Interview with Matthew Mollahan, Campaign Assistant with Climate Case Ireland by Scott Murphy

Interview with Matthew Mollahan, Campaign Assistant with Climate Case Ireland

By Scott Murphy, SS Law and Political Science

Who is Climate Case Ireland?

Climate Case Ireland was launched in response to the government’s 2017 National Mitigation Plan (NMP) by Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE) – a group of activists who pursue environmental justice usually through legal challenges. FIE has taken several cases over the past twenty years but the reason that Climate Case Ireland is seen as a branch of FIE is because of the urgency of the climate crisis and our case was especially important because it was against national legislation on climate change. So, you can see Climate Case Ireland as the climate branch of Friends of the Irish Environment.

Climate Case Ireland won their most recent case in the Supreme Court in July 2020. What were your arguments and which arguments were successful?

Our arguments were about the intersection of climate science and human rights. We argued that the government’s plan to reduce carbon emissions was insufficient under the Paris Agreement and under their own climate act (the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015) which stated that the Irish government should reduce its emissions by 25 to 40 per cent, which we have not seen – there has actually been an increase in this time. We argued that this breached several rights such as the right to life and the right to private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and that there was a right to a safe environment which is a corollary of the right to life (this was accepted in the High Court but not in the Supreme Court).

We hoped that they would enshrine the right to a healthy environment as an unenumerated right, but the Supreme Court decided not to because FIE is an organisation, not a person, and does not have the same standing rights as individuals. This was the only argument that failed, so overall the case was a success. The government had to rewrite their climate legislation to ensure that it is in line with the correct climate science. So, the Supreme Court quashed the National Mitigation Plan because it did not comply with the Climate Act.

Climate Case Ireland is part of a global network of climate cases being taken against national governments for their failure to take climate action. How influential was the Dutch Urgenda decision to the Irish case?

Urgenda’s influence cannot be overstated. Several people involved with Urgenda have given talks with us and have helped us to form legal arguments. But more than this, we took inspiration from them. They had over 800 co-complainants, so the case was not just for Urgenda (the environmental NGO) - it was for everyone in the Netherlands. We wanted to emulate that but we could not have that many co-complainants under judicial review. So instead, we launched a petition which has over 20,000 signatures with the idea being that the case was on behalf of everyone who signed it. By the time we went to the High Court, Urgenda had won its Supreme Court case and the Dutch government was mandated to reduce its emissions by 25 per cent, which was a massive boost of confidence and a great inspiration. So the two are very interlinked.

How influential do you think Ireland’s successful climate ruling will be for climate litigation across the world?

We’re hoping that the Irish case can be an inspiration to others and I think it already has - it made headlines across the world. But we are also hoping that in the same way that we referenced Urgenda in our legal arguments, others can reference the Irish case in theirs. For example, while the Irish government never denied that they were not in line with their climate obligations, they argued that Ireland’s influence on the global climate was too small, but the Court basically said that it does not matter how small Ireland is, they still have to comply with their obligations. We are hoping that this will work in other countries.

Would you be able to comment on the recent, successful French climate case which has been called “L’Affaire du Siècle” (the case of the century)?

It was a bit different to the Irish case, which was a judicial review challenge against specific legislation, whereas in France they were suing the government for their climate inaction. What was great about the French case was that it was taken by four environmental organisations (Greenpeace France, Notre Affaire à Tous, the Nicolas Hulot Foundation, and Oxfam France) and they had a petition which was signed by almost two and a half million people. Although the French court ruled that France’s actions are not in line with the Paris Agreement, the Court is delaying their final judgement for two months so they can decide whether they should mandate the government to act any further. So, it is very exciting, but we are still waiting for the final result.

Aside from court cases, Climate Case Ireland campaigns on other climate issues. Could you explain:

a) Your criticism of Ireland’s new Climate Bill (the Climate Action and

Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill 2020)?

Our criticism of the Climate Bill is really an extension of our win in the Supreme Court. The Climate Bill came out following the Supreme Court telling the government to rewrite their climate plan. But the Bill is not in line with what we need, so we see our role now as holding the government to account on this.

There’s many ways in which the language in the new Climate Bill is actually weaker than before. For example, it mentions “pursuing” net zero emissions by 2050 rather than “achieving” it, which is very loose language and there is no accountability in that. There needs to be repercussions for the government not meeting its targets. We also want to see the principles of Climate Justice and Just Transition embedded in the Bill. We need to ensure that people working in industries which might suffer because of decarbonisation won’t be left behind, so

Page 33 Interview perhaps a jobs guarantee, a welfare payment, or guaranteed retraining could be included in the Bill. There also needs to be interim targets in the Bill - 2050 is a long way away, and we really should be decarbonised by 2030, not 2050 - so there needs to be targets to be hit at intervals between now and then to show how it is going to be done.

b) Your opposition to CETA (the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) – the controversial trade and investor deal between Canada and the European Union?

Our opposition to CETA is based on a wide range of factors. Obviously, we are coming at it from an environmental and climate perspective but CETA is potentially damaging for a wide range of areas including workers’ rights and housing. There are effectively two chapters to CETA: the trade chapter, which has already been in effect for several years, and the investor chapter, which would see the introduction of the investment courts system (ICS), allowing corporations to sue governments for a loss of profit. ICS is a one-way system – Ireland has nothing to gain from it. We would lose out to Canadian companies, but also if companies have a subsidiary in Canada, as a lot of US companies do, they could sue the Irish government for any loss of profit in ICS Tribunals, bypassing our national courts. This could create a regulatory chill - the government could be too afraid to legislate in certain areas due to the fear of being sued. Even though the Paris Agreement is mentioned in CETA, there is no guarantee that if the government was to bring in stronger legislation in line with the Paris Agreement, that it would be exempt from lawsuits from Canadian companies. CETA is also being pushed through in a very undemocratic way. The government tried to have it voted on before Christmas but there was a big push to get it delayed, so the Dáil vote on it should be quite soon. So, we are against the introduction of the investment courts system and at the very least, we need the vote pushed back so there can be proper public debate on it.

Finally, what impact do you think climate cases can have? Are they just one aspect of the wider climate movement?

They are in some sense. I think they can be very effective and it is very heartening to see them growing across the world. But they are just one tool in the activist toolkit. It’s still important to get in touch with your local politicians and to get out and protest. It’s important to let those in power know that everyone cares about these issues and that it is not just a few environmental organisations that care. It will still be a couple of years before we know the full impact of the climate cases, but we think we’ve achieved a very positive result and we are going to continue to hold the government accountable until they bring out properly ambitious and robust legislation.

“We’re hoping that the Irish case can be an inspiration to others and I think it already has - it made headlines across the world. But we are also hoping that in the same way that we referenced Urgenda in our legal arguments, others can reference the Irish case in theirs.”