Final Draft translation (version of 21 May 2015) Statement of Reply in the case: Urgenda Foundation v. Kingdom of the Netherlands Regarding the failure of the Dutch State to take sufficient actions to prevent dangerous climate change More information about the case can be found at: www.urgenda.nl/en/climate-case For more information about this translation, please contact Dennis van Berkel at: [email protected] +31 6 4178 6101 Translation of Statement of Reply, Urgenda Foundation v. Kingdom of the Netherlands District Court of The Hague Session of 10 September 2014 Roll number HAZA C/09/00456689 STATEMENT OF REPLY AND AMENDMENT OF CLAIM in the case of: URGENDA FOUNDATION, registered in Amsterdam, and 886 other parties represented by Urgenda Foundation, together referred to as „Urgenda c.s.‟, plaintiffs, legally represented by: R.H.J. Cox and J.M. van den Berg against: THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS (Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment), established in The Hague, defendant, legally represented by: G.J.H. Houtzagers 2 Translation of Statement of Reply, Urgenda Foundation v. Kingdom of the Netherlands Table of Contents PREAMBLE ......................................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 5 LETTERS OF ATTORNEY .................................................................................... 12 CHAPTER 1: THE STATE IS ALREADY MEETING ITS INTERNATIONAL LEGALLY BINDING REDUCTION OBLIGATIONS ............................................................. 12 1.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 16 CHAPTER 2: THE STATE IS ALREADY DOING MUCH AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 17 2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 17 2.2 Mitigation versus adaptation ................................................................... 18 2.3 Dutch mitigation policy ........................................................................... 20 2.4 About international policy, the Energy Accord, and coal-fired power stations . 22 2.5 Energy Tax ........................................................................................... 29 2.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 32 CHAPTER 3: URGENDA C.S. REQUEST LEGAL PROTECTION ................................... 33 CHAPTER 4: URGENDA C.S. REQUEST LEGAL PROTECTION AGAINST (THREATENING CATASTROPHIC) DAMAGE ............................................................................ 34 4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 34 4.2 The two-degree limit .............................................................................. 36 4.3 What damage and consequences must we expect, specifically in the Netherlands? ......................................................................................... 37 4.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 52 CHAPTER 5: URGENDA C.S. DESIRE DAMAGE PREVENTION, NOT DAMAGE COMPENSATION .......................................................................................... 52 5.1 Preventive legal protection, not damage compensation after the fact ........... 52 5.2 The place in Dutch liability law of actions seeking court orders and injunctions ........................................................................................... 54 5.3 Liability law and climate change: damages claims are excluded ................... 57 5.4 Actions seeking court orders and injunctions as preventive instruments in liability law ............................................................................................ 60 5.5 The State defends against the orders sought by Urgenda c.s. with arguments that apply only to damages claims ........................................... 63 5.6 The State argues erroneously that legal protection can be requested only against pecuniary losses ......................................................................... 64 5.7 The criteria for an action seeking a court order based on tort law ................ 65 5.8 Conclusion and summary ........................................................................ 66 CHAPTER 6: TORT ACTION: IN GENERAL ............................................................ 67 6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 67 6.2 Unlawfulness = in conflict with a legal duty ............................................... 68 6.3 The legal duty in casu ............................................................................ 69 3 Translation of Statement of Reply, Urgenda Foundation v. Kingdom of the Netherlands 6.4 Endangerment: the Cellar Hatch criteria ................................................... 70 6.5 Endangerment by cross-border emissions: the no-harm principle and the Potash Mines decision ............................................................................. 76 6.6 Article 2 of the UNFCCC .......................................................................... 78 6.7 An intermediate summary ....................................................................... 83 6.8 Partial causation and partial liability or pro-rata liability .............................. 84 6.9 Summary and conclusion ........................................................................ 90 CHAPTER 7: LIABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE ................................. 92 CHAPTER 8: HUMAN RIGHTS ............................................................................. 95 8.1 The consequences of climate change fall within the scope of articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR ........................................................................................... 96 8.2 The exceptions in article 8 paragraph 2 of the ECHR and fair balance .......... 104 8.3 The margin of appreciation .................................................................... 110 8.4 The consequences of the violation of articles 2 and 8 of the EHCR .............. 127 8.5 Conclusion with respect to human rights .................................................. 129 8.6 An additional remark concerning relying on the precautionary principle ....... 130 CHAPTER 9: STANDING ................................................................................... 136 CHAPTER 10: THE REDUCTION CLAIMED: AMOUNT AND PACING .......................... 142 10.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 142 10.2 The necessity of a 25-40% reduction by 2020 ........................................ 144 10.3 The goal for 2020 cannot be replaced by a goal for 2030 ......................... 149 10.5 Adaptation is not a surrogate for mitigation. ........................................... 159 10.6 Conclusion concerning mitigation and adaptation .................................... 165 CHAPTER 11: THE CLAIMS OF URGENDA C.S. ..................................................... 165 11.1 Concerning the claims ......................................................................... 165 11.2 The (new) declaratory judgements being requested ................................ 165 11.3 The reduction order that is claimed ....................................................... 172 11.4 The claim to have a reduction plan submitted to the Parliament ................ 175 11.5 The new claim to order the State to adequately inform the Dutch public .... 176 11.6 The legal foundation of an order to inform and warn ............................... 177 11.7 The interest of Urgenda c.s. in the order to inform and warn that they claim ................................................................................................... 178 CHAPTER 12: TRIAS POLITICA .......................................................................... 184 PETITUM ........................................................................................................ 192 4 Translation of Statement of Reply, Urgenda Foundation v. Kingdom of the Netherlands PREAMBLE 1. Urgenda c.s. have attentively read the State‟s statement of defence. 2. Urgenda c.s. wish to begin by apologizing for the length of this statement of reply, which runs to an almost unseemly length of around 200 pages. A legal approach to the climate problem raises both legal and factual questions. Urgenda c.s. wish not only to attempt to discuss the (many) relevant questions and aspects, but in doing so to also give insight into their context and the larger picture. Furthermore, in their statement of defence, the State claims that Urgenda c.s. have provided insufficient support for many of their points. This may well be the case to some extent, but Urgenda c.s. have the impression that the State also at times has deliberately chosen not to be a good listener. Considering the great importance that this case has for Urgenda c.s., they wish to avoid any possibility that their claims might founder because they have provided an insufficient foundation for them. Urgenda c.s. have therefore felt the need to further develop and expand their argumentation, in both its constituent parts and its overall coherence. Urgenda c.s. hope that their plea has gained in strength and clarity as compensation for the evident loss of succinctness.