海角大神

In what some experts call a 鈥渓andmark ruling,鈥� Austria鈥檚 Federal Administrative Court took an unusual step last month: It became one of the first in the world to a new infrastructure project on the basis of climate change.聽

The judges interpreted regional and national laws, and Austria鈥檚 commitments within the and the UN , to mean that the 鈥減ublic interest鈥� in limiting the impact of climate change outweighs shorter term economic growth from adding a proposed third runway to Vienna鈥檚 airport.

鈥淸C]limate change is already taking place in Austria, and will have far reaching impacts on humans, animals, plants and the environment,鈥� the court wrote in its decision, as translated by , citing impacts on agriculture, tourism, weather, biodiversity, and human health from airport expansion.

The decision comes amid over government environmental obligations, collectively signalling that the legal system may play a rising role as arbiter of climate action, and raising the stakes in a debate over what role for courts is appropriate, when it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions.

To some degree, the stepped-up legal action surrounding climate change is simply the natural result of governments making more legal commitments to mitigate the effects of global warming, legal experts say.

鈥淕overnments have said lots of things about what they鈥檙e going to do, and how they鈥檙e going to do it,鈥� says Justin , at Columbia University鈥檚 Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, in New York. 鈥淎nd if they don鈥檛 鈥� or people think they haven鈥檛, even if they had 鈥� the role of the court is to provide everyone the answer.鈥�

Cases extend to Global South

Examples include the , where Dutch citizens that the government is insufficiently protecting them from climate change (it鈥檚 now being appealed); a South African ruling construction of a coal-fired power plant; and a Norwegian launched by Greenpeace and Nature & Youth over new government licenses for offshore oil and gas drilling in the Arctic. In the US, a federal judge has allowed a case to move forward in which that government actions, by causing climate change, are an unconstitutional violation of their rights to life, liberty, and property.

Mr. Gundlach notes that the South African case is significant (along with rulings in and ) in extending climate litigation beyond high-income countries to the Global South, which is home to about 85 percent of the human population and 30 of the world鈥檚 36 鈥�.鈥�

In the face of powerful fossil-fuel industries, these cases enable citizen and environmental groups to push politicians to make their commitments more than symbolic. And sometimes, as in Vienna, they are taking governments and the public by surprise.

鈥淭he case shows that the commitments that policymakers make to protect climate, to fight climate change, can make a difference on the ground,鈥� says Verena Madner, at the Vienna University of Economics and Business. She hopes politicians will realize that they can鈥檛 鈥渉ave it all,鈥� signing laws and treaties and then avoiding the follow-through.

鈥淚 hope that it鈥檚 also a wake-up call for the government and parliament to take action, and to really do climate policy 鈥� rather than the courts 鈥� in the long run,鈥� Ms. Madner adds.

Johannes Wahlm眉ller, climate campaigner at Global 2000, a nongovernmental organization in Vienna, agrees. The Austrian judges 鈥渟aid it cannot be that politicians sign those treaties, have the commitments, have the targets, and then we do an approach that鈥檚 totally against it.鈥�

Could lawsuits backfire?

The distribution of power between legislators and judges is a delicate balance, and one argument against the court strategy, says Gundlach, is that 鈥測ou鈥檙e avoiding the democratic aspects of the process.鈥�

Some Austrians have accused the judges of acting as policymakers. (One counter-argument is that mainstream politicians and media have overwhelmingly favored the third runway, skewing public debates around the issue.)

In the long run, the power of courts will be circumscribed by politics. Judges鈥� ability to block infrastructure projects will depend on a country鈥檚 legal framework and climate commitments, as set by public officials.

In Norway, too, some are concerned that 鈥渁 legal elite is going to decide about environmental policies,鈥� says Truls Gulowsen, head of Greenpeace Norway, who helped launch the lawsuit there. [Editor's note: This sentence has been updated to correct the spelling of Mr. Gulowsen's name.]

He disagrees with that view, noting that the judges are considering laws made by elected politicians, 鈥渁nd normally the Norwegian population trusts the courts in ruling between right and wrong.鈥�

He also says climate litigation can inspire more people to participate in environmental action than in the past, as legal professionals or as donors for legal expenses, which can be significant.

Magdalena Heuwieser, of in Vienna, says court cases are valuable in raising awareness of the need for climate policies.

鈥淔inally, there is a discussion going on around the topic: Can climate mitigation, or the need of reducing our emissions, lead to decisions which are actually limiting economic growth in dirty sectors?鈥� she says.

But she also thinks public discussion and pressure on politicians are crucial tactics.

Aviation and climate

Though nonmilitary air travel accounted for only or less of human-related "forcing" of climate change, as of 2005, that looks set to rise as more people become financially able to take plane trips (today only of people fly). Aviation is now the in emissions 鈥� with a expected by 2050.

And with electric planes not expected anytime soon, technological advances don鈥檛 hold the same pollution-cutting potential that they do for ground-based transport.

Another problem, some policy experts say, is a lack of environmental regulation around aviation. (Emissions from international flights were excluded from both the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol.

Most countries exempt international aviation emissions (flights that come from or go to another nation) from their national greenhouse-gas inventories. (Global 2000 estimates that, if the Austrian government included air travel in its accounting system, it would add 9 percent to the country鈥檚 annual carbon emissions.) [Editor's note: This paragraph and two others above have been corrected, to include a distinction between international and domestic aviation in global agreements, to clarify the reference to aviation's estimated 5 percent role in human-caused climate change, and to remove an inaccurate reference to the industry being in effect self-regulating.] 聽

The industry also has a competitive advantage over other modes of transport through government subsidies for airport expansion and exemptions on airport property tax, and sales tax on tickets. These benefits make flying artificially cheaper compared to driving or taking trains, for example.

Calls for 'behavioral change'

In last year鈥檚 first International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) , which is until 2027, the industry pledged only to offset rather than reduce its emissions 鈥� mainly through controversial carbon offset projects in the Global South (which costs less than reducing emissions in richer countries).

Critics say the agreement represents 鈥済reenwashing鈥� more than substantive progress on emissions.

鈥淚t in no way is consistent with the headline goals of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,鈥� says Leo Murray, campaigner with British activist group .

For Roland J枚bstl, Policy Officer for Climate and Energy at the in Brussels, air travel as we know it cannot continue if countries intend to meet the Paris targets.

鈥淲e鈥檙e going to have to have a behavioral change鈥� when it comes to travel, he says.

Though the Vienna decision is being appealed, that process is likely to take about a year or longer. For now, the decision is keeping one case of expansion from getting off the ground.