Fair Share in Greenpeace Bonaire
Substantive Discretion Under a Shrinking Global Carbon Budget
In Greenpeace Bonaire, the Court’s “dialogical” approach leaves revised targets to the State. But targets contributing to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot must confront climate science and international equity standards. How much discretion remains under a shrinking carbon budget? Renske Natté explores this issue in this post for Volkerrechtsblog.
Excerpt
Both the ICJ and the ECtHR have recognized 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot as the relevant benchmark for assessing states’ climate obligations. At the same time, climate litigation aimed at mitigation of greenhouse gases unfolds against persistent disagreement over the fair share question: how should the remaining global carbon budget (GCB) compatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C be fairly allocated among states? Domestic courts contribute to the operationalization of this question as they review the adequacy of state mitigation efforts. Yet as the remaining GCB continues to shrink, the tension sharpens: between what science indicates is required to remain within the 1.5°C objective, and what courts may demand of political institutions within the limits of judicial review and separation of powers.
