own worst enemy when they allow the climate alarmist narrative to stand without challenge. Scientific ignorance is not bliss.

    • True and applicable to other alarmist views.

      Politicians can become their own worst enemy when they allow the covid alarmist narrative to stand without challenge. Scientific ignorance is not bliss.

  2. Get organised. Just take care that when the trial is on in the coming months that the heating of the courthouse is not working.

    • Absolutely, this whole debacle was launched with the temperature controls of a building being tampered with…
      June 23, 1988 James Hansen (yes that one) & senator Tim Wirth Sabotaged The Air Conditioning In Congress the night before a congressional hearing.

      “What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. … So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. ”
      https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html

    • For the past 500 years Europe has been successful in one endeavor – creating conditions so that the thinking proportion of their countries, pack up and say: I’m outta here.

      Perhaps 25% of the Dutch will take off leaving the country with Goofball Leftists and Jihadist Muslims
      to fight it out. I’ll wager the Muslims win. They’ll destroy the place like everything else they have ever touched and then they’ll leave. Guess what? Zero emissions.

        • Being anti-Muslim/Islam is not racism – Islam is a religion not a race. Lots of people are biased against particular religions – take the Muslims that think non-Muslims are infidels or the Muslims who are anti-Semitic. I heard a liberal spewing hareful anti-Catholic vitreol just yesterday (referring to Amy Coney Barrett).

          • While ethno religions are indeed bogus (if atheist Jews and Muslims are not oxymorons, I don’t know what is) because religion for the most part allows converts of all stripes, racism is defined as hatred of an outside ethnicity, RELIGION, or COUNTRY. It is true that jihads have to be eliminated, deporting always makes things worse. Two words for you anti immigrants: Black Market.

          • T Rex. No it isn’t. You made that up. I looked up the definition of racism in several dictionaries and none mentioned religion. Here is Merriam- Webster’s definition –

            Racism -belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

        • Idiot! You just have to be standing next someone of “colour” (Yes, my skin has a colour too) to experience racism. If you don’t like this blog, you are free to leave, and take your prejudice with you!

        • You exemplify RACISM….. being a leftist, it is part of being you.

          Using it to further your agenda.. like all leftists do.

          Why aren’t you living in an Islamic country, Izzy..?

  3. If you are saying our politicians and by extension the majority of Canadians are “too stupid to live”, well yes

    Since we now have the leading virtue signalling politician in the world they will undoubtedly use any court decision as credibility for their insane views.

    Our politicians have no principles so they created something called the “court challenges program” whereby taxpayer money finances left wing challenges to every aspect of civilized life, facilitated by appointing left wing activist judges.

    In effect, Liberals have no principles to enact legislation based on their beliefs and instead enable activists to do it for them.

    At least former ApAm Harper has the sense to cancel the program but Trudeau reinstated it

    • Former “PM” Harper

      I cannot even guess what autocorrect is attempting to do any more.

      Is it Finnish?

    • The sunny but inept high school drama teacher, he of the flowing hair and history of blackface, who slid into the prime ministership on the coattails of his daddy and maintains his popularity by promising millions of newly printed Canuckbucks to all and sundry, who grins from scandal to scandal, will gladly lose such an environmental lawsuit to show that his green heart is in the right place.

  4. All these “climate justice” cases would be no more than popcorn-time amusement shows if it were not for the fact that win or lose, it’s always the taxpayers who get to pick up the bills. Plus taxes and tips.

  5. There is a world of difference between recognising that people have human rights and recognising that climate change is an imminent threat to those human rights.

    Someone should make the argument that renewable energy is a far far worse threat to human rights than fossil fuels ever could be.

    • In the Supreme Court challenge brought by the provinces against the federal carbon tax, the provinces have to force the feds to prove harm from CO2, and climate change, and prove that CO2 leads to climate change.

      Anything less and they are just arguing over taxation jurisdictions, from which there is always one loser.

  6. Good. In that case Canadian companies—the ones which actually produce something—may want to flee to the US. unless, of course, the DNC wins everything. Then th US is doomed.

