Hello and welcome to the program on the image of june. A historic climate case has begun at the European Court of human rights and stress support. Young activists are taking on powerful governments over there alleged in action against Climate Change. The courts rulings are legally binding on member countries. The legal route seems to be increasingly favored by active is to hold leaders to account, and young people are increasingly at the forefront of Climate Change. Activism could an approach based on childs rights, be the wife way forward and tackling global warming. We have lots of discuss, but 1st let me go so im sure weve set it up for us. Its 6 you versus 32 countries. They argue, governments are not doing enough to start until reforming. And the inaction both is listed they have and like the youth age between 11 and 24, made their way to the your pin code of human rights to argue that case with the support of all the time of active we are not the 6 we are the 6 representing generation, we are the voices, all the rest of that once to leave alive with this promise and this is good for everyone else. And this, they come from areas in portugal ravaged by was fires and he played the fall of the case 3 years after the cds of forest fires in 2017 killed 66 people. They say the a suffering from inside the over the health and natural disasters. It affects their physical and mental health, their civil, political, and social rights, as well as their dignity. It is therefore crucial to adopt a child rights based approach to the question of Climate Change and how it affects their human rights. 27, e u. Member states, as well as the you case with them in no way russia active key of being sued, making it the law, just have a climate case to be heard by a code in stress by more than 18 dont use represent the states. Russia has not represented, they say governments understand the threat of Climate Change from the case outside the courtroom. They say all the right things about the clements emergency. But today, they are denying the reality that thats what we are experiencing is getting worse and worse to the extreme pizza. I am limited in how i exercise and how much time i can spend outdoors. I am forced to stay inside and i struggle to sleep. Some night because of the heat and things to the week apartments, policies that the countries are taking a bit. I remain hopeful that the courts will understand the urgency of the situation. And we are side in favor of our case. Last month, a judge in the us state of montana handed, a historic victory to you. Im left with an a case involving time to change on here. And yet of the, your pin code of human rights has to move pending a decision in this case is not expected for several months. But with increasing while fires in the face becoming more frequent, plummets lawsuits brought on by youth could become a trend in general. And beyond mickelson chevy for inside story. The. All right, lets go ahead and bring in our guess. Joining us in paris, catherine camper. Shes head of Climate Change out a Patient Program at the organization for Economic Cooperation and development. And in london, i should call fun. Hes the director of Climate Justice at ox fam us one. Welcome to both and thanks so much for joining us today on inside story aspect. Let me start with you today. This is a landmark case. Its the largest ever climate case to be heard by the European Court of human rights from your vantage point. How significant is its its, it is very significant. Its the 1st case before the okay. And quarter human rights on Climate Change. And it is the 1st one sofa only thats targets. 32 Different Countries that are members of the counselor here. Thats how the court. So it raises a whole number of the interesting and broad leading questions and also because its against so many countries. If the court rules for the plaintiffs, we could have a pretty Significant Impact on the world as a whole. And as far as a you mentioned that this raises some pretty interesting legal points Going Forward. What are some of those you consider to be the more interesting legal arguments being made in this case . Im sure thats the most. Um, the most challenging one legally is that the, the, the, the people, the, the, the children who brought the come over there which or when they brought the complaint or are, are making claims against 32 Different Countries for their separate actions. That having an impact on them, normally the court, when it ruled normally the rules on impacts on the state has on people within its direct control. And so the issue of Climate Change shows how to properly respect human rights. But you know, the courts cannot simply hold that right. Stop at borders because emissions dont stop at motors impacts happen externally as well. Catherine, i saw you like, lets go, go ahead. Are sparks sorry. The surgical court rules correctly. It will hold all these countries liable because all of them are causing the impact that is affecting the plaintiffs. Catherine, i saw you are reacting a lot to what the osh clock was sitting there and it looked like you wanted to jump in. So please go ahead. No, thats from our i think what hes trying to see the its on cost, its across the border issue, but so the impacts of Climate Change. So the clear, this is how much i gathered from the news thus far as that theyre very much constructed in the case on the basis of the impact that theyre feeding in their little country, such as good to go as they were describing the Health Impacts of uh, what fires and extreme heat and theyve been suffering over the last 2 years. In katherine let me also ask you about the fact that this summer was the hottest on record. This case is arguing that young people, in particular, a face a future of hardship because countries are simply not doing enough to combat Climate Change up from your vantage point. Or the countries that are named in this lawsuit based on what youve seen, actually preparing to face the effects of Climate Change very slowly. So, so maybe each time a hope to take some