Farmers sue German government over climate change failures

https://www.euronews.com/2019/10/31/farmers-sue-german-government-over-climate-change-failures

by reddotX • 7 years ago

63 51 7 years ago

panny3• 7 years ago

Submission link is a little light on detail.

https://www.dw.com/en/german-farmers-sue-government-over-cli...

Funny, when you consider the largest source of CO2 emissions on the planet. They're plowing up wetlands and blaming German govt for CO2. Mind boggling.

Xylakant2• 7 years ago

Funny, when you consider the largest source of CO2 emissions on the planet. They're plowing up wetlands and blaming German govt for CO2. Mind boggling.

Not at all. Agriculture may be a large producer of CO2, but the plaintiffs are organic farmers that work hard to reduce the impact that farming has on CO2 production.

panny3• 7 years ago

Plowing. Wetlands.

https://www.ramsar.org/news/wetlands-and-climate-change

The science is clear. Wetlands are the most effective carbon sinks on our planet.

Let me guess the next story headline, "Brazilian slash and burn farmers sue government for failing to meet CO2 reduction targets."

The downvotes here prove to me the people reading HN are rabid zealots who are not interested in truth or science at all.

chme• 7 years ago

Funny, when you consider the largest source of CO2 emissions on the planet. They're plowing up wetlands and blaming German govt for CO2. Mind boggling.

That is something that annoys me about current political discussions: Always trying to attack the messenger instead of the message.

Even if that would have been people responsible for producing the most CO2 on the planet, that would and should have no effect on the validity of the message and their claim that there is to much CO2 produced and that the government should have prevented them doing so.

FussyZeus• 7 years ago

Ad hominem fallacy.

the-dude• 7 years ago

In NL a similar trial has already taken place : https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/

The government 'lost'.

tremon• 7 years ago

The Urgenda case was slightly different though. In NL, they argued their case on behalf of the next generation (broadly speaking), and the outcome of the trial was a 25% emissions reduction target for the government to meet.

The German case seems easier (on the surface), because it is about the government failing to meet the targets it has set itself.

_aleph2c_• 7 years ago

The sun is the most significant contributor to the temperature on the planet earth. For now, this contribution seems stable, but in the past, the heat of the sun has fluctuated quickly. CO2 may be the primary contributor to our climate temperature at the moment, but to think that a government is entirely responsible for climate temperature is like saying your parents are responsible for the current behaviour of the sun. It is too simplistic, and it will encourage people to believe that a government has more say about reality than it does. We should prepare for warmer and colder climates: In our near future, there could be a small scale nuclear war between Pakistan and India, there could be a massive volcanic eruption or a meteor strike. This last era of climatic temperature stability was a lucky thing that let civilization rise as quickly as it did. A responsible government would harden it's seed stocks against warmer/colder temperatures and train up its youth to be dynamic and imaginative problem solvers.

JonnyaiR• 7 years ago

They aren't suing the German Government because they say it's responsible for Global Warming, they're suing because the German Government publicly announced Goals for CO2 reduction till 2020 by 40% which they failed to deliver by a wide margin.

By the way the scientific consensus is that CO2 is the biggest contributor to global Warming, proven time and time again.

ratboy666• 7 years ago

I imagine that the "consensus" has been proven, sure.

"scientific consensus" is not a thing. Also, "proven time and time again"? Just to let you know, water vapour is a much larger contributor.

Sure, sue because the Government lied. Why don't you vote them out? Can you sue them?

simion314• 7 years ago

In the case of Germany there are good reasons to blame the politicians, replacing existing nuclear with coal to score with the greens is one such reason.

krageon• 7 years ago

It's common courtesy to provide a foundation for outlandish claims when you make them. Otherwise it just sounds like you're making a whole lot of things up.

mikelyons4• 7 years ago

Making these kind of claims often relies on obscuring any sort of foundation, and mental gymnastics to deny anything other than a sarcastic take on common courtesy.

jussij2• 7 years ago

these farmers have seen dramatic floods in 2017 and then droughts in 2018

They should be so lucky.