    • Your insane are just as bad as our insane

      All the jobs will leave NA altogether

      When I see the wild eyed certainty when AOC speaks I can only reflect on video evidence from Cambodia, and the CCP Great Leap Forward.
      She is indistinguishable from any Marxist cadre, so sure she has the only truth and that any that oppose her are not only wrong but evil.
      And she literally knows absolutely nothing

      Trump seems to be doing his best to throw this election, something that should be impossible given the outright revolutionary fervor the people propping up Biden radiate every day.

      If Biden wins this, trump needs to answer

      • The same applies to our former environment minister Katherine McKenna

        When CO2 and the climate are the topic her breathing deepens, eyes get glassy, face reddens with moisture forming

        A revolutionary quite willing to eliminate anyone who opposes her and sacrifice the rest

        Incredibly scary people

  7. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [It seems not well thought out or edited.]
    “Article 14. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. ”
    “Article 15. 1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed.”

    US constitution does better–Amendment V–“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of the Grand Jury, except… [miliary/war]” It is clear that many in the press and government don’t know or care about defamation, “”to answer” covers lots of ground, too often ignored. Prove your innocence!

  8. Hmm, previous comments vaporized.

    Anyway, the concept that things said by our federal govt may come back to bite us is a feature not a bug

    They absolutely want the court to hold them to their previous statements as that then absolves them of their actions

    “The court made me stick to my principles”.

    It’s how liberals operate

    • No I don’t

      As I explained, this part of the plan

      So many public statements of green insanity that they cannot logically argue against case rulings.

      It is their goal

  9. From the article: “In Urgenda, the court concluded climate change poses a “real and immediate” threat to the right to life”

    The Court is repeating alarmist propaganda. The Court has no evidence to base its conclusion that CO2 is a threat to life.

    Whatever the Court used to justify their ruling, it wasn’t based on the science of CO2 interactions with the atmosphere.

    Those who sue over Human-caused Climate Change should first be required to establish that Human-caused Climate Change is real.

    Courts should not be assuming things not in evidence, and that includes the claim that humans are causing the climate to change because of the burning of fossil fuels. There’s no evidence for it. Claiming there is, shows your ignorance of the situation, or worse.

    • Tom Abbott wrote, “The Court has no evidence to base its conclusion that CO2 is a threat to life.”

      True. But it’s not the first time that courts have been misled by dishonest testimony.
       

      Tom continued, “Those who sue over Human-caused Climate Change should first be required to establish that Human-caused Climate Change is real.”

      Wrong. They should be required to show that it is harmful.
       

      Tom continued, “the claim that humans are causing the climate to change because of the burning of fossil fuels. There’s no evidence for it.”

      Wrong. There is no legitimate argument about the fact that mankind affects climate, through emissions (GHGs, aerosols/particulates), and other means.

      Anyone who commutes between the countryside and a large city can tell you that temperatures inside the city average several degrees warmer than in the countryside, so it is obvious that mankind can and does influence climate.

      The effects on the Earth’s radiation balance, from changing GHG levels, are detectable, as well, albeit with more difficulty. It is a scientific certainty that CO2, CFCs, etc. have a modest warming effect at the Earth’s surface, when added to the atmosphere.

      If your legal strategy is to argue against that scientific fact, and if the other side is even halfway competent, you will lose in court.

      What is not in evidence is the court’s conclusion that manmade climate change is harmful, let alone life-threatening. That claim is false, so that is the claim which you should debunk, in court.

      The slight warming we’ve gotten from anthropogenic GHG emissions has not been harmful in the least. Scientists call warm periods “climate optimums,” because they are clearly much better than cold periods.

      What’s more, there are thousands of high-quality, peer-reviewed papers, based on competently measured data, showing the large benefits of CO2, and that evidence is much, MUCH higher quality than the speculative predictions of harmful effects, produced by climate activists and their unverified, and unverifiable climate models.

      • Dave wrote: “Wrong. There is no legitimate argument about the fact that mankind affects climate, through emissions (GHGs, aerosols/particulates), and other means.”