extreme event to get a nice, a bit of progress in terms of legislation in terms of extra investments of adapting to Climate Change. Its nowhere near as much as we would have to do in order to teach the level of, of, of lives and the levels of suffering that were having today to keep that constantly the future. Theres a large amount of investment that is needed and what climate the researchers and experts argue all the time that its a fraction of the cost to do these, to actually adapt to Climate Change now. And so its easy, so to speak, to, to protect our lives, at least in the next, the few decades, not in the long run in the long run, i think without medication for a going any way, but at least in the short run, it will cost a lot less trixie, and as opposed to each time lasting, these extremely events happen and we are not seeing the kind these are making sufficient progress even in the face of the images that were seeing or across the world. Practicing status of our truck. Um, one of the core arguments in this case is that, um is this is causing a lot of anxiety and distress for young people. Theyre not just talking about the physical health here when it comes to Climate Change, the impact is having on health. Theyre also talking about mental health. How does that differentiate this case from other cases in the past . I mean, theres a long history of looking at a pool in human and degrading treatment as a punishment. Not only the mental aspects, not only excuse me, not only the physical ask as to alter the mental aspect. So in that sense they are subject applying that same logic to Climate Change that has been applied in human rights cases previously addressed by the court. So its, its, its quite logical for them to, to, to, to apply. But yeah, but i mean, the impact. So, i mean, not just just around this. And one thing really, i mean, before, of course, this is the case about the impacts of portugal. Meaning the case of success or if it will have impacts on places where the impacts of a so much worse. I mean we saw the drought and you smell for good, which was, you know, 99 percent or even a 100 percent caused by Climate Change. And a, and i mean the, the, its a staggering the, the amount of impacts on peoples lives, health survival. I just like you mentioned that the youth who brought this case, you know, they come from areas in portugal. Theyve been ravaged by wildfires and, and he waves um, they filed this case 3 years after a series of forest fires in 2017 killed dozens of people. They say they are suffering from severe anxiety because of all this. They say that they are representing an entire generation. This really puts into stark relief, how existential, this issue is for them. And i want to ask you, if you think that this is the kind of case that has the potential to connect with the public more because of that. I think, you know, i think that that is actually one of the reasons why this. Um, the people who brought this case, you know, did so if it really brings out that element to off on, on the lack of fairness towards the younger generations, the lack of into generational justice, the people making these decisions are really not the people who are mostly going to be affected by it its, its that the younger generations in the future generations, because we, we are, were headed towards a world of sweet degrees warming by, by 2100 and some of the plaintiffs who brought this with the youngest ones. We would still be alive and would face that, you know, most smell it to taste it. Catherine, when we know that the occurrence that extreme wildfires is growing with unprecedented damages. And so many countries around the world and, and this case is, is highlighting that to a certain degree i want to talk to you about some of the research that youve done when it comes to the growing occurrences of wildfires. How that is impacting communities, how much damage is being caused as a result . Yes, thanks for that question. Its uh, its in fact what part is an issue that we also asked across on different the biome, say in the world to youve had wide science in either betia. Thats a, in the, in direct consequences. So then over time, concert kinds of respiratory diseases kills of a 100 thousands of people that estimated 800000 people and wine oriented the country. So in virtual countries, you may not hear so much about about light is not in proportion terms used to see some, some of the, some victims that actually use that i. But nevertheless, i think that the impacts in terms of health are virtually the same. The highest and canada piece here, for example, called on the northern america in the us, thanks for being on of new york city under the nerds of, of air quantity. And weve been only see the results exposed of, of how many, how much respiratory distress we suffered and how much or excess of time that you made. So we can observe that very soon. But the consequences danger come down trying to judge. I know most the know the very direct impacts those offered by the community or for very obvious reasons in terms of their own personal assets. But also in terms of the sources of a kind of think about timber. But then the trick up to the entire economy as weve seen in, in, in portable world. So in canada, right, for, if you see the percentage drops and g, b outputs in the use varies extreme events happen. For example, the last 5 years on the 2018 cam tires in california, they produce the damages that we estimate at around 20 beating in us dollars, which is completely unheard of. For a good x stream events of buying cars. We reviewed the, the numbers return before when we talk about extreme flat events, a similar to what weve seen recently, but never provide cars. And i think to hear your e, im kind of related extremely by knowing that the slower also wants to drop the cost of trimming. No, they dont make damage. And obviously hard to as it just turns, especially in the cabin. If we could just take another step back for a moment, im curious to know your thoughts on if you believe that countries, if their