Midwest Nurses Say Their Hospitals Are On The Verge Of Collapsing — And Leaders Aren’t Listening

For Tammy Tate, a nurse at a Missouri hospital, this wave is like watching a train about to crash, knowing that it could be stopped in time — if people would listen.

Brianna Sacks BuzzFeed News Reporter
Posted on November 20, 2020

Courtesy of Steve Edwards
Doctors and nurses work in the COVID-19 unit at a Cox Health location in Missouri.

Cheryl Rodarmel, the chief nurse at the Research Medical Center in Kansas City, Missouri, said she is not sure how much longer she can go on like this.

The 61-year-old has loved her job for all 42 years she has been a nurse. But now, she said, the relentless influx of COVID-19 patients who have deluged her wards has her worried that her hospital system will collapse, and most of the staff along with it due to burnout and contracting the virus themselves. Meanwhile, outside the hospital, too many of her fellow residents refuse to wear a mask or otherwise protect themselves and their communities from the virus, driving infection rates ever higher.



Courtesy of Cheryl Rodarmel
Cheryl Rodarmel


“Those in positions of power are still allowing this virus to run unchecked,” she said. “If we continue like this, we won't have the nurses, beds, or ability to care for everyone.”

Across Kansas and Missouri, as intensive care units fill to capacity and beyond with patients struggling to breathe, an increasingly alarmed chorus of medical professionals are echoing Rodarmel’s worries. This week, Kansas posted a seven-day record for new coronavirus cases. In nearly two days, 5,853 people tested positive and 60 others died. In the first two weeks of November, Missouri recorded more COVID cases — nearly 60,000 — than it did during any other month since the pandemic began. The state’s current positivity rate is a whopping 27%.

“We have doctors with patients in dire circumstances with nowhere to put them except in hallways, and then they leave their hospital and go into the grocery store and people aren’t wearing masks and they’re gathering in large groups,” said Brock Slabach, a spokesperson for the National Rural Health Association in Kansas, told BuzzFeed News. “It’s a collision of two different worlds.” Tammy Tate, a nurse at a Missouri hospital, compared it to watching a train about to crash, knowing that it could be stopped in time — if people would listen.

The coronavirus is now surging through rural areas that were mostly spared when the outbreak first hit New York, California, and other densely populated areas this spring. At the same time, residents, especially in smaller communities, are refusing to wear masks and reacting with fierce anger at anyone — from their doctor to their governor — who suggests that they should.

On Wednesday, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, issued her second attempt at a mask order. The first, enacted in July, failed after most of the state’s counties balked and opted out. Republicans attacked her for trying to institute a one-size-fits-all approach. This time, she’s giving counties one week to come up with their own mask regulations; otherwise, they will have to follow the state’s order.

In neighboring Missouri, Gov. Mike Parson, who tested positive for the coronavirus in September, has repeatedly refused to enact a statewide mandate despite a recommendation from the White House’s coronavirus task force in August and ongoing pleas from the state’s medical leaders. Parson on Thursday continued to insist that a mask mandate was not necessary, even as he made a dire announcement that he is extending Missouri's emergency order through next March, saying the state remains “central to the extreme COVID-19 outbreak our country is currently experiencing.”

“Missouri is at a turning point, and if we are going to change the outcome, we must change our behavior,” he said. But he added he would not issue any orders preventing residents from gathering during the holidays, instead letting cities and counties make their own health and safety rules and telling people to take “personal responsibility.”



Steve Edwards@SDECoxHealth
140 Covid positive inpatients, 116 at Cox South, 17 Cox Branson, 4 Cox Monett, 3 Cox Barton County. 28 critical. Below is an image of the before and after COVID unit, note 6+ staff caring for one patient. Our region owes these doctors, nurses, RTs so much.02:29 PM - 17 Nov 2020
Reply Retweet Favorite

Top health officials in his state have been begging him to take a different course. In a tweet, Steve Edwards, the CEO of CoxHealth, a large hospital system based in Missouri, wrote that while he respects the governor, “we are now under uniform threat and, like war, it requires a coordinated response.” In a Nov. 13 letter to Parson, Missouri Hospital Association President Herb Kuhn warned that “the wolf is at the door” and implored him to require all residents to wear a mask; just making comments “is not enough,” Kuhn wrote. A nurse even started her own Change.org petition, arguing that a mask mandate would help save hospitals. It has garnered nearly 6,000 signatures in a few days.

The onslaught of COVID patients has reverberated through hospitals, forcing emergency rooms to give up beds and pulling resources from pediatric units to accommodate the wave of severely ill patients. Nurses and doctors told BuzzFeed News that ventilators are again becoming scarce. At times, patients — some with serious or life-threatening conditions other than COVID — are waiting 36 hours for a bed or just flat out can’t get one. And it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find beds for them at other facilities. If the situation continues to deteriorate, many healthcare workers said, they might have to ration who gets treatment.

“Hospitals in Kansas are calling as far away as Omaha, Denver, [and] Oklahoma City to transfer them and finding they are full, too,” Slabach of the National Rural Health Association said. “It's a scramble.”


Courtesy of Cheryl Rodarmel
Nurses protest outside the Menorah Medical Center in Overland Park, Kansas.

Meanwhile, nurses say they are being “stretched as thin as possible,” as Rodarmel put it. This week, nurses at her hospital and at the Menorah Medical Center in Overland Park, Kansas, 20 minutes away, staged protests over what they say is inadequate staffing and a lack of personal protective equipment. According to the National Nurses United, Menorah and Research Medical cut their staffing budgets during the height of the pandemic, forcing nurses to take on more and more patients. Nurses at the Research Medical Center have picked up 800 additional shifts to help fill in staffing holes, while nearly 250 others have left due to burnout or unsafe working conditions, according to Rodarmel.

Her scratchy, exhausted voice breaking, Rodarmel said that after nearly 30 years working at her hospital, she’s struggled to “pull up the enthusiasm and joy that once earmarked [her] nursing career,” put on her uniform, and walk in those doors because she doesn’t know what she will be asked to do and whether she will be safe. A nurse at her hospital, after caring for a patient without proper protective gear, died in April from COVID-19, Rodarmel said.

“That should never have happened,” the chief nurse said.

Along with Rodarmel, other healthcare workers told BuzzFeed News that they are also back to reusing masks, stretching out one single-use covering for 24 hours or even days before they are able to get a new one.


