It may be tempting to see the ECHR’s ruling on climate inaction in Switzerland as a step forward, but undermining democracy risks a serious backlash against climate action, writes John Flesher
Debate is raging amongst British conservatives as to whether the UK should withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court on Human Rights (ECHR). Views among conservative environmentalists also vary, but my personal opinion is that this court, in its current form at least, has gone way beyond its original purpose and has come to trample on democratic decisions. The vital rights that it seeks to protect can be better defended by domestic courts and our own law.
But whatever your opinion on the UK’s continued membership of the ECHR, the court’s judgement in favour of a group of Swiss women who argued that their government’s supposed inaction on climate change violates their right to a private life should be of serious concern, most of all to environmentalists.
Too many people have rushed to welcome the decision on the basis that anything that forces governments or businesses to do more to tackle climate change is a good thing. No doubt we do need to accelerate climate action. But doing so in this way could come at a heavy price.
The fundamental principle underlying all public policymaking must be democratic consent. I believe profoundly that reaching net zero by 2050, and thereby staving off the worst effects of rising global temperatures, is both necessary and desirable. But we will not attain that goal unless public support for the actions required to get there is maintained – not just at one election, but each time that voters go to the polls.
So far, that support is strong and widespread, with a significant majority of almost every voter group and demographic backing serious climate action in the UK and in most other countries too. But we cannot and must not take that support for granted. Keeping climate action out of the culture war is a must if we are to sustain progress towards net zero, and this judgement is potentially just as damaging to that mission as the loud voices of those who dismiss concern for the environment as ‘woke’.
Climate policy must be designed and implemented in a way that goes with the grain of public opinion, incentivising the right outcomes rather than compelling them. If voters feel that net zero is something being done to them rather than with them, we risk a serious backlash against climate action as a whole.
The Strasbourg court is guilty of significant overreach in this judgement, acting, as the UK government’s lawyer put it, as a legislator, rather than a judge, but without any of the democratic consent to which legislators must be subject. Making judgements about domestic climate action in this way not only takes the court away from its human rights remit, but undermines the vital democratic principle that the people’s representatives are responsible for in setting public policy.
Domestic courts must of course see that the law is being followed. Politicians cannot put strong climate targets into legislation and then complain when courts hold them to those targets due to a failure to produce sufficiently ambitious policies to meet them. At a time when all nations have much more to do, we have to make sure that our actions match our words. But there should be no place for a human rights court to make such a spurious interpretation of a sovereign nation’s policies on an issue that is clearly beyond its reach.
Those cheering this judgement uncritically should be careful what they wish for. An “ends justify the means” approach to climate action will quickly alienate the millions of moderate people who care about the environment and are crucial actors in efforts to decarbonise. They need to feel that net zero is worth it now, not just in 2050, and that they can hold the politicians who make climate policies to account at the ballot box.
Achieving our environmental goals will take patience, understanding and persuasion. If we fail to remember this, we will all pay the price.