        Yeah, like lighting a kitchen match affects the climate. Can you measure how much lighting a match affects the Earth’s climate? No, you can’t. And you can’t measure what “emissions (GHGs, aerosols/particulates), and other means” are doing in the Earth’s atmosphere, either. You just assume they are doing something. Do you figure feedbacks into your assumptions?

        Dave wrote: “Anyone who commutes between the countryside and a large city can tell you that temperatures inside the city average several degrees warmer than in the countryside, so it is obvious that mankind can and does influence climate.”

        That’s not caused by CO2 and the burning of fossil fuels.

        Dave wrote: “The effects on the Earth’s radiation balance, from changing GHG levels, are detectable, as well, albeit with more difficulty. It is a scientific certainty that CO2, CFCs, etc. have a modest warming effect at the Earth’s surface, when added to the atmosphere.”

        Modest? How modest. Answer: So modest they can’t be measured and they certainly have no detectable effect on the Earth’s climate..

        Dave wrote: “If your legal strategy is to argue against that scientific fact”

        What scientific fact? You mean the unsubstantiated assertions you are making? Prove to me that humans are causing the climate to change because of the burning of fossil fuels, or for any other reason.

        Dave wrote: “What is not in evidence is the court’s conclusion that manmade climate change is harmful, let alone life-threatening. That claim is false, so that is the claim which you should debunk, in court.”

        No, there’s no evidence for harm of a threat to life because there is no evidence that humans are causing the climate to change by burning fossil fuels. There’s still no evidence, even after reading your post.

        Allowing that humans are causing the climate to change even a little, without evidence, is unscientific and a very bad idea politically. It gives alarmist propaganda credibility when they deserve none. They haven’t proved in the slightest that humans are causing the climate to change. Why should we allow that they might be right when they can’t produce an ounce of evidenc backing up their claims. It’s all assumptions, assertions, and appeals to authority. None of which is proof of anything..

        I saw Michael Mann and James Hansen on the tv program “60 Minutes” tonight talking about human-caused climate change and when they were asked about how solid the human-caused climate change theory was, they started giving the viewers a list of professional societies that support their lies. Hansen and Mann’s evidence was appeals to authority.

        Mann also said there was as much consensus in the Human-caused Climate Change theory as there was a consensus about the Law of Gravity!

        • Tom Abbott wrote, “Yeah, like lighting a kitchen match affects the climate.”

          A bit more than that.
           

          Tom Abbott wrote, “you can’t measure what “emissions (GHGs, aerosols/particulates), and other means” are doing in the Earth’s atmosphere, either.”

          Actually, you can. It’s not trivial, but it can be done.

          Feldman et al measured downwelling LW IR under clear-sky conditions for a couple of decades, and detected the expected increase at wavelengths where CO2 emits.

          Interestingly, they detected less of an increase in LW IR than climate alarmists and their models predict, though they didn’t mention that fact in their paper. The radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels is usually estimated as 3.7 ±0.4 W/m², but that’s probably too high. Atmospheric physicist Will Happer hasfound evidence that CO2’s forcing is commonly overestimated by about 40%. If that is correct, it means CO2’s forcing is only about 2.6 W/m² per doubling, which would reduce ECS to 1.1°C/doubling. The measurements of Feldman et al 2015 indicate that CO2’s forcing at the Earth surface is only 2.40 ±0.72 W/m per doubling, which is consistent with Happer’s result, and inconsistent with the commonly claimed 3.7 W/m² TOA figure.
           

          Tom Abbott wrote, “Do you figure feedbacks into your assumptions?”

          These calculations…
          https://sealevel.info/sensitivity.html
          …are based on comparing measured temperatures to measured GHG levels, so, yes, they include the effects of feedbacks.

          As it happens, climate feedbacks are a focus of mine. I have a web page on the topic, here; it includes what I believe to be the most comprehensive list of climate feedbacks to be found on the Internet:
          https://sealevel.info/feedbacks.html
           

          Tom Abbott wrote, “Mann also said there was as much consensus in the Human-caused Climate Change theory as there was a consensus about the Law of Gravity!”

          That’s their usual straw-man argument. In fact, there is consensus among everyone who understands the topic that adding so-called (but misnamed!) “greenhouse gases” to the atmosphere MUST have at least some small warming effect. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the consensus about the existence of that effect is as strong as the consensus about the existence of gravity.