It’s like going back into a war you’ve already fought — and it’s worse the second time, Tate, a nurse at another Missouri hospital, told BuzzFeed News. Eight months since the pandemic was declared, officials at her hospital are still rationing personal protective equipment, she said. Gloves are locked up and the inventory monitored. She said she gets one surgical mask for a 12- to 14-hour shift — and after she uses it three times, it’s sent off to be cleaned and then returned to be reused. At the end of each shift, she bleaches her protective face shield so she can wear it again the next day. It’s unconscionable, she said, to imagine continuing on at this rate.

“It’s never-ending,” she said. “Our task force, which is all our hospitals working together, stated that if we continue on this pace of 100-plus COVID admissions per day, our health systems will collapse by the first week in December.”

And given how devastating community gatherings linked to Halloween have been in terms of transmission, healthcare professionals said they’re bracing for the weeks after Thanksgiving.

In Missouri’s Newton County, which does not require residents to wear a mask, officials announced Tuesday that they will be using money from the federal CARES Act to pay for a mobile morgue because “area facilities are full.” The purchase was partly in response to an urgent letter from a coalition of health officials, who warned leaders in Newton County, surrounding cities like Jasper, and elsewhere in southwest Missouri that medical centers are about to hit a breaking point. Health officials, too, begged for more masks.

“More ventilators are being used in our hospitals than ever before. … Wait times in the ER are getting longer and the availability of hospital beds in our community and others are diminishing,” they wrote. “We are in a public health crisis.”


In response, several cities said they were counting on residents to do their part to keep the community safe, KOAM News Now, a local outlet, reported. On Thursday night, Larry Bergner, administrator of the Newton County Health Department, told BuzzFeed News he won’t be issuing a mask order. He still doesn’t think it’s necessary. ●



Brianna Sacks is a reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in Los Angeles.

Immigrant Children Who Were Denied The Chance To Request Asylum Under An Illegal Rule Are Facing Deportation

"I don't want to spend another Christmas in this detention center."

Adolfo FloresBuzzFeed News Reporter
Posted on November 20, 2020

Eric Gay / AP
Immigrants seeking asylum walk at the ICE South Texas Family Residential Center, in Dilley, Texas.


Twenty-eight children who have been detained in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility for more than a year could be deported after being denied the opportunity to seek asylum by Trump administration policies that federal courts have since blocked.

All of the children and their families were subjected to the Trump administration's asylum transit ban, which required immigrants to first seek protection in another country they traveled through before asking for refuge in the US.


In June, US District Judge Timothy Kelly struck down the transit ban and said the administration had “unlawfully” put the rule into effect. The rule was vacated nationwide and is no longer in effect. Then in July, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also blocked the rule.

The rule, however, had already been applied to thousands of asylum-seekers, including the group of 28 children. So while federal courts have struck down the transit ban, judges have said they don't have the legal authority to intervene in their deportations, said Bridget Cambria, executive director of Aldea — the People’s Justice Center, which offers free legal services to immigrant families detained by ICE in Pennsylvania.

"Although the policies can be deemed illegal, the effect it has on people is not," Cambria said.

Under the transit ban policy, those who crossed through a third country, such as Mexico or Guatemala, before arriving at the southern border were denied asylum during their credible fear interviews, an initial step in the asylum process. After being denied the chance to be screened for asylum, these children and their families were subjected to expedited removal, which allows the government to deport undocumented immigrants without a hearing in front of an immigration judge.


Federal courts have said they don't have the authority to weigh in on expedited removals. As a result, judges can't stop the deportation of the 28 children, even though they've found that the policies leading to their deportations are illegal.

"All 28 of these children were banned from asylum immediately upon entering the United States because they crossed through a third country. That rule has been deemed illegal," Cambria said on a call with reporters. "And despite it being deemed illegal, the children have no recourse."

In a statement, ICE said the children and their families have all been part of a number of lawsuits against the government, as well as appeals, and continue to file new lawsuits, all of which have delayed their deportation.

"The families have been afforded extensive legal processes and have been determined to have no legal basis to remain in the United States," ICE said.

The 28 children are part of 26 families detained at two of ICE's family detention centers, the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, and Berks County Residential Center in Leesport, Pennsylvania. All of the families were granted a stay of removal by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals through Saturday.

"After that time, they will require further court order. But that's not guaranteed," Cambria said.


Charles Reed / AP

Some of the detained children spoke on a call with reporters this week and asked to be identified by pseudonyms, fearing reprisal from the government.

Alex, an 8-year-old who has been detained in Texas for more than 455 days, said it has been difficult to watch other immigrants who are no longer subject to Trump's policies leave detention while he and his family remain there.

"It is really awful, to be honest. I don't want to be here. I feel like I can't bear it anymore," Alex told reporters. "I don't want to spend another Christmas in this detention center."

The asylum transit ban wasn't the only policy the families were subjected to that was later vacated or deemed illegal by federal courts.

Ana, a 15-year-old who has been detained at the facility in Dilley for more than 437 days, had her family's credible fear interview conducted by Customs and Border Protection agents as opposed to an asylum officer. An analysis from the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan immigration think tank, from May 2019 to May 2020 found that CBP agents approved just 37% of credible fear interviews, compared to 64% among asylum officers.

"The officer said that we had no right to asylum," Ana told reporters.

The interview was also conducted within 48 hours of arriving at a detention center, the result of a US Citizenship and Immigration Services directive that credible fear interviews be conducted as quickly as possible after 24 hours of arrival to the facility. Many families were interviewed in that stretch, between 24 and 48 hours after arrival, said Shalyn Fluharty, an attorney with Proyecto Dilley, which represents some of the children. Advocates and attorneys said the directive was illegal because it denied immigrants access to counsel.


A federal judge in Washington, DC, blocked CBP officers from conducting the credible fear interviews, calling it illegal because agents do not receive the same level of training as asylum officers working for USCIS. The directive to rush immigrants through the interviews was vacated in March after a federal court concluded that Ken Cuccinelli, who issued the directive, had not been lawfully appointed to his role as acting director at USCIS at the time.

"I think that the interviews have been unfair because we had no time to talk to the lawyers," Ana said. "We had to go forward with our interview within 48 hours of arriving at the detention center, not knowing what the interview was or what we were about to face. We were sleep-deprived, tired, and still in the process of receiving medical care."