Here in Australia we have large swaths of the country entering their fourth, fifth and sixth years of drought with cities and towns now running low on water.

Add to that we are now going into summer, just as we leave one of the hottest and driest springs on recorded.

With climate change smashing Australia in the face we just re-elected a government that thinks climate change is a hoax.

At the turn of the century Australia went through the devastating millennium drought and less that ten years later we face a drought that easily eclipses that disaster.

I suspect what many have failed to realise is Australia is not really in drought, but instead is facing it's new norm.

gridlockd2• 7 years ago

With climate change smashing Australia in the face we just re-elected a government that thinks climate change is a hoax.

For all practical purposes, this isn't an issue. If you have a depletion of water coming up then spending resources on curbing CO2 (which may or may not have an impact decades down the line[1]) is not going to be your first priority.

You'll need desalination plants and you'll need to re-orient agriculture around what works in the future, not the past.

edit:

[1] Hold your pitchforks! What I mean here is that the efforts for curbing CO2 may or may not have an impact. I solemnly swear that I believe anthropogenic CO2 affects climate change!

verbify• 7 years ago

curbing CO2 (which may or may not have an impact decades down the line) is not going to be your first priority

May or may not have an impact?! 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth's climate has warmed as a result of human activities and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects

Sure, we need mitigation efforts, but we also need to prevent things getting much much worse.

tito7• 7 years ago

Yeah, I completely know what you're talking about in terms of water versus carbon dioxide.

I work on climate solutions every day. My specific focus is on carbon and mining carbon from the air. However, loss of groundwater and water depletion is such a powerful short term challenge, it can take the spotlight away from carbon. Without water, a society grinds to a halt in hours and days.

I'm interested in how others are thinking about that and keeping these balanced.

EDIT: My suggestion for your statement above is: "which will have an impact decades down the line". It's the "may or may not" that brings out the pitchforks.

Also, the "belief" thing on anthro-change is puzzling. Imagine reading notes on a discussion with Newton where someone to profess their "belief in gravity". Do we "believe in gravity" today? Wish we had a better word/term for this.

tito7• 7 years ago

Nice assessment! Living in California, it's so tempting for me to point to the latest drought as "proof of climate change". But I find it safer to keep my climate discussions longer term, i.e. rising seas, overall warmer temperatures, less-stable climate.

How are you balancing this in your convos in Australia?

jussij2• 7 years ago

Australia and it's approach to climate change is rather depressing.

There have plenty of signs indicating the country is facing serious climate change issues. But despite these warnings, we as a nation have had decades with little or no action.

However, if the current Spring is any indication this Summer might be a turning point.

The record Spring temperatures suggest we might be in for a record breaking hot Summer.

Not only will that mean a worsening of the current drought conditions, but it also greatly increases the risk of serious bush fires (i.e wild fires).

As recent Australian history has shown, when it gets hot and windy those are the perfect conditions for uncontrollably, raging bush fires.

mikelyons4• 7 years ago

How do we avoid and prevent re-electing these types of governments?

journalctl2• 7 years ago

At this point? A few decades of drought, fire, and famine is probably what it’s going to take. The science is clear, but you have to play the long game, and humans are notoriously bad at long-term thinking in aggregate. We’ve enjoyed unfettered growth forever, but the piper is coming...

spodek• 7 years ago

I consider a major role of government to regulate behavior that hurts others. That is, you can swing your fist around as much as you like by yourself, but I want a law preventing you from swinging it into my face.

Polluting the air, land, and water we share seems behavior that hurts others.

Similar cases in the U.S. and Canada:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/kids-sue-us-...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canadian-tee...

This article mentions cases in Colombia, Holland, Norway, India, and Belgium, saying they are progressing https://qz.com/1334102/kids-around-the-world-are-suing-gover....

gridlockd2• 7 years ago

...they are progressing

What they'll achieve is a bunch of politicians signing makeshift laws into effect, which will not actually be making a dent into global warming, but which will be diverting funds into the pockets of snake oil hucksters. I'm definitely long green tech!

at-fates-hands• 7 years ago

Polluting the air, land, and water we share seems behavior that hurts others.

