The appellants, some of whom are still very young, were violated in their freedom rights by the provisions of the law, the judges explained. "The regulations irreversibly shift high emission reduction burdens to periods after 2030. "If the CO2 budget is already used extensively by 2030, this exacerbates the risk of" serious loss of freedom " because the time for technical and social developments is becoming scarcer. < / p>
Limiting an increase in the global average temperature as planned to well below 2 degrees and as far as possible to 1.5 degrees is only feasible with increasingly urgent and short-term measures. "Virtually all freedom is potentially affected by these future emission reduction obligations, because almost all areas of human life are still associated with the emission of greenhouse gases and are therefore threatened by drastic restrictions after 2030," the statement says. < / p>
Even serious loss of freedom justified? < / h3>
In order to safeguard fundamental freedom, the legislator should have taken precautions "to mitigate these high loads". There is talk of "precautions to ensure a freedom-saving transition to climate neutrality". This has been lacking so far.
Article 20a of the Basic Law states: "The state also protects, in responsibility for future generations, the natural basis of life and animals within the framework of the constitutional order through legislation and in accordance with law and law through executive power and jurisprudence."
The court refers to this. One generation should not be allowed"to consume large parts of the CO2 budget under a comparatively mild reduction burden, if this would at the same time leave a radical reduction burden to the following generations and their lives would be subjected to extensive loss of freedom".
Transport, agriculture, buildings < / h3> < p class="atc-TextParagraph"> In the future, even serious loss of freedom to protect the climate could be proportionate and constitutionally justified, the judges explained. Fundamental rights must be weighed up. But: "Here, the relative weight of the climate protection offer in the assessment of progressive climate change continues to increase."
The judges warned that the natural basis of life must be handled carefully. And they would have to be left to posterity in a state "that subsequent generations could not only preserve them at the price of radical self-abstinence." Nearly a dozen climate activists from Fridays for Future demonstrated in front of the court on Thursday morning. They had posters with them that read, among other things: "Listen to science! Climate protection now!"Several associations involved in the lawsuits had announced a press conference for the morning.
Neubauer: "It's an incredibly big day for many" < / h3>
Environmental associations described the verdict as groundbreaking. Luisa Neubauer from Fridays for Future said on Thursday: "It's an incredibly big day for many." Climate protection is a fundamental right. Neubauer was one of the plaintiffs. Felix Ekardt as legal representative said that the court had given the federal government a resounding slap in the face. The lawyer Remo Klinger spoke of a milestone. The climate targets by 2030 would have to be significantly tightened. The plaintiff Sophie Backsen said: "We are super happy and relieved."Effective climate protection must now be implemented and not only in ten years, when it is too late. < / p>
Economy Minister Peter Altmaier also attaches great importance to the judgment. "It is epochal for climate protection and the rights of young people," the CDU politician wrote on Twitter on Thursday. At the same time, the ruling ensures planning security for the economy.Updated Date: 30 April 2021, 22:19