Attorneys for the children and their families said ICE can use its discretion to issue these families a Notice to Appear, a charging document issued by the Department of Homeland Security, and rescind their expedited deportations. An asylum officer at USCIS could also grant each familiy's request for reconsideration for refuge and, if the immigrants receive a positive credible fear determination, issue a notice to appear in immigration court.

Cambria said Congress should also change the provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act that limits judicial review of expedited deportations.

"We are a nation of laws. We expect these children to follow the laws, and we expect the government to follow their own laws. They didn't do it with respect to these kids," Cambria said. "These kids, they have every right to request asylum under the law."

Judge says Trump admin can't use COVID-19 to send back migrant children


A young child looks through the border fence into the United States at Playas de Tijuana in Tijuana, Mexico, on November 28, 2018. File Photo by Ariana Drehsler/UPI | License Photo

Nov. 19 (UPI) -- A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to stop its policy of immediately deporting migrant children who cross the U.S.-Mexico border without a parent, over fears they could spread COVID-19.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday against the Homeland Security Department practice of using emergency health measures to send single children back across the border without first considering their humanitarian appeals.

Under the policy, the department cites the Public Health Service Act to impose stricter border controls, which allows them to send back thousands of unaccompanied children -- defying court-mandated protections.

The government said it has expelled more than 200,000 undocumented migrants since the policy began in March.

The department has argued that the expulsions are needed to protect border agents and the American public, arguing that holding unaccompanied children would spawn new COVID-19 outbreaks.

In his order, Sullivan ruled that the department must immediately halt those expulsions and denied a request that the order be delayed while the matter is litigated.

"The court agrees that the undisputed authority granted in [federal law] is extraordinary and that the COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented," Sullivan wrote. "But that is entirely distinguishable from whether or not [the law] authorizes the government to expel persons."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which sought the injunction on behalf of a migrant child, called the injunction a "critical step" in stopping the administration's "unprecedented and illegal attempt to expel children under the thin guise of public health."

"The administration's order has already allowed for the rapid expulsion of more than 13,000 children in need of protection, who were legally entitled to apply for asylum," ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, the lead attorney in the case, said.

Climate change thinning glaciers, increasing oxygen levels at Mount Everest


Researchers collected ice cores from elevations as high as 26,400 feet above sea level during the National Geographic and Rolex Perpetual Planet Everest Expedition in the spring of 2019. Photo by Dirk Collins/National Geographic

Nov. 20 (UPI) -- Mount Everest's glaciers are thinning, its peaks are accumulating microplastics and the air surrounding the mountain hosts more oxygen than it used to have.

Those are just a few of the findings from a suite of new studies -- each detailing various effects of climate change and human activity on Mount Everest -- published Friday in the journal One Earth.

Over the last few decades, human traffic on Mount Everest has steadily increased.

More and more people are visiting the mountain's basecamp each year, and more and more climbers are attempting to summit Earth's tallest mountain. As a result, pollution is accumulating.

RELATED More climbers successfully summit Mount Everest, death rate stays the same

According to the latest research, most of the trash is concentrated at basecamp, but scientists found microplastic pollution as high as 27,690 feet above sea level, not far from Mount Everest's peak.

Microplastic pollution in Earth's oceans has garnered a lot of scientific interest, but only a few studies have focused on microplastic pollution on land. The latest is the first to investigate microplastic pollution on Mount Everest.

During a few separate expeditions, researchers collected dozens of snow and ice samples to be analyzed in the lab.

RELATED Nepal closes access to Mount Everest due to coronavirus outbreak

"I didn't know what to expect in terms of results, but it really surprised me to find microplastics in every single snow sample I analyzed," first author Imogen Napper said in a news release.

"Mount Everest is somewhere I have always considered remote and pristine. To know we are polluting near the top of the tallest mountain is a real eye-opener," said Napper, a National Geographic Explorer and scientist based at the University of Plymouth in Britain.

Cleaning up microplastics is extremely difficult, but researchers suggest more can be done to ensure visitors to Mount Everest don't make the problem worse.

RELATED Nepal bans single-use plastics at Mount Everest starting next year

"The samples showed significant quantities of polyester, acrylic, nylon, and polypropylene fibers," Napper said. "Those materials are increasingly being used to make the high-performance outdoor clothing climbers use as well as tents and climbing ropes, so we highly suspect that these types of items are the major source of pollution rather than things like food and drink containers."

In a separate study, researchers used historic and modern satellite images to produce a timeline of glacier mass-change measurements. The data showed glaciers in the valleys surrounding Mount Everest have thinned by an average of 328 feet since the 1960s.

"The rate of ice loss in the region has consistently increased over the last six decades, and ice loss is now occurring at extreme altitudes," researchers wrote.

Rising temperatures have also led to increasing oxygen levels on Mount Everest, making it easier than ever before for climbers to summit the mountain without the help of supplemental oxygen.

Because air pressure decreases as elevation increases, oxygen becomes less concentrated as one gets farther from sea level. However, the rate at which air pressure decreases depends on temperature.

As global temperatures have climbed as a result of climate change, air pressure has increased on Mount Everest, yielding greater oxygen availability.

Much of the research detailed in the new collection of scientific papers was conducted during the 2019 National Geographic and Rolex Perpetual Planet Everest Expedition.

Gallup: Support in U.S. for death penalty at lowest point in decades

Support is most common among non-Hispanic Whites (61%), while fewer than half (46%) of non-Whites favor the practice, Thursday's survey shows. File Photo by Doug Smith/Florida Department of Corrections/Wikimedia Commons

Nov. 19 (UPI) -- Support in the United States for capital punishment keeps declining and more Americans now oppose the death penalty than at any point in more than a half-century, according to a Gallup survey Thursday.

The survey shows that a majority of Americans still favor executions for criminals convicted of murder, but the share (55%) is at its lowest point since 1972, when 50% said they supported the practice.

The share of Americans (43%) who said they oppose the death penalty, however, is lower now than at any point since the late 1960s, according to the poll.

Support for capital punishment reached its peak (80%) in 1994. It dipped to 66% by 2000, but climbed to 70% in the following years and again tumbled below 60% in 2017.