What happens when the government mandates only electric cars, solar heating for your house and other expensive "green technologies" that low income and poor people can't afford?

By the very same measure, your green technologies to try and halt climate change are going to severely impact low income families who can't afford a $40,000 Tesla electric vehicle or the $30,000 up front cost for a small solar array.

mikelyons4• 7 years ago

Is it outside our imagination that society would change?

Would it be unreasonable that it could become more communal and unified?

(edit: spelling)

journalctl2• 7 years ago

Let’s keep polluting then, because at least then rich or poor, we’ll all be equally dead.

tito7• 7 years ago

I wonder the same thing! A mandate doesn't always have an upfront dollar cost, but it's certainly being paid for somehow.

For example, subsidies on EVs. These shifts are tricky since they alter the market, so we have to figure out if it's worth pushing the market ahead. A subsidy on EVs is basically pumping money into the EV market ahead of when it would "organically" be there. So there's a cost to those dollars and interest, kind of like using a credit card to buy something today when you don't have the cash. In some cases it makes a lot of sense, but it's not free money.

In the case of EV subsidies in the USA/California, anecdotally it appears really successful.

Has anyone seen a study on the "effectiveness" of the EV subsidies in the United States, perhaps just in California? Who paid, did it work, was it worth accelerating? I'm biased towards "yes", but would love to see such a study.

Xylakant2• 7 years ago

Seems like the court rejected to hear the case (details to follow) https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute/verwaltungsgericht-berl...

JackPoach• 7 years ago

Sorry, but Germany isn't a country that seems to be affected by global warming much.

yifanl• 7 years ago

The whole notion of country shouldn't exist in the conversation of "global warming". Unless Germany plans on building rockets and leaving the planet entirely, they'll be as affected as everyone else on the long-term scale.

PeterisP2• 7 years ago

The notion of country matters very much in the conversation of global warming - while every country will be somehow affected, the effect will be very different for different countries. A rise of sea level will eliminate or devastate some contries while barely affecting others; the change in rainfall and temperature patterns will devastate agriculture in some countries while improving it in others; etc.

And a lot of how and why climate change mitigation is (not) working is explainable by the difference between the countries who'd bear the worst consequences of climate change and the countries who'd bear the worst costs to reduce these consequences.

mistermann4• 7 years ago

The whole notion of country shouldn't exist in the conversation of "global warming"

It depends if you're talking about how things should be, or how they are.

Or, whether the point of the conversation is strictly to communicate scientific details, or to persuade the entire non-homogeneous population of an entire planet to alter their behavior. If I was running the show, I would craft a completely different conversation for the latter situation, since it is infinitely more complex, but this doesn't seem to be a terribly popular opinion. Rather, the chosen approach seems to be to just blast a few variations of a tiny (and sometimes incorrect) subset of the content from the former conversation repeatedly through various media channels, insult those (typically based on simplistic strawman caricatures) who aren't eagerly jumping on board, and complain about how "stupid" people are. We'll see how this approach turns out, but so far it doesn't seem to be very effective in my estimation.

If this situation was reasonably accurately recreated in a video game, I suspect the problem would have been identified and solved long ago, but here in the real world where we have very real consequences, we're unable to approach problems with the same intellectual rigor we would in a video game. Humans are a complex species.

clows• 7 years ago

Money makes the world go around so:

The 2018 drought cost farmers in germany approximately 2 billion euros -> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-08/germany-f...

ground water levels are at an all time low due to very little rain: 2018 was especially problematic.

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/how-climate-chang...

forrests are dying at an alarming rate https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/07/part-of-...

I wouldn't say germany is a climate change hotspot but the effects are already here. Politics just hasn't caught up with reality yet.

rkachowski• 7 years ago

The article title is actually "Farmers fail in bid to sue German government over alleged climate change failures" - the opposite of what's implied by the HN link.

reddotX• 7 years ago

they changed the title

Farmers sue German government over climate change failures

Related Stories