          However, Mann invariably then goes on to blame manmade climate change for hurricanes and fires, which is nonsense. He never tells his interviewers that there’s nothing resembling a consensus about those things. He pretends that the consensus about the effects on radiation absorption and emission of radiatively active gases in the atmosphere is a consensus about the imaginary harms that he attributes to it.

          He knows better, of course. He might possibly be silly enough to really believe that manmade climate change is to blame for things that were just as frequent and severe a century ago as they are now. But he’s intentionally deceiving his interviewers when he implies that there’s a consensus for such blame, like “the consensus about the Law of Gravity.” He’s still just as dishonest as when he pulled his “Nature trick.”

          • CORRECTION! I wrote: “which would reduce ECS to 1.1°C/doubling”

            That made no sense here. That bit was a stray fragment from a different discussion, about a 1.55°C ECS estimate, which I accidentally included when I did a copy/paste from that other discussion. Sorry about that!

          • Here’s my bottom line, Dave:

            The estimates for the amount of temperature increase caused by a doubling of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere range from ZERO to 4.5C and higher.

            Noone on the planet Earth knows what this number is. All we have is this wide range of estimates and we haven’t narrowed it down for decades.

            Before you can claim to see human activity in the Earth’s climate, you have to know this number. Anything else, is pure speculation.

            There is a possiblity that the number could be zero. How would that affect the Earth’s atmosphere? I would say, not at all. This cannot be ruled out. CO2 may actually cool the Earth’s atmosphere after feedbacks are included in the mix.

            This is the state of current climate science. It’s all speculation until we know the number.

          • It is probably worth noting the distinction between effect of GHGs on radiation balance at TOA, and their effect at the surface. Feldman et al measured downwelling radiation at the surface, from GHGs in the atmosphere, but the effect of a “forcing” is usually specified by its equivalent in solar forcing at TOA. They are similar, but not identical.

            The only way that energy leaves the Earth at TOA is by radiation, but at the Earth’s surface the energy fluxes are much more complicated, including important mechanisms like convection and evaporative cooling. Warming the Earth causes its rate of cooling to increase by all of those mechanisms, making them negative feedbacks. Those negative feedbacks limit the temperature increase which results from an increase in any forcing.

            GHGs in the atmosphere have their effect on temperature by absorbing outbound longwave IR radiation from below, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Absorbing that radiation warms the atmosphere. That, in turn, increases radiation from GHGs in the atmosphere, about half of which goes back down toward the surface, as “downwelling” or “back radiation,” which warms the surface. Hence, the surface and the lower troposphere warm or cool together.

            Here’s NASA’s 2014 (latest?) version of the famous Trenberth energy flow diagram:
            https://sealevel.info/nasa_new_energy_budget_2014.png
            It was discussed on WUWT, here:
            https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/nasa-revises-earths-radiation-budget-diminishing-some-of-trenberths-claims-in-the-process/

            The numbers in that diagram:
            a. are averages, over a decade
            b. are estimates, often shown with about one more digit of precision than is warranted

            The diagram shows:

            1. Incoming solar radiation at TOA = 340.4 W/m². That’s 1/4 of the 1360 to 1365 W/m² that you might recall as the “solar constant“, because the 136x figure is where the Earth directly faces the Sun, and the 340.4 figure is averaged over the entire globe, including the back side. (The surface area of a sphere is exactly four times the area of a circle of same radius.)

            2. About 22.6% (77 W/m²) of the incoming solar radiation is reflected back into space, before it ever gets to the surface.

            3. Estimated outgoing radiation at TOA is 239.9 W/m² IR + 77.0 + 22.9 = 339.8 W/m², which is 0.6 W/m² less than the incoming solar radiation. (That figure is poorly constrained, and not directly measurable; I’ve also seen estimates of 0.7 or 0.8 W/m².) That is their estimate of the “radiation imbalance,” which represents warming “in the pipe,” but not yet realized.

            If we assume that 2.8 to 3.4 W/m² forcing causes 1°C of warming, then a 0.6 W/m² radiation imbalance represents a nearly negligible 0.17 to 0.22 °C of unrealized warming, “in the pipe” due to past emissions.