RELATED U.S. set to carry out 8th federal execution of 2020 on Thursday

"As public opinion has trended away from favoring the death penalty, state laws have also changed," Gallup wrote. "Twenty-two states do not allow the death penalty by law, with nearly half of those having enacted their current laws in the past two decades.

"Three additional states -- California, Oregon and Pennsylvania -- have laws permitting the death penalty, but their governors have issued moratoriums on its use."

Politically, Republicans comprise the greatest share (80%) of supporters over the last four years. Support is far lower among Democrats (39%) and independents (54%).

RELATED Appeals court declines to stop 2 executions, has concerns about protocol

Support is most common among non-Hispanic Whites (61%), while fewer than half (46%) of non-Whites favor the practice, the survey shows.

Age is also a major factor on the issue. Americans born before 1946 (62%) and baby boomers (59%), those born between 1946 and 1964, have supported capital punishment the most since 2017. Thursday's poll found varying support among those in Generation X (57%), those born 1965-1979, Millennials (51%) born 1980-1996 and Gen Z'ers (45%) born 1997-2002.

The Gallup survey was published on the same day the federal government is set to carry out its eighth execution of 2020. Federal executions resumed in July for the first time in 17 years.

Gallup polled more than 1,000 U.S. adults living in every state and Washington, D.C., for the survey, which has a margin of error of 4 points.

THIRD WORLD USA

Report: U.S. leads wealthy nations in pregnancy-related deaths


American women are far more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than women in other wealthy countries -- and a national shortage of maternity care providers bodes ill for the future.

Those are some of the findings from a new report on maternal mortality by the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, which compared the United States with 10 other high-income nations.


It found what the researchers called "unacceptable" numbers.

In 2018, the U.S. maternal mortality rate stood at 17 for every 100,000 births -- more than double the rate of most other countries. Those figures capture deaths during pregnancy and within 42 days of the end of pregnancy.

RELATED Pregnancy-related deaths still higher with some minorities


But many women die later in the so-called "fourth trimester," or the year after giving birth.

And of all pregnancy-related deaths in the United States, 52% happened after childbirth, the report found. When women died within a week of childbirth, it was often related to severe bleeding, infections or high blood pressure. Later in the postpartum period, the leading cause of death was cardiomyopathy, a weakening of the heart muscle.

"Even though the U.S. spends more on health care than anywhere else in the world, it has higher rates of these preventable deaths," said report co-author Roosa Tikkanen, a senior research associate at the Commonwealth Fund.

RELATED Extreme heat increases risk for preterm delivery, stillbirth, study finds

The United States has long held that dubious distinction. And maternal mortality is yet another area where racial disparities are stark: Black women have more than double the death rate of white women in the United States.


The new report adds a layer, Tikkanen said -- looking at differences in countries' health care systems that may illuminate why the United States fares so poorly.

One key difference is the supply of maternal care providers, including obstetricians/gynecologists and midwives.

RELATED Adverse pregnancy outcomes raise heart disease risk by 25% in older women


Nearly all other wealthy nations, except for Canada, have far more providers relative to population. In the United States, there are 15 providers for every 1,000 births, while Sweden has 78 per 1,000, according to the report.

In many European countries, as well as Australia and New Zealand, midwives make up the bulk of the maternal care workforce.

It's not clear whether midwives are a driving reason for lower maternal mortality in those countries, according to Tikkanen. But in most countries, she said, maternal care is well-integrated into primary care, with midwives being a crucial part of that. So women in other wealthy countries typically have greater continuity of care before, during and after pregnancy.

Dr. Rahul Gupta is chief medical officer for the nonprofit March of Dimes, which has long made reducing maternal mortality a priority.

He said the new report highlights why the United States is an "outlier" among wealthy nations.

"In countries that are doing well," Gupta said, "there is a system of life-course care centered on the individual. Here, we're centered around the health care system."

When, for example, a woman dies of cardiomyopathy after giving birth, he said, that may involve gaps in health care not only after childbirth, but during and before pregnancy.

Gupta noted that midwives are important providers whose ranks are low in the United States: According to the report, there are just four midwives for every 1,000 births in the United States, versus, for instance, 43 per 1,000 in the United Kingdom and 68 per 1,000 in Australia.

But numbers are not the whole story, Gupta added. "We also need culturally competent midwife care -- providers who understand the lived experiences of the people they're serving," he said.

It's not only midwife care that separates the United States from other rich nations. The report underscores several differences:

Along with universal health care in other countries, pregnant women and new moms are often exempt from out-of-pocket costs.

Women in those countries are guaranteed home visits from a nurse or midwife soon after delivering. In the United States, that's covered sporadically, by some health plans and some state Medicaid programs.

The United States remains the only country that does not mandate paid maternity leave.

According to the Commonwealth researchers, the Affordable Care Act has made a difference. It expanded Medicaid in many states, and required the program to cover midwife care, for instance.

But broader change is needed, they added.

Gupta agreed. "The issue isn't that we don't know what works," he said. "We do know what works, based on other countries. So what now? I think we need a coming together of minds across the country. We have to agree that what we have isn't working."More information

For more on preventing pregnancy-related deaths, visit the March of Dimes.

Biden promises to fight for transgender rights on day of remembrance

NOV. 20, 2020 

At least 37 transgender and gender-non-conforming people have died this year. 

File Photo by Bill Greenblatt/UPI | License Photo

Nov. 20 (UPI) -- President-elect Joe Biden promised to end violence and discrimination against transgender and gender-non-confirming people in a statement recognizing Transgender Day of Remembrance on Friday.

"On Transgender Day of Remembrance, we honor their lives -- and recommit to the work that remains to ensure that every transgender and gender-non-conforming person in America has the opportunity to live authentically, earn a living wage, and be treated with dignity and respect in their communities and workplaces," a statement by Biden said.

"As part of our remembrance, we must work to end the epidemic of violence and discrimination against transgender and gender-nonconforming Americans and never repeat it."

This year marks the 21st annual TDoR, founded by transgender activist Gwendolyn Smith to recognize the death of Rita Hester. It honors the memory of those killed in anti-transgender violence.

At least 37 transgender and gender-non-conforming people have died by violence this year, most of whom were Black or Latinx, according to the Human Rights Campaign. The organization said it's the highest annual number at this point in the year since it began tracking the deaths in 2013.

