There is a mountain of irony in a group of four elderly women in Switzerland being concerned about the threat of extreme heat caused by climate change. They evidently think that countries can affect their own climate and stop any warming in their nation if only the government took some action.

They went to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg to pursue their claim. The group, Senior Women for Climate Protection, whose average age is 74, argued that they were particularly affected because older women are most vulnerable to extreme heat. As if Switzerland had a climate control knob the government just had to turn down a notch … and never mind that Switzerland is better known for its snow-covered ski slopes than excessive heat.

The court agreed with their cause and on April 2, 2024, found that the Swiss Confederation had failed to comply with its duties (‘positive obligations’) under the Convention concerning climate change. Yes, said the hapless judges, countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change, setting a legal precedent in the Council of Europe’s 46 member states against which future lawsuits will be judged. Eat your heart out, Greta Thunberg.

This is how far down the climate rabbit hole the world has gone. Legal eagles have fallen foul of the irrational climate change mindset that has demented so many politicians around the world. That’s the other irony: this court has convicted the Swiss Confederation of failing to protect its citizens from the effects of climate change – without citing any evidence for either the effects of climate change or the Swiss Confederation’s failure. Well, you can’t blame them; there is no such evidence.

Knowing nothing about climate science, nor even the relative global temperature at any given time, the Thunderberg Brigade continues to press for ‘climate action’. And when nothing seems to be happening – no sudden temperature drop, frost or cold wind, say – they start up their chants and demands all over again. Climate changes over many years, not protest by protest. (See Curry below.)

This news reminds of local councils in Australia who make pronouncements about climate change and declare their stand in favour of ‘action’. According to the ABC News website:

‘As the climate wars drag on at a federal level [drag on the economy, perhaps], local councils across the country are taking the initiative and doing it for themselves. More than 100 councils across the country have declared a climate emergency, while dozens more are investing in renewables and setting ambitious targets for cutting emissions.’

Several local councils have also declare their areas nuclear free zones … that’s what Aussies call up themselves.

In Europe, there are efforts to create a new human right to ‘a safe, stable climate’. From a decision by the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC): ‘… environmental degradation, climate change and unsustainable development constitute some of the most pressing and serious threats to the ability of present and future generations to enjoy the right to life.’

From a 2019 Report written by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights:

‘There is now global agreement that human rights norms apply to the full spectrum of environmental issues, including climate change.’

Did you know you have a right to a safe and stable climate? No? Well you don’t, as climate scientist Judith Curry points out, ‘Apart from the lack of an international agreement, such a “right” contains too many contradictions to be meaningful.’

In a recent article on her Climate Etc blog, she makes the point that:

‘Deductions based on a decision by the UNHRC and a Report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, do not create a new “human right” to be protected against the dangerous impacts of climate change. No attempt has been made by the UN to create international support for a new human right to be protected from climate change. Such a right is neither implicit or explicit in the UNFCCC Paris Agreement.

‘Even if Net Zero objectives were achieved globally by 2050, the climate would continue to change from natural weather and climate variability: volcanic eruptions, solar effects, large-scale oscillations of ocean circulations, and other geologic processes. Further, given the inertia in the climate system (particularly oceans and ice sheets), it would be many decades before there was any noticeable change in extreme weather/climate events and sea level rise after Net Zero was achieved.’

And that’s if indeed fossil fuel emissions were warming the planet, which has not been shown to be so. (A fact check challenge.)

Those poor women in Switzerland have been conned into fearing a non-existent threat – as have school children and millions of others. Those fears are kept fired up by constantly pressed government policies, likewise driven by the non-existent threat, which do more damage than is admitted by policy makers. More is to come in the wake of this woke ruling by the EHRC.

Curry points to what we (especially farmers) can see all too well ourselves, that:

‘…climate and energy policies have significant environmental impacts and cause environmental degradation. For instance, forest biomass-based fuel causes deforestation, and on-shore and off-shore wind turbines and solar parks may (and, in fact, do) harm the social fabric, real estate prices, nature, biodiversity, the scenery, and human health. The mining and manufacturing required for batteries, and other renewable energy-related goods and infrastructure cause adverse environmental and human health impacts, and renewable energy also causes CO2 emissions. Given that European Human Rights Court has taken the position that the right to life also protects against environmental degradation and health risks, these adverse environmental and health impacts associated with any policies to respond to the Court’s judgment would have to be taken into account.’

AP reports (10/4/2024) that, ‘Activists have argued that many governments have not grasped the gravity of the climate change – and are increasingly looking to the courts to force them to do more to ensure global warming is held to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, in line with the goals of the Paris climate agreement.’ AP did not ask those unnamed activists to nominate those governments and Australia would threaten to send them Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen if they aren’t careful, to respond to that accusation.

The AP report went on to say, ‘A judge in Montana ruled last year that state agencies were violating the constitutional right to a clean environment by allowing fossil fuel development.’ Again, without the evidence that courts normally require… a bit like our very own Chris Bowen.

It seems that some courts, like the ones in Strasbourg and Montana, have been seduced by the twin social engineering tools of whipping up perceived racism and dangers of climate change are the primary tools for sowing dissent, dissatisfaction, and division here and in many other western countries. Reality, reason and rational debate are sucked into that whirlpool of scaremongering. As Mark Twain said, ‘It is easier for people to believe lies than to convince them that they have been lied to.’

Andrew L. Urban is the author of Climate Alarm Reality Check (Wilkinson Publishing, 2022)

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in