            4. Downwelling “back radiation” at the surface, from GHGs in the atmosphere, is estimated as 340.3 W/m². That’s about the same as the solar irradiance at TOA, but ≈29% greater than the average amount of solar radiation which makes it to the surface.

            Thus, an increase of 1 W/m² in LW IR at the surface from GHGs in the atmosphere has an effect on surface temperatures which is roughly similar to a 1.29 W/m² increase in average solar irradiance at TOA (i.e., a 5.16 W/m² increase in the “solar constant”). (I think the Earth’s average surface reflectance is lower for LW IR than for shorter wavelengths, which is why I wrote “roughly similar” rather than “equal.”)

            If the usual CO2 forcing estimate of 3.7 ±0.4 W/m² per doubling were correct, then Feldman et al should have seen at least 29% more than that from LW IR “back radiation” at the surface, i.e. 4.8 ±0.5 W/m² per doubling. But they didn’t. Instead, they measured only 2.40 ±0.72 W/m² per doubling. That suggests that the usual CO2 forcing estimate is at least ((4.8-0.5)/(2.40+0.72))-1 = 38% too high, confirming Happer’s calculation.

      • I like the last half of your argument, and I in fact wish that human CO2 did affect the environment so that we could avert the next ice age and also enhance life in Canada and Russia. However the first part is BS except for UHI affect. There have been numerous temperature ramps in recorded history, even recent history, were they all caused by co2 levels? Did the depression and it’s low level of industrial output and co2 cause the very pronounced temp rise up to 1940? Why did the co2 orgy of WWII and the reconstruction and industrialization of the world afterwards lead to falling temps from 1941 to about 1975? The was a nice steady rise in temps during the energy crisis years of the late 70s, 80s and 90s, but why did that trend stop in 2000 for at least a decade – while China and India came to the forefront of co2 production? For CO2 to be the cause, there has to be an effect. The temps don’t seem to care what the level is of co2.

        • PCman999 wrote, “I like the last half of your argument, and I in fact wish that human CO2 did affect the environment so that we could avert the next ice age and also enhance life in Canada and Russia.”

          And Minnesota!
          https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiZxUWAfOHK6vBcKrIm0pZg
           

          PCman999 wrote, “There have been numerous temperature ramps in recorded history, even recent history, were they all caused by co2 levels?”

          Of course not. CO2 is only one of many things which affect temperatures. It’s not “THE control knob.”
           

          PCman999 asked, “Did the depression and it’s low level of industrial output and co2 cause the very pronounced temp rise up to 1940?”

          CO2 levels were so low then that it is unlikely that the slight increase had much effect. Based on ice cores, from 1930 to 1940 average atmospheric CO2 levels only increased by about 3 ppmv (from about 308 ppmv to about 311 ppmv). Hover your mouse over the graph to see exact levels:
          https://www.sealevel.info/co2.html

          An increase from 308 to 311 is just 1.4% of a “doubling” of CO2. So if TCR is 1°C, you’d expect a globally averaged temperature increase of just 0.014°C, which is obviously immeasurably tiny.

          However, the Great Depression did not have as much effect on CO2 emissions as you seem to think. Total global anthropogenic CO2 emissions were about 7% higher in the “Depressed 1930s” than they were in the “Roaring ’20s.”

          Year Emissions (MtC)
          1918 936
          1919 806

          1920 932
          1921 803
          1922 845
          1923 970
          1924 963
          1925 975
          1926 983
          1927 1,062
          1928 1,065
          1929 1,145 (1920s total: 9,743)

          1930 1,053
          1931 940
          1932 847
          1933 893
          1934 973
          1935 1,027
          1936 1,130
          1937 1,209
          1938 1,142
          1939 1,192 (1930s total: 10,406)

          1940 1,299
          1941 1,334
          1942 1,342
          1943 1,391
          1944 1,383
          1945 1,160
          1946 1,238
          1947 1,392
          Spreadsheet: https://sealevel.info/global.1751_2014_2019.ems5_v06.html
           

          PCman999 asked, “Why did the co2 orgy of WWII and the reconstruction and industrialization of the world afterwards lead to falling temps from 1941 to about 1975?”