"These victims were killed by acquaintances, partners or strangers, some of whom have been arrested and charged, while others have yet to be identified," the HRC said. "Some of these cases involve clear anti-transgender bias. In others, the victim's transgender status may have put them at risk in other ways, such as forcing them into unemployment, poverty, homelessness and/or survival sex work."

Biden said that starting on Inauguration Day, he plans to fight for transgender rights. In an October town hall he promised to reverse President Donald Trump's executive order banning transgender people from serving in the military.

"Transgender rights are human rights," Biden said Friday.

Appeals court overturns local Florida bans on conversion therapy

Demonstrators protest for LGBTQ rights outside the Supreme Court on October 8, 2019. On Friday, a federal appeals court blocked local Florida bans on conversion therapy. File Photo by Kevin Dietsch/UPI | License Photo

Nov. 20 (UPI) -- A federal appeals court on Friday ruled against local conversion therapy bans in Florida, saying they violated First Amendment protections.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court's decision not to place preliminary injunctions against the ordinances in Palm Beach County and the city of Boca Raton, which is in Broward County.

The panel said that if laws ban therapists from attempting to change LGBTQ youths' sexual orientation or gender identity, then jurisdictions could also ban therapists from providing support for the same clients.

"If the speech restrictions in these ordinances can stand, then so can their inverse," said the majority opinion written by Judge Barbara Lagoa.

"Local communities could prevent therapists from validating a client's same-sex attractions if the city council deemed that message harmful. And the same goes for gender transition -- counseling support a client's gender identification could be banned."

The Palm Beach County and Boca Raton ordinances were challenged by therapists Robert Otto and Julie Hamilton, who said they were unconstitutional. They were represented by the Liberty Counsel, a religious liberty organization that provides legal services.

"This is a huge victory for counselors and their clients to choose the counsel of their choice free of political censorship from government ideologues," said Liberty Counsel founder and Chairman Mat Staver. "This case is the beginning of the end of similar unconstitutional counseling bans around the country."

Critics of conversion therapy describe it as dangerous and it has been widely discredited by doctors and mental health experts.

Twenty states and Washington, D.C., have fully banned conversion therapy, and one state and one territory have partially banned the practice, according to Family Equality, an LGBTQ advocacy organization.

A report last year in the New England Journal of Medicine said conversion therapy can trigger depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal thoughts and attempts.

Lambda Legal, which provides legal support in LGBTQ cases, condemned the appeals court ruling, calling the practice "nothing less than child abuse"

"Youth are often subjected to these practices at the insistence of parents who don't know or don't believe that the efforts are harmful and doomed to fail: When these efforts predictably fail to produce the expected result, many LGBTQ children are kicked out of their homes," said Lambda Legal CEO Kevin Jennings.

"Both judges joining today's decision were appointed by President [Donald] Trump. We fear that today's decision may be the tip of the iceberg in terms of the harm that may come from a federal judiciary that has been packed for the last four years with dangerous ideologues. The damage done by this misguided opinion is incalculable and puts young people in danger."

New Momentum for Climate Politics in Croatia
Lea Šmigmator
Luka Gudek
Marija Mileta
Vanessa Lošić

JUNE 2020

GREEN EUROPEAN JOURNAL



In Europe, as across the world, youth mobilisations have shaken up the political landscape. Climate strikes, Extinction Rebellions, and youth-led organisations have put climate change at the forefront of discussions, as well as helping secure significant gains for Greens in many parts of Europe. But many countries in eastern and southern Europe saw smaller and fewer mobilisations, unable to unmoor political debates from traditional issues. Vanessa Lošić and Luka Gudek speak to activists and ask where climate politics in Croatia is headed.

Croatia is one of these countries. The newest EU Member State, its population is on average older than the rest of the region, and it has low voter turnout, especially among young people. While it did see relatively significant youth mobilisation through the Fridays For Future movement, environmental issues did not move that far up the political agenda. So it was unsurprising when the country lost its only Green MEP, Davor Škrlec, in the 2019 European elections. Škrlec was from the Green List party, which later became ORaH, one of the country’s many small Green parties.
Climate politics in Croatia

The country has long struggled with a range of environmental issues. A March 2019 report by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Energy showed energy production is currently the largest CO2 emitter in the country, followed by traffic, industry, agriculture, and waste. Public demonstrations and local groups have pushed back against projects such as the liquid natural gas terminal on Krk Island and air pollution in the city of Slavonski Brod from a coal plant across the border in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Though mobilisation against harmful energy projects has been only partially successful, it has demonstrated that the citizens of Croatia care about their environment. Indeed, it is at the local level that environmental activism is most visible, where it appears to originate from so-called “ordinary” people. The country’s numerous environmental groups remain largely focused on holding the Government – currently led by the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) – to account for individual local projects, rather than looking at bigger-picture problems such as climate change.


Though mobilisation against harmful energy projects has been only partially successful, it has demonstrated that the citizens of Croatia care about their environment.

The only organisation focusing on climate change is the youth movement Fridays For Future Croatia (FFF). They have managed to capture the public interest and elicit a response from the Government. FFF has mobilised hundreds of teens and young adults nationwide, but their success has been concentrated in larger cities rather than towns and rural areas. Part of the reason lies in the somewhat classist nature of green political movements. Climate activism requires a certain awareness as well as basic scientific literacy, and while this is more accessible to the educated middle classes in large cities such as Zagreb, a large part of the population has little access to this type of education and information.

Nevertheless, with FFF there is a real sense of a new political player coming onto the scene – with new methods of self-organising, with a new model of political engagement, and strengthened by its links to a global movement. Their zeal has allowed them to gain some recognition from existing environmental organisations, as well as parts of the public. To explore the potential of Croatia’s youth movements and their capacity to bring political ecology into the mainstream, we speak with two young activists, Lea Šmigmator from Fridays For Future Croatia and Marija Mileta from Zelena akcija, an environmental organisation with decades of experience.

What are the aims of your organisation and the main issues you work on?

Marija Mileta: The core aims of Zelena akcija (ZA) are environmental protection and sustainable development. The main issues we deal with are energy and climate change, waste management, the protection of natural resources and the commons, transport, and environmental law, but also topics such as public space governance. We encourage the public to assert their constitutional right to a healthy environment and nature, and campaign for citizens to play an active role in environmental policymaking.


