this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024

276 points (98.9% liked)

World News

39159 readers

2354 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

276

International court rules Switzerland violated human rights in landmark climate case brought by 2,000 women (www.cnn.com)

submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave to c/world

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

An international court in France on Tuesday ruled Switzerland’s failure to adequately tackle the climate crisis was in violation of human rights, in a landmark climate judgment that could have a ripple effect across the globe.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, France delivered its ruling in a case brought by more than 2,000 Swiss women, the majority of whom are in their 70s, against Switzerland’s government. They argued that climate change-fueled heat waves undermined their health and quality of life, and put them at risk of dying.

The court ruled that the Swiss government had violated some of the women’s human rights due to “critical gaps” in its national legislation to reduce planet-heating emissions, as well as a failure to meet past climate targets.

all 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] FMT99 33 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Those damn boomers at it again. Effecting actual change and... Wait..

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If there's one thing the boomers have always successfully managed, its leveraging their demographic overweight to their benefit.

Quite often that benefited following generations too, only when they got older they got more into the conservative 'fuck you, got mine' mindset.

However they show here that they can be quite irreverent and ideological too, like they used to be.

[–] FMT99 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's almost like there's no such thing as "the boomers" that all share the same characteristics based on their age group, but rather that they are a highly diverse and ideologically varied group of people like any other.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well the one thing that unifies them is said demographical overweight.

[–] FMT99 2 points 7 months ago

And if they were a single ideologically aligned block that would mean something.

It's time to give up the idiotic ageist boomer hate and focus on the real enemy: large capital.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

From the first link, that's unexpectedly about last autumn:

It makes us worried about our future. How could we not be scared?

So very true, but the hypocrisy of the defendants is overwhelming:

The government in Greece – a country which has just experienced a deadly summer of heat, fire and storms – said in its response: “The effects of climate change as recorded so far do not seem to directly affect human life or human health.”

Edit: it was a bit hard to find the outcome of Portuguese claimants' case, but it appears to be rejected:

The European Court of Human Rights rejected two other, similar cases on procedural grounds — a high-profile one brought by Portuguese young people and another by a French mayor that sought to force governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[–] FantasmaNaCasca 2 points 7 months ago

So, the same court that gave the case to the Swedish woman, denied countries that are worse off.

Makes sense.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

“Today’s rulings against Switzerland sets a historic precedent that applies to all European countries,” Gerry Liston, a lawyer at Global Legal Action Network, which supported the Portugal case, said in a statement.

Vesselina Newman, from the environmental lawyers organization ClientEarth, said this result “from one of the world’s highest courts sends a clear message: governments must take real action on emissions to safeguard the human rights of their citizens.”

The court also delivered judgments on two other claims, one brought by a municipal mayor against the French government and a third, the largest and highest-profile, by six young people in Portugal against 32 European countries.

Tuesday’s judgment in favor of the Swiss women sets “a precedent for other international courts to follow,” Liston, from Global Legal Action Network, told CNN.

The original article contains 689 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[+] aeronmelon -96 points 7 months ago (7 children)

Dear Greta, this is what real climate activism looks like. Not smiling to the cameras as you get arrested, working thanklessly behind the scenes to create real awareness and enact real change.

A sustainable climate absolutely needs to be regarded as a human right. And this is an excellent step in that direction.

[–] BassTurd 42 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The fact that you mentioned her name when speaking about climate change counters your bullshit first paragraph.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Greta's function is to draw attention to the issues. That is fine. What these 2000 women are doing is neat too.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago

Climate activism can and should look in multiple different ways.

[–] MushuChupacabra 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

In the span of any given week, Greta will do more to fight for meaningful action on the climate crisis, than you will accomplish over the span of your lifetime.

Maybe sit this one out.

[+] aeronmelon -14 points 7 months ago (3 children)

This given week, Greta is in out-processing (assuming she's being released immediately). So all have to do is take out the recycling.

I'm not going to repeat your mistake of assuming someone I know nothing about doesn't contribute to the fight against climate change. Apart from the change I make as an individual, my efforts are centered in education. Similar to the fight against climate change, the fight against ignorance is a fight that me and my kind are apparently losing. And comments like yours don't offer any reassurance.