          Perhaps do to the concurrent increase in aerosol & particulate air pollution, which has a cooling effect.

          CO2 has an effect on temperatures, but so do many other things.
           

          PCman999 asked, “The was a nice steady rise in temps during the energy crisis years of the late 70s, 80s and 90s,…”

          I don’t know what your reference to “the energy crisis years” is supposed to imply, because CO2 emissions continued to accelerate, and atmospheric CO2 levels continued to rise dramatically, during the late 70s, 80s and 90s. CO2 emissions in 1999 were about 143% of 1975’s CO2 emissions.

          The measured atmospheric CO2 level at Mauna Loa rose from 331.11 in 1975 to 368.38 ppmv in 1999. That’s an 11.3% increase, which is 15.4% of a doubling of CO2.

          The warming trend coincided with not only rising CO2 levels, but also with the widespread rollout of “scrubber” technology, which greatly reduced aerosol & particulate emissions, in the West. Both factors probably contributed to the observed warming.
           

          PCman999 asked, “but why did that trend stop in 2000 for at least a decade – while China and India came to the forefront of co2 production? For CO2 to be the cause, there has to be an effect.”

          I bold-faced your problem. You think CO2 is claimed to be “the cause,” but it’s not. It is only “a cause,” just one of many.

      • “It is a scientific certainty that CO2, CFCs, etc. have a modest warming effect at the Earth’s surface”

        RUBBISH !!

        Warming by atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

        Produce your evidence. or stop making such outlandish anti-science statements.

        • I have challenged several proponents of CAGW to provide me with tangible, empirical evidence that CO2 affects global temperature. No computer models allowed. I have yet to receive an answer.

          • fred250 wrote, “Warming by atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

            That is untrue. See below.

            Graemethecat agreed, writing, “I have challenged several proponents of CAGW to provide me with tangible, empirical evidence that CO2 affects global temperature… I have yet to receive an answer.”

            I’m definitely not a “proponent of CAGW,” but you now have an answer to your question.

            Climate Sensitivity” is a measure of the (in)stability of the Earth’s temp­er­a­tures, most commonly defined as the globally averaged temperature increase to be expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (e.g., an increase from 300 ppmv to 600 ppmv, or from 400 ppmv to 800 ppmv). You gentlemen are claiming that “climate sensitivity” is zero.

            There is strong evidence that it is substantially overestimated by the climate industry, but it is not zero. We know that from spectrographic evidence, i.e., the big green notch in this MEASURED emission spectrum (measured by satellite over the Pacific):
            https://sealevel.info/slide16_excerpt2_FTIR_data_from_a_satellite_tropical_western_pacific_annot12.png

            The most straightforward and obvious way of estimating climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is by examining the result of the “experiment” which we’ve performed on the Earth’s climate, by raising the atmospheric CO2 level from about 311 ppmv in 1950 (or 285 ppmv in 1850) to about 414 ppmv now. We simply examine what happened to temperatures when the atmospheric CO2 level was raised by 31% (or 43%), and extrapolate from those observations.

            However, there are a few pitfalls with that approach. For one thing, natural global temperatures variations due to ENSO can be larger than the “signal” we’re looking for, so it is important that we choose an analysis interval which avoids those distortions. For another, it would be a mistake to assume that all of the warming which the Earth has experienced since pre-industrial conditions was due to anthropogenic CO2, because much of that warming occurred when CO2 levels were still very low, and because we know of other factors which must have contributed to warming, such as rising levels of other GHGs, and probably aerosol/particulate pollution abatement.

            For the details of how I handled those issues, to arrive at an evidence-based estimate of climate sensitivity, see:
            https://sealevel.info/sensitivity.html

            There are also many links at the end, to other people’s work on this, notably including a white paper by Prof. Richard Lindzen, and work by Curry & Lewis. Several lines of evidence indicate that climate sensitivity is well above zero, though much lower than the IPCC’s “3.0°C/doubling” AR5 midrange estimate, and much lower than the climate sensitivity estimates baked into most CMIP models.