The main goal of FFF is political change. Our aim here in Croatia – which may be different to other countries – is to educate the public, especially young people, on the impacts of climate change.

Lea Šmigmator: The main goal of FFF is political change. Our aim here in Croatia – which may be different to other countries – is to educate the public, especially young people, on the impacts of climate change. We want to politically engage young people and say loud and clear that we want to participate in solutions, not remain passive. FFF has been active since March 2019 and cooperates with most of the organisations acting on green issues, animal rights, and equality in Croatia. We consist mostly of high school and university students.

Are you a political organisation?

Marija Mileta: ZA is not a political organisation in the sense of party affiliation. We are a non-governmental, non-party, non-profit, and voluntary citizens’ association. However, the work we do is definitely political.

Lea Šmigmator: Absolutely not. We want to participate in decision-making on existential matters – such as climate change – but we are not a political organisation. FFF groups in different cities are autonomous, but have some basic rules: protests must be non-violent, non-profit, non-religious, and apolitical. For me, being apolitical means not affiliating with parties, but just acting for the public wellbeing. It means not taking sides. We will never be a part of any party – Left, Right, or centre.

What type of activities do you conduct?

Marija Mileta: ZA achieves its goals through direct non-violent action, campaigns, education, joint action by volunteers and staff, and cooperation with other organisations on public engagement. In the last 30 years, we have conducted around 30 campaigns locally and nationally. These have included the “BLJAK” campaign against genetically modified food products, “Ne damo Varšavsku” against the devastation of the centre of Zagreb and corruption in city governance, “SOS za Jadran” against surveying the sea bed for oil and gas, and campaigns for bike lanes in Zagreb.


The biggest problem in Croatia is education, so besides protests, we organise lectures. We try to make these as accessible as possible and use quizzes, workshops, and banner-making activities to make them interactive.

Lea Šmigmator: We have organised five protests, four of which were part of the global strikes for climate. In April and September 2019, we presented our list of demands to the Government, the Prime Minister’s office, and Parliament. The biggest problem in Croatia is education, so besides protests, we organise lectures. We try to make these as accessible as possible and use quizzes, workshops, and banner-making activities to make them interactive.

Do you receive any institutional support?

Marija Mileta: If we’re talking about the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Energy, the answer is no – not since 2013. However, state support has come through the National Foundation for Civil Society Development and the Office for Cooperation with NGOs, for example. We have cooperated positively with cities such as Samobor and institutions such as the Information Commissioner.

Lea Šmigmator: We did not receive much support in the beginning; our relationships with other organisations developed later. Now we cooperate with a large network of people, such as schools and university professors, though many tell us their hands are tied when it comes to giving us space for our activities. ZA and Greenpeace, followed by TERRA HUB and WWF Adria, have provided the most support and we have been promoted publicly by many green organisations and media outlets.

Who are your main allies?

Marija Mileta: Our main allies are other progressive NGOs – not only environmental ones – and citizens’ initiatives. For example, ZA is part of the national network of environmental associations Zeleni forum as well as SEENET, the South East Europe Network for Energy and Transport. Furthermore, ZA is a member of Friends of the Earth, the world’s biggest network of environmental organisations.

Over the years, we have taken part in other campaigns, such as supporting the campaign against the 2013 referendum on redefining marriage as between a man and a woman. This kind of intersectional action and mutual support is key to our work.

Sadly, political parties are little help as they rarely even mention environmental concerns. It is more often the case that parties in power actively harm the climate and the environment. In one recent TV debate between presidential candidates, not one question touched upon the climate crisis or environmental protection.

Lea Šmigmator: Besides the organisations mentioned above, we are supported by several unions. They invited their members to attend our protests, as one of our demands focused on the rights of workers in the transition to a green economy and the creation of a fund to retrain workers for new sectors.

Are your aims achievable in the current political context?

Marija Mileta: There has probably been no ideal period in independent Croatia to work on environmental protection. Ten years ago, awareness of climate change was non-existent. Today, things are better. What is worrying is that the political and economic situation has destabilised, opening up a space for new right-wing and populist movements. These are trying to reassert traditional values and threaten basic human rights, as well as silence the critical voices of civil society and the non-profit media.


Ten years ago, awareness of climate change was non-existent. Today, things are better. What is worrying is that the political and economic situation has destabilised, opening up a space for new right-wing and populist movements.


Many NGOs working on human rights – especially refugee rights – have found their work increasingly difficult and there have been attempts to criminalise them. This is a hugely dangerous trend – we can see where it has led countries such as Hungary. Attacks against ZA have not been as harsh, but they still happen. In 2017, a company called Razvoj golfa sued us for 160 000 HRK (about 21 000 euros) and called for us to be banned from public space after our campaign to stop them building a golf course. The legal case has not yet been concluded.
The biggest obstacle is the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Energy and the current Government itself. Not only is the ministry closed off to any dialogue, but Minister Ćorić actively promotes fossil fuel projects, new oil and gas field surveys, and harmful waste management projects.

Lea Šmigmator: All our goals are achievable, but some more easily than others. Some can be taken individually, and some are part of a wider shift from a carbon-based to a low-carbon economy. The shift to a circular and sustainable economy will be difficult as it will require the transition and retraining of workers and wider systemic change. I believe that such a transition is possible. We do not need to invent new solutions and already have countless positive examples. If we cannot effect change in Croatia directly, perhaps we can affect the EU level which can, in turn, have an impact here.

How would you rate the success of youth climate organisations in Croatia?

Marija Mileta: Fridays For Future is a new movement and will continue to grow – and we will continue to support them. This movement has been successful in that a group of young people, mostly girls, self-organised because of environmental concerns. They recognised climate change as an existential matter and mobilised a section of society in a way that existing organisations had not yet managed. They pushed this issue into the media and encouraged the scientific community to enter the public debate. There have been successes but it would be great to see a more united environmental movement in Croatia. Unfortunately, we still cannot say there have been political results. The Government pays no mind to the urgency of the situation.

Lea Šmigmator: Protests are our main activity, and we try to make them accessible to everyone. In the Croatian context, I see them as very successful. There was a media and government response and they had a real-life impact. We received an (unsatisfactory) answer to our demands from the Government and were invited for a discussion, at which we spoke with representatives responsible for the Croatian strategy for our presidency of the Council of the EU. The strategy was not that impressive, but I am glad they invited and recognised us.

