This afternoon saw the appeal verdict in the Belgian climate case, which has been ongoing since 2014. The judge obliged the Belgian, Flemish and Brussels governments to adopt more ambitious climate policies than they already have. It imposed even higher reduction targets than Europe is asking for.
But Flemish Environment Minister Zuhal Demir (N-VA) wants to challenge that ruling at the Court of Cassation. She announced that tonight in a post on the social media network X, after an afternoon of silence.
When a case comes before the Supreme Court, it is no longer about the ruling per se. It is then about procedural issues and the legality of the decision. A judge will have to consider whether the case was conducted as it should have been. If those violations are found, part of the trial must be retried before a court of appeal other than the Brussels court. In the most extreme case, even the entire trial could be retried.
**”Extinguish the forest fire”**
Today, the three judges of the Brussels appeals court imposed stricter reduction targets on Belgium, Flanders and Brussels. Belgium must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 55 percent from 1990 levels by 2030.
This target is not only higher than what Europe demands of our country. Moreover, it is a legally binding ruling. If one of the condemned parties does not comply, penalties may follow.
A “crushing verdict,” is how director and Climate Case figurehead Nic Balthazar called the ruling on “The World Today” on Radio 1. “Unfortunately, every day in the news we see that the climate is running wild. Targets need to be tightened. And the judge has seen that correctly.”
The judge does not say exactly how to do that. “We don’t ask that either,” says Balthazar. “We just ask: there’s a giant forest fire going on, put that out. Whether that has to be done with helicopters or with troops on the ground, we don’t know, we don’t care. Nuclear power plants, solar panels, we have our ideas about that, but we and the courts leave that to politics.”
**”New reality”**
How politics reacts is what our country’s various climate and energy ministers are watching tonight and over the next few days. They are still fully analyzing the judges’ ruling. But one thing is certain: the ruling is a gamechanger.
Flemish Environment Minister Demir wants to challenge the ruling, but the green ministers in the federal government have no intention of doing so. They are just welcoming the ruling. They feel supported to implement even more climate measures.
“It is painful that the courts have to force the government to implement faster and better climate policies. As Energy Minister, I’m going to look at where we can accelerate further.” What does she have in mind? “We are going to build three times more wind turbines in the North Sea, and we want to find more space for even more renewable energy at sea between 2030 and 2040.”
According to Van der Straeten, the goals imposed by the court are “absolutely realistic.” “Recently, a report by the International Energy Agency showed that we are saving 10 percent more energy than planned. People have also installed a lot of solar panels in recent years. Reality exceeds the gloominess of some of our politicians.”
The question remains whether the ordinary man in the street can still keep up with it all. “This is precisely why the choices that the common man very much wants to make must become accessible and affordable. Those who choose a heat pump or electric car today should be rewarded.”
**Brussels points to Flanders**
Brussels Climate Minister Maron, in turn, “welcomes” the ruling. “On the first day of COP 28 (the UN climate conference, ed.), this ruling confirms that an ambitious reduction is absolutely necessary to fight climate change,” he said.
Maron says Brussels is already complying with the European climate goals in its new climate plan and that it is mainly up to Flanders to make additional efforts. However, Brussels was equally condemned by the appeals court, unlike Wallonia, for example. The judges did find the Walloon region’s climate plans sufficient.
But despite all the green plans, it remains to be seen whether Demir will actually go to Cassation and what the judge’s verdict will be. In that case, the Belgian climate case celebrates its tenth anniversary without a verdict with a new chapter.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
—-
“Een politieke beslissing gaan we niet zonder slag of stoot afstaan aan een rechtbank.”
The state of climate measures here summed up in one line: don’t even do the minimum and then blame others for holding you accountable.
Brussels court, not the hero we wanted but the one we need.
It’s frustrating how governments deliver crappy jobs time and time again and are surprised how their decisions do not hold up in court.
Same with Ineos, 3m, etc.
We should hold the government more accountable when they do not deliver.