But I'm not going to give up just because it feels hopeless. I owe it to my children to fight for a world that isn't run by idiots and will still hopefully be habitable when they reach my age. That's not going to happen by standing outside a schoolhouse with a bullhorn or tying myself to a school bus. At some point you have to stop demonstrating and actually put in the hours, like the heroes in this article.

Maybe sit this one out.

Sit what out, exactly? Climate reform? Calling out the things that distract from the real issues? Supporting the things that actually do make a difference? I will sit none of that out. I'd rather be hated by stans who feel compelled to defend the honor of someone who will never know they even exist than shy away from issues that are making an already insurmountable problem that much harder.

[–] MushuChupacabra 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sit what out, exactly?

The smear campaign against Greta Thunberg.

If you understood optics, you'd understand how you yourself, and your specific angle of attack here is a net detriment to addressing the climate crisis.

I'd rather be hated by stans who feel compelled to defend the honor of someone who will never know they even exist than shy away from issues that are making an already insurmountable problem that much harder.

Absolutely none of this is useful to anyone.

Your "contribution" to the discussion here would be looked on fondly by the fossil fuel industry.

[–] aeronmelon -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So far you have baselessly concluded that I personally do nothing to combat climate change, that I am attacking someone for pointing out that getting arrested over and over again is not a meaningful substitute for challenging government inaction on the international stage, and that I am (in)advertently some kind of ally to fossil fuel companies.

The very definition of a smear campaign.

Also, what's the point of quoting something I wrote if you're not going to address it?

Absolutely none of this is useful to anyone.

Then ignore it. Just like I'm ignoring all the personal attacks and actual hate that pointing out how climate change doesn't need a pop star to be properly addressed is generating.

[–] MushuChupacabra 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Environmental activist Greta Thunberg, who attended a demonstration, told reporters outside the court that “this is only the beginning of climate litigation.”

This was the only reference to Greta Thunberg that I could see attached to the CNN story. It appears as though she enthusiastically endorses the ruling, and is in favor of ongoing use of legal action for fighting the climate crisis.

So far you have baselessly concluded that I personally do nothing to combat climate change...

So far, on the basis of what you've said, I have concluded that you are a part of the drag coefficient on progress.

Quite literally, if this is you trying to be helpful, maybe sit this one out.

[–] aeronmelon -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Environmental activist Greta Thunberg, who attended a demonstration, told reporters outside the court that “this is only the beginning of climate litigation.”

This was the only reference to Greta Thunberg that I could see attached to the CNN story. It appears as though she enthusiastically endorses the ruling, and is in favor of ongoing use of legal action for fighting the climate crisis.

...and that's the definition of a non sequitur.

If it was your intention to have civil discussion about the court ruling or Greta's (lack of) involvement in it, that's what you would have led with.

you are a part of the drag coefficient on progress.

But you believe the way you've been treating me isn't?

sit this one out.

No.

At least I can disagree and be critical without slandering other people.

[–] MushuChupacabra 5 points 7 months ago

At least I can disagree and be critical without slandering other people.

Dear Greta, this is what real climate activism looks like. Not smiling to the cameras as you get arrested, working thanklessly behind the scenes to create real awareness and enact real change.

Here's you being smarmy and condescending as fuck. Greta endorsed the action and the ruling, and there is no signaling from the legal team stating that Greta Thunberg interfered or detracted from anything that they were striving for. They're on the same page, and the same team. Meanwhile, you're being divisive, and heavily implying that protesting is not an effective means of resistance.

Do you seriously not grasp why you're getting no traction here?

[–] ripcord 2 points 7 months ago

You have made zero difference here.

[–] kippinitreal 12 points 7 months ago

What a stupid argument to say to a recent teenager. You may think her methods are less effective, but action is action. Especially for a disenfranchised literal child.

[–] mightyfoolish 3 points 7 months ago

Have you ever heard that "there is no such thing as bad publicity?" We have no clue if Greta helped bring attention of WHY this heat wave is occurring; they could have easily assumed it was natural to begin with.

[–] baru 1 points 7 months ago

Yay, gatekeeping.