What are the main challenges in mobilising youth in Croatia?

Marija Mileta: The first climate strike in Zagreb in March 2019 was attended by over a thousand people. After this, the number of participants kept falling. It is difficult to identify just one reason for the failure of large mobilisations in Croatia compared to some other countries.

Even though Croatia is in the grip of a political and economic crisis, people are not speaking up in the streets. The sights we have seen in France, Spain, or Chile, with millions of people protesting against neoliberal policies, are hard to imagine here. There are several exceptions and FFF Croatia is one of them. They emphasise education: young people do not learn anything about climate change or environmental protection – not to mention critical thinking – at school.

Lea Šmigmator: It used to be university students who we were this critical mass, coming out to protest on the streets. Now it is 15-year-olds. A major problem is that our education system is outdated, and much is left to the initiative of individual teachers. Students are taught that protests are like a battle against the government but, as citizens, we have the right to ask for the government to do what we think is right.
Where next for the movement


Both new movements and older organisations in Croatia have a clear sense of their political context. The climate movement in eastern Europe faces a vastly different political scene to that of western Europe, starting from a position of little debate on the climate and increasingly authoritarian governments which have even criminalised human rights organisations in some cases. While there is currently no fear of the criminalisation of environmental organisations, there are efforts to limit their work through lawsuits, the withholding of structural funds, and public delegitimisation.

Both Zelena akcija and FFF Croatia enjoy significant support from the international networks they belong to, with the EU also seen as a significant partner in dealing with oft closed national institutions. These organisations are keenly aware that they need to act politically, either by direct action or by providing youth with a platform to become engaged. However, both movements are quick to distance themselves from any political affiliation. There is a belief that aligning an organisation with a political party delegitimises it, revealing a deep distrust for political parties across the spectrum – a wider Croatian issue, as we can see from low voter turnout.

With or without a desire for cooperation, the question remains whether genuinely progressive and green-minded parties exist in Croatia. There are none in the national parliament. Parties with parliamentary seats that label themselves “green” or “progressive” have yet to follow up with policies. The Social Democratic Party of Croatia announced in 2019 that they would become “a red-green party”, but what that will mean in practice for their priorities remains unclear.

There is much work to be done to build trust and place environmental topics on the national agenda. These interviews demonstrated the warm spirit of cooperation between environmental organisations – and building on this will be key. While organisations like Zelena akcija have had some political influence through campaigns, they struggle to grab the attention of the wider public. If they provide the ideological background and institutional knowledge, new movements like FFF can inject fresh messages, direct action, and the public appeal they possess as newcomers. The proof of their success was FFF Croatia presenting their demands to the Government.


There is much work to be done to build trust and place environmental topics on the national agenda.

More work is needed to tap into the potential for collaboration. This could be done by connecting green NGOs and activists with government officials through participatory planning processes, raising awareness on environmental issues, and publishing information about the environmental effects of economic and everyday activities. Local successes could also be scaled up to the national level. A national platform with two clear tasks would be beneficial. First, to facilitate the exchange of ideological, logistical, and recruitment knowledge between organisations and, second, to share often-isolated environmental activism success stories and shift public debate. There is also space for environmental, human rights, and workers’ movements to work together on a more meaningful level, and youth environmental movements seem to be particularly aware that they need to expand their networks of allies and have a clearer idea of their role in the political process. For while both ZA and FFF have to hold the Government to account through protest, they also need to be able to position themselves as expert partners with a seat at the table when it comes to drafting environmental policies.

The year 2019 saw some real, positive change in environmental activism in Croatia. The freshness and novelty of grassroots youth movements, combined with the theoretical knowledge and experience of older institutionalised organisations, might give green issues the momentum they need to reach the national agenda.

Polluters in the Dock: Fighting Climate Change in Court
Hannah Neumann
MARCH 2020

GREEN EUROPEAN JOURNAL





More and more people understand that climate change has a serious impact on human rights. And while political measures to protect the climate are slow, citizens take their governments or polluting companies to court to speed things up and hold them accountable. We spoke with German Green MEP Hannah Neumann about the concept of climate justice, the prospects of climate litigation in the EU, and what Greens in the European Parliament can do to push for change.

Green European Journal: The number of climate-related litigations against the policies of EU governments is growing. What have they shown us so far?

Hannah Neumann: The climate emergency is making life and even survival hard for increasing numbers of people around the globe. Yet political decisions on effective counter-measures remain painfully slow. This is one of the reasons why increasingly people turn to the courts rather than governments to claim their rights.

In Europe, the most important ruling was the case of the State of the Netherlands vs. Urgenda Foundation, in which a Dutch NGO filed a lawsuit against the government to urge it to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The importance of this case for future climate change litigation cannot be overstated. The Supreme Court in the Netherlands set out precise benchmarks for the Dutch government in its ruling. What’s more, the court held the government responsible for not taking sufficient measures to prevent climate change.

From a human rights perspective, the court found a link between the reduction of emissions and the right to life, as well as the right to respect for private and family life. The case’s success shows that climate litigation is a powerful tool to bridge slow political progress.

How can you make sure that states comply?

States’ compliance with human rights obligations is a major challenge in the international human rights regime. The best-drafted texts with strong human rights clauses can still be ignored. We see this phenomenon in the context of the European Court of Human Rights, where some countries repeatedly fail to implement judgments. Having a regime that facilitates access to legal remedies for victims is key and so is providing robust built-in mechanisms that allow for the implementation of judgments and sanctions if necessary. Put differently, the price for non-compliance must be high enough for companies and states to comply.

What is the experience so far in cases against the fossil fuel industry? Are the legal and reputational risks to these companies high enough?

We have known for years that burning fossil fuels is not a sustainable practice, and that it is responsible for a large percentage of emissions. However, the vast financial resources that multinationals possess allow them to fight off any potential damage to their business or reputation. ExxonMobil, one of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies, has known for decades about the devastating effects of human-caused climate change but chose to conceal this information, thereby not only denying our right to accurate information but also misleading its investors.

This revelation led to a wave of legal challenges. ExxonMobil won one of its first cases,[1] but numerous others are in the pipeline. Just in January 2020, six French NGOs launched a legal action against Total, claiming that the company has not done enough to tackle climate change. Whether legal action is going to have a lasting effect on fossil giants remains to be seen. But it is already apparent that such cases harm a company’s reputation and generate media exposure.