2 comments
This afternoon saw the appeal verdict in the Belgian climate case, which has been ongoing since 2014. The judge obliged the Belgian, Flemish and Brussels governments to adopt more ambitious climate policies than they already have. It imposed even higher reduction targets than Europe is asking for.
But Flemish Environment Minister Zuhal Demir (N-VA) wants to challenge that ruling at the Court of Cassation. She announced that tonight in a post on the social media network X, after an afternoon of silence.
When a case comes before the Supreme Court, it is no longer about the ruling per se. It is then about procedural issues and the legality of the decision. A judge will have to consider whether the case was conducted as it should have been. If those violations are found, part of the trial must be retried before a court of appeal other than the Brussels court. In the most extreme case, even the entire trial could be retried.
**”Extinguish the forest fire”**
Today, the three judges of the Brussels appeals court imposed stricter reduction targets on Belgium, Flanders and Brussels. Belgium must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 55 percent from 1990 levels by 2030.
This target is not only higher than what Europe demands of our country. Moreover, it is a legally binding ruling. If one of the condemned parties does not comply, penalties may follow.
A “crushing verdict,” is how director and Climate Case figurehead Nic Balthazar called the ruling on “The World Today” on Radio 1. “Unfortunately, every day in the news we see that the climate is running wild. Targets need to be tightened. And the judge has seen that correctly.”
The judge does not say exactly how to do that. “We don’t ask that either,” says Balthazar. “We just ask: there’s a giant forest fire going on, put that out. Whether that has to be done with helicopters or with troops on the ground, we don’t know, we don’t care. Nuclear power plants, solar panels, we have our ideas about that, but we and the courts leave that to politics.”
**”New reality”**
How politics reacts is what our country’s various climate and energy ministers are watching tonight and over the next few days. They are still fully analyzing the judges’ ruling. But one thing is certain: the ruling is a gamechanger.
Flemish Environment Minister Demir wants to challenge the ruling, but the green ministers in the federal government have no intention of doing so. They are just welcoming the ruling. They feel supported to implement even more climate measures.
“It is painful that the courts have to force the government to implement faster and better climate policies. As Energy Minister, I’m going to look at where we can accelerate further.” What does she have in mind? “We are going to build three times more wind turbines in the North Sea, and we want to find more space for even more renewable energy at sea between 2030 and 2040.”
According to Van der Straeten, the goals imposed by the court are “absolutely realistic.” “Recently, a report by the International Energy Agency showed that we are saving 10 percent more energy than planned. People have also installed a lot of solar panels in recent years. Reality exceeds the gloominess of some of our politicians.”
The question remains whether the ordinary man in the street can still keep up with it all. “This is precisely why the choices that the common man very much wants to make must become accessible and affordable. Those who choose a heat pump or electric car today should be rewarded.”
**Brussels points to Flanders**
Brussels Climate Minister Maron, in turn, “welcomes” the ruling. “On the first day of COP 28 (the UN climate conference, ed.), this ruling confirms that an ambitious reduction is absolutely necessary to fight climate change,” he said.
Maron says Brussels is already complying with the European climate goals in its new climate plan and that it is mainly up to Flanders to make additional efforts. However, Brussels was equally condemned by the appeals court, unlike Wallonia, for example. The judges did find the Walloon region’s climate plans sufficient.
But despite all the green plans, it remains to be seen whether Demir will actually go to Cassation and what the judge’s verdict will be. In that case, the Belgian climate case celebrates its tenth anniversary without a verdict with a new chapter.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
—-
“Een politieke beslissing gaan we niet zonder slag of stoot afstaan aan een rechtbank.”
The state of climate measures here summed up in one line: don’t even do the minimum and then blame others for holding you accountable.
Brussels court, not the hero we wanted but the one we need.
It’s frustrating how governments deliver crappy jobs time and time again and are surprised how their decisions do not hold up in court.
Same with Ineos, 3m, etc.
We should hold the government more accountable when they do not deliver.