            When I point out to climate alarmists that their own data gives evidence that climate sensitivity is much lower than the IPCC’s “3.0°C” central estimate, they usually respond with… silence. For instance, here’s @BerkeleyEarth:
            https://twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/1284158384661569536

            fred250, the first eleven resources here should also be helpful to you:
            https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html

  10. A long time ago I would have readily agreed to eliminate the border between the USA and Canada. Now our Canadian neighbors are behaving strangely. Remember, 80% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the USA border. So why wouldn’t Canadians want it to warm up a little so they could spread out? I have several times kidded about Bob and Doug Mckenzie (got the back bacon on the Coleman, it’s a beauty way to go!). Now I think our Canadian neighbors should find those hosers and get them into politics before it is too late.

  11. Remember Maurice?
    Maurice Strong?
    As in Uncle Moe to the mindless twit who rules Can Ahh Duh.
    So the federal government of Canada is responsible for a large part of the Propaganda and misinformation that has fuelled Gang Greens rise to power .
    Most of our federal bureaucracies have been busy producing evidence to suit the desired policies,so if any country deserves to get fouled up by UN Climate Change nonsense,it is Canada.
    As a Western Canadian,I no longer care,we will be declaring ourselves an Independent Nation just before Canada reaches Venezuelan Levels of Competence.
    We have no choice and this will become very clear quite soon.
    Our Eastern Comrades seem to have no values we recognize.
    Voting patterns show the obvious and the current government won their minority position by campaigning against the “Evil West”..
    Such an inclusive country.

    • Are you aware of the A2A railroad from Alberta to Alaska being propsed? Trump approved, trudeau as predicted negative. Gonna need more popcorn.

  12. Unfortunately, it’s the severely normal Canadians who will bear the brunt of this madness, not the wealthy politicos and their friends in the Green Blob.

    • It’s easy to fix you can vote to put people in to change the laws. The only question for democratic countries is how far the public let it go before changing votes. At the moment there seems to be a democratic country race to be the world leader of stupid.

  13. A good attorney could ask them how they are going to reduce emissions and how that will have any effect on “climate change” of the phony variety. Then pull out a calculator and watch them scatter like cockroaches, at least until they are able to ban calculators and pencils and backs of envelopes.

    These parasites are getting wierder and wierder.

  14. First sentence in the above article: “The Dutch Supreme Court in 2015 ruled that that the Netherlands had until 2020 to reduce CO2 emissions by 25%, a ruling which was upheld in a 2019 appeal.”

    So, now that we’re less than 3 months away from the end of CY2020, I wonder what penalty the Netherlands will impose upon itself for failing to satisfy their Supreme Court “ruling”, which seems very likely?

    Will 50% of its population turn into tulips?
    Will each Dutch citizen have to write out 1000 lines of “Ooops, we should have tried harder”?
    Will each Dutch citizen have to fork over 30,000 Euros as a penalty?
    Will any housing unit or business/factory location found to still be emitting CO2 now be automatically forfeited to “the State”, or better yet converted to windmill power?
    Will government squads come around at midnight to take away the firstborn male in each family?

    Inquiring minds what to know.

    • Gordon….
      Simple, the court will fine the various government departments. The government will borrow money from banks to pay the fines. The court will put the fines received into the government general revenues. Government will use the money collected to pay back the loans. Its the extreme example of the miracle of government borrowing and spending at work. And they don’t even have to build roads or bridges to make this plan work. Construction projects leaves the government short of money to pay back the loans, dontcha know….. /s

  15. “The Dutch government has no big plans to build more nuclear plants, ”
    Until a few months ago, that was true. However, the Dutch government is slowly discovering that the current energy plans are not doable: burning wood (specially from the US and Canada) is becoming controversial, wind energy (specially on shore) is facing more resistance, and making homes/buildings less energy consuming is turning out to expensive. The Dutch are looking for alternatives.