policies and if their practices are actually evolving in the face of this increased risk from wild fires. I mean, are we seeing countries actually scale up because often times when these disasters occur it looks as though countries are being more reactive and had not really been proactive in trying to combat this in a different way. Oh absolutely, and the dynamics are unfortunately still the same old ive been working on these topics now for the better half the last 2 decades. And thats for changing dynamics of students a. So if you look on spending your take, just think again, one example, big 5 cars in the picture, the spending expense, probably expensive to provide card suppression in the last 40 years. If you look at the united states, for example, going to go, you see that spending has increased like tween default for suppressing white card. Which card is perfectly fine with the size of wi fi and the frequency that receive. But if you didnt know thing to actual spending on preventing those 5 hers and by all means we know how to prevent disasters, we know how to adapt to them in a better way. The slow wants as ones as well as the sudden on say, once we know what we can do, we can manage our forest better. We can plan our urban environments, but just ways to reduce the why the urban interface. Just to give you an example. We know a lot of what we can do to reduce the urban heat. I ended 6, which as you know, is dramatic, especially in your being countries as well. And yet we dont do any of that. We always wage and to an extreme event happens. And this is where we didnt put the money where this is, appreciate you spend no, not the total. Or we can even show the benefits of, of the cost benefit ratio such measures introducing them early thing compared to what would happen to expose again. So what were changing is a barrier that subtraction bubble country dog. Weve got to know if youre pointed to that already butting the kind of targets that were discussing here on the gay sion more and more introducing out of taishan more strange and that of taisha target as well. Thats that i would interpret as a step in the right direction, but its very, very silvers aspect i, i want to ask you your thoughts on some of the key arguments on both sides of this case. First, i want to ask you about an argument from the plaintive side. One of the key accusations from the plaintiff is that the fundamental human rights of people are being infringed upon. Because the countries in question have failed to adequately reduce human cause. Warming how strong of a legal argument is that from your perspective a its a its, its a strong argument because they can show a direct line between the state that goes off these governments to reduce emissions and the impacts on their lives. Because the lives of, of, of many of those thats the Climate Science is a, is as becomes so clear that, thats um, you just cannot be questioned. I think the challenge of a menu coming to the government side would be, well, you know, we should us, its for governments to decide the types of policies that you need adopted to, to, to address that. So the thing is though, i mean the governments, it, im not, do you mean they can be, theres a whole range of measures that different policy measures that could be taking during do submissions a, theres no is theres not necessarily one or one of single, a way to get there different ways to get there, but theyre not getting to the results. We are. We are headed to a world of temperature, the warming of about 2. 00 degrees. The governments have said that their target is, is 1. 00. And that by the way is not, is actually not a target setting. You based on human rights standards. We are seeing vast violations of peoples human rights, food, housing, shelter on the current warming, which is about 1. 00 degrees. So, you know, one, the governments i, im not setting the right target this setting 1. 00 to 2. 00, which is itself is sufficient. And then not even meaning that they the, their own plans if you read them, show that they are insufficient. So yeah, theyre not, theyre not meeting those targets and really government shooting shipping. All thats in the power button on the stand of the health audit and all that thats. And if i was to prevent the harm to human rights and look at any, any governments actions, they dont do the devil mobilizing the to millions that on the billions that are needed to shift as to Renewable Energy, theyre not insulating homes. Theyre not switching from gas to keep them so you know, theyre not, you know, they dont put in texas on private. Yeah. Private jets s u v as a whole, whole range of things. I mean its, its, its really, um, the, their policies are almost visa, magical reality that somehow will encourage you, Renewable Energy we will put in some, uh, inadequate to call them pricing and, and offsets. And that will result the problem. I mean, he just wont, in any serious scientist, any serious policy make little told what women would show visuals are insufficient and, and, and i know really off measures actually let me get back to you in just a minute with regards to the arguments that are being made by european government lawyers, but 1st let me go to catherine because i did see catherine reacting to some of what you were saying. It looked to me like you wanted to add to the point that aspect was making. So please go ahead better. So just to add that to yes, its true of the strange and you measures that are currently taken cold, perhaps of the quite a bit stronger. And i think its, you know, cuz its sort of a multilateralism in that space. Hes also taking a huge because they are such hard for negotiations and countries are better very heterogeneous in their positions. But we are making progress. I mean, especially in the developed countries, emissions has been going down. And i think what were also trying to tell countries as we suppose im in the process of making progress, is that we need to tell the stories. And do you want me to noon eastern line behind, engaging in finding Climate Change and,