To start the New Year with an interesting and thought-provoking event, Frank Bold and ClientEarth organised a screening of This Changes Everything, a documentary based on Naomi Klein’s international non-fiction bestseller.
The event generated great interest among those working for civil society organisations and the European institutions. Paige Morrow of Frank Bold and Ugo Taddei of ClientEarth presented the film and introduced the issue of strategic litigation in climate change, which grounded the discussion after the screening.
Directed by Avi Lewis, the film presents seven powerful portraits of communities on the front lines of both fossil fuel extraction and the climate crisis it is driving, from Montana’s Powder River Basin to the Alberta Tar Sands and beyond.
This Changes Everything attempts to re-imagine the enormous challenge of climate change. Throughout the film, Klein builds to her most controversial and exciting idea: that we can seize the existential crisis of climate change to transform our failed economic system into something radically better. It is not a film that tries to scare the audience into action; it rather aims to empower. For those interested in the film, the trailer can be seen here.
In the subsequent discussion, Paige Morrow explained the particularities of strategic litigation, what can it be used for, in which contexts and topics can it be most effective at and the common mechanisms to undertake legal actions. She also presented some of Frank Bold’s cases and other relevant legal initiatives. For example, Frank Bold successfully brought a complaint to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development about its environmental assessment of a coal power plant in Romania which led to the cancellation of the plant’s refurbishment.
Ugo Taddei then provided a further explanation of the effectiveness of strategic litigation, specifically mentioning the reasons that make it a successful course of action. Ugo clarified the different types of cases -private and/or public law actions- and presented some of ClientEarth’s “war stories” - such as the successful challenge against the UK government for the failure achieve compliance with the air quality requirements in the UK. . To conclude, he stressed the impact of this kind of litigation in the media, which, in turn, influences public opinion.
The screening of the film and the interventions of Paige and Ugo ended in an interesting debate with the public. The main questions that arose were linked to the process of strategic litigation and how these lawsuits are initiated. The differences between the United States and European legal systems were also another topic of discussion, which led to the question of why there has been more climate change litigation in the US than in Europe, although it was noted that strategic litigation focused on climate change and human rights is on the increase in the EU.
If you wish more information concerning the event or the work of Frank Bold and ClientEarth, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us at susanna.arus@frankbold.org.
You can also see the Power Point presentation of Paige Morrow here and Ugo Taddei here.
Prague Municipal Court ruled today in favour better protection of human health from air pollution in the capital of the Czech Republic. The Court revoked most of Prague's Air Quality Management Plan, issued in 2016 by the Czech Ministry of Environment.
Czech Supreme Administrative Court ruled yesterday in favour of air quality and protection of human health. In the case local citizens and an NGO from Ostrava agglomeration, the most polluted region in the Czech Republic, succeeded with their claim for better air quality.
Yesterday, on 5 November 2018, a lawsuit against the Ministry of the Environment (MoE) on liability for health damages and death of her husband from lung cancer was filed with the District Court in Prague 10. The plaintiff seeks damages for lung cancer, which she has managed to cure, but her husband has succumbed to the illness in October. The cause of the disease is seen in the long-term excessive concentration of air pollutants at their place of residence in Ostrava-Radvanice and in the fact that the MoE failed to provide effective measures to decrease the pollution to legal limit values.