    Nuclear energy is becoming an energy source that is no longer being ignored. The ruling political party VVD (of Prime Minister Rutte) has said that it would be fine to build 3 ~ 10 new nuclear power plants.
    Source (sorry, in Dutch): https://www.ad.nl/politiek/kerncentrales-geen-windmolens-en-zonnepanelen-nederland-rommelland-dat-wil-ik-niet~a30dcdfa/

    Of course it is too late to meet any 2020 target, but still the policital opinion of nuclear energy is changing. A few years back, it was not even possible to start talking about this topic. Even in an open minded country like the Netherlands, nuclear energy was a taboo. Now one of the major political parties is openly supporting nuclear energy.

  16. Eric:

    I live on the 45th parallel in Canada about an hour north of the US border, and it is not unusual to see temps between minus 25 and 30C. My son lives on the 56the parallel where minus 40C can be common, and both live in modern communities. We live close to the US not to keep warm and not that it is too cold for people. We live where the work is, and dress for the cold and the summers where this year it reached 37C at my residence.

    When Covid is over you should pay a visit to the Arctic or the Yukon. I advise the summer, as if its winter, you would swear climate/global warming is a myth.

  17. I thought that Canada had a legal system based on common law, whereas the Dutch legal system was based on Roman law. Outcomes of these two systems can be strikingly different.

  18. Do you have a link?

    A quick web search finds that around 10% of the Netherlands population are migrants from non-Western countries. link It also sounds like the population is losing it’s tolerance and is pushing back against Islamic migrants.

    Along with many other developed countries, the population growth of the Netherlands is driven by immigration.

    • “commieBob October 4, 2020 at 6:50 pm

      A quick web search finds that around 10% of the Netherlands population are migrants from non-Western countries.”

      This is true for almost all EU states. What I saw in Belgium in the 80’s is a festering pit that will, eventually, explode, and make WW1 and WW2 look like walks in the park.

  19. Canada could also copy PR China: talk green but build tons of fossil fuel facilities.
    Dutch households and companies are presently struggling badly with this stupid judgement: the next elections should bring politicians back to reality.
    Or go Dutch on emission fines: each nation pays its own share. Would be good on Canada and tough on the CCP country.

  20. The forced reduction in fertilizer use has no connection to the Urgenda case.
    It has to do with a forced reduction of nitrogen deposits to protect so called natura 2000 areas.
    Not only farmers has to deal with this, building houses near natura 2000 areas is no longer possible (and that applies to most of the country) and the maximum speed limit was severely reduced.

  21. Nobody has so far challenged the underlying data or scenarios that Urgenda used in court, or brought them to light. Nor has anyone gone back past their line of “reasoning” to sanity check the assumptions behind it – just more pandering to dogma.

    The Netherlands is supposed to have a separation between church and state.
    I get the sensation that a judge has been (ab)used to push a religious commandment into state government …

  22. the timeframe is extremely short, so it seems unlikely the Dutch will meet the court imposed GHG obligation.

    God solved the Dutch government CO2-reducing problem by sending the coronavirus. Netherland emissions in 1990 were 191.9 MTonnes CO2. In 2019 they were 192 MTonnes and have been decreasing at about –3% in the latest years. With coronavirus help they will get reduced enough by year’s end. Next year they’ll have a strong economic crisis to help keep the reduction going, so the government will be able to show they are doing much better than previous governments. A 25 % reduction is within easy reach.

  23. Article says “A recent Dutch Government attempt to reduce GHG emissions by sacrificing their Agricultural Sector..”

    Wrong.
    It was not about GHG in relation to climate but pollution in envoirement issue.

    Netherlands has highest concentration NO2 emmision due industry and destroying it’s national nature. This has even led to a construction ban before, building of new houses, city develloping projects, and (still) a highway were all put on hold for a year as it only creates more NO2 during construction while already crossing limit.

    Gov did make some reports about the sources and concentration of NO2, giving farmers the largest role in this pollution. This did upset the farmers, clsiming calculations are wrong. Protests did follow.

    This had nothing to do with climate, but just reaching max EU pollution levels.

  24. I heard a stupid schoolgirl prating about how being part of one of these lawsuits gave her ‘purpose’ in life last week. It appears the suit she is involved with is being funded by some outfit in Oregon. I suppose, ultimately, the money comes from Soros and Co,

Comments are closed.