The Dutch Marjan Minnesma, 53 years old, runs Urgenda, the environmental NGO, which last Friday acknowledged that the Supreme Court of his country forced the Government to reduce, by 2020, emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 25% compared to 1990. Has studied Law, Philosophy and Business Administration, and has worked at Greenpeace, the Executive and the Erasmus University, Rotterdam. When he saw that the weather predominated in the work signed by the students, but they piled up no more output in your office, it passed to the action. In 2007 he established Urgent Agenda, or what is the same, Urgenda, a foundation focused on the transition towards a sustainable society by means of renewable energies. His message is similar to that of other environmental organizations, but have been the first to associate the dangers of pollution to the violation of human rights. Urgenda has made history and she, satisfied and overwhelmed by the same, it attributes to something as simple as this: “we Want to change the world, not to give advice on how to do it.”
MORE INFORMATIONThe Supreme Dutch obliges the Government to reduce CO2 emissions in a landmark judgment Urgenda: the rule of law to combat climate change
Question. how The Dutch Government will reduce the CO2 required?
Response. Today [on Friday] in full maelstrom of the sentence, I received a message from a senior official of the Ministry of Economy and Climate, saying that we should sit down to talk soon. I also have congratulated, not created. We've brought together almost 800 organizations willing to contribute to the necessary transition. There is everything from established companies to anonymous groups, and our sustainable plan of 50 points in order to reduce the CO2 includes simple things such as refraining from eating meat once a week, or to accelerate the installation of LED lights in businesses and greenhouses for their energy savings. There are others of greater scope, such as getting to 100,000 rental homes with a fairly neutral energy. The complete package is available to the Executive.
Q. what Urgenda have to bear the pressure of having become the NGO that you beat the Government?
A. it Is possible that we remember from now for having won in the courts, but it is not something we ever thought to do. We have appealed to the human rights, unprotected when a Government isn't doing enough to combat pollution. There is now a clear legal mandate and a goal, by the year 2020, in order to comply with the obligation to protect the life of the citizen. I do not think that the Executive can skip them without suffering the consequences. People want solutions, and our case has inspired other groups in various countries [only in Europe, there are similar claims with varying degrees of success in Ireland, the Uk, Belgium, Germany, France, Switzerland and Italy, and other similar in Canada, united States, New Zealand, or South Korea, according to Dennis van Berkel, legal advisor to the Urgenda]. I would like to make it clear that, together, we can achieve the reduction of CO2.the president of The Supreme Dutch announces the decision of the Court last Friday. VIDEO: REUTERS-QUALITY
Q. why is it presented as an NGO different from the rest?
A. We will give you an example. When no one in the Netherlands, spoke about solar panels on a regular basis, we went to China, we buy 50,000 pieces, we brought them in the boat and the buyers, who had advanced a portion of the cost, the installed then in their homes. It was in 2010, and from then all over the world, including the Executive, was to promote this form of energy. In my country, if you subtract the extreme right with their traditional negationism climate, at least 80% of the people are worried about the weather, and we seek to plural solutions arising from plans that can be applied by citizens, businesses, public and private institutions, and the Government, since then.
Q. is Thought that the lawsuit against the Executive would take this route?
A. The doubt was how it would address the judges something as well. The Ministry of Economy and Climate, thought that it was a kind of joke, and we thought maybe would end up in a recommendation or something like that. The win in the first instance, the Government said that it was a political issue, but lost again on appeal. Weighed more the right to the future and to life. Before the Supreme court, both the State bar as the office of the Prosecutor had spoken in favour of our demand. So we had an 80% insured. But the remaining 20% was a mystery, and he sees. We have been given the reason.Updated Date: 23 December 2019, 10:24