A study by the Heinrich Böll Foundation compared this new area of litigation to previous action against the tobacco industry. What can we learn from these efforts?

The experiences with the tobacco industry serve as an inspiration for climate litigation cases. The tobacco industry has been challenged by governments and private claimants alike – at times with remarkable success. Similar to the ExxonMobil case, the multinational cigarette manufacturer Philipp Morris was sued for spreading misinformation regarding the dangers of its product. For years, they denied the link between cigarettes and cancer, but in one individual case, the company had to pay millions of US dollars in punitive damages.

It is remarkable to see how the campaigns run by the fossil fuel industry follow the big tobacco playbook. Take ExxonMobil again as an example. In the early 1980s, the group of scientists employed by the company pretty accurately predicted last year’s carbon dioxide concentration. However, this information was not shared with the public. Similar to tobacco companies, fossil fuel companies cause public nuisance and harm but chose to mislead the public. This is exactly where litigation efforts could succeed – by showing that the companies did not act in good faith.

It is remarkable to see how the campaigns run by the fossil fuel industry follow the big tobacco playbook.

Polluting states and companies will retaliate. What can climate litigators do to protect against that, knowing that the polluters are at a huge advantage in terms of resources?

Some of the cases are brought by individuals or small organisations. Their resources obviously do not match the legal teams and funding that states and multinationals have at their disposal. However, science is on the side of the litigators. We also should mention that this is not new: companies have already sued organisations such as Greenpeace in several cases. It is a basic scare tactic and litigators need to anticipate this kind of risk.

But how exactly can litigators anticipate that, knowing that the other side will go against them with all they have? How can they better prepare, and how can supporters help?

Climate litigators embark on an uphill battle when they sue large corporations with significant economic power. As it is often a case of David versus Goliath, it can expose the litigators to serious outside pressure, criticism and, not to forget, economic burden. Greenpeace has been sued for illegal conspiracy when they fought against logging in the Canadian boreal forest. Big fossil fuel companies like Exxon Mobil have also brought counter lawsuits against climate litigators in California in 2018, claiming abuse of process and civil conspiracy. However, many corporations or governments depend on their public image. Climate litigators can use this opportunity to weaken these players’ discursive power by unveiling, for example, how the big corporation is attacking the small NGO or ordinary citizen fighting for a just cause.

At the EU level, the People’s Climate Case saw families challenge the EU’s 2030 climate and energy targets. The European Parliament and the Council argued in their responses that the plaintiffs should not be heard in European courts. What does this case tell us about the potential of climate litigation on the EU level?

Access to the European courts is tightly regulated. The treaties and the interpretation of the European Court of Justice set out in a very precise manner who has standing in which context. This is a bit legalistic but individual claims are only admissible under specific conditions: the applicants have to be the addressees of the contested norms and the contested acts have to be regulatory acts, not legislative acts. If one is to look at earlier case law from the court and the text of the treaties, the argumentation neither of the Parliament nor the Council nor the findings of the court come as a surprise.

This individual case does not say anything about future chances of climate litigation on the EU level, but only shows that the court is sticking to its earlier case law. The increasing number of climate-related actions launched before the European Court of Justice should push it, as well as the Council and the European Parliament, to adapt its position and interpretation of the treaties regarding the legal standing. Indeed, access to justice for European citizens should be guaranteed according to the Aarhus Convention, of which the EU is a party.

Is climate litigation on the agenda of the Greens in the EU?

As Greens, we support such procedures in principle, but as a parliamentary group and thus part of the legislature, we do not openly support climate litigation. One of the reasons is that we do not have standing before the Court. Individual MEPs of the Green Group, however, went to the European Court of Justice and won access to the European Food Safety Authority’s documents related to the cancer risks of glyphosate a few years ago.

But there are other ways to push things forward. As a group, we will fight in the next negotiations on the EU climate law for it to include the fundamental rights of every European to a stable climate and healthy environment. If we win, this should, in turn, allow citizens in the future to take the Commission and member states to court if they do not take the necessary measures. As the group that has always promoted precise, ambitious climate and environment directives, we are happy to see that those help other actors to protect the environment and the people living in it. The case of the NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe, which is taking city governments to court for increasing NOx emissions,[2] is based on an EU directive on air quality.

The drafters of our human rights treaties might not have anticipated today’s environmental crisis, but this is exactly what legal texts should do – adapt to present-day conditions.

Climate litigation is just another way for citizens to show what they expect from lawmakers. This call should not go unheard. As a parliamentary group, we use our leverage in different ways and work on setting an advantageous regulatory framework. We can, for instance, support litigators by funding climate science research. To take the People’s Climate Case again as an example, the Court found that the applicants did not have standing because the claimants were not individually concerned by the contested measures. A lesson for the Greens could be to push for an evolution of the legal standing so that citizens and NGOs can go before the Court more easily with broader access to justice.

The preamble of the Paris Agreement is the first international document that recognises the concept of climate justice. How does that influence the opportunities for climate litigation?

The concept of climate justice incorporates a human rights-based approach that seeks to safeguard the rights of the most vulnerable people in the face of climate change. The starting point of this concept is the law; hence, it connects very well to climate litigation.

Climate justice means nothing else than compliance with the obligations that states have given themselves when drawing up human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The drafters of our human rights treaties might not have anticipated today’s environmental crisis, but this is exactly what legal texts should do – adapt to present-day conditions.

The incorporation of climate justice into the Paris Agreement is an important step to bring the concept further recognition. I do not think, however, that the Paris Agreement will necessarily lead to further litigation.

The Paris agreement is not binding upon governments. How can this limitation be overcome?

It is not a limitation per se; there are several other ways to access the courts. Although not legally binding in all of its parts, the conclusion of the Paris Agreement is a major achievement. The agreement is a mix of soft, hard, and non-obligations. It might lack a sanction mechanism towards signatories that fail to respect the agreement, but it is still legally binding. Even so-called soft law is not devoid of legal relevance, it just functions differently. We have seen in an EU context that legally binding norms can take a very long time to be implemented and ratified; the Paris Agreement has been valid since its ratification. The law is that it is always changing and adapting. Who would have thought some years ago that a national Supreme Court would order a state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with an explicit reference to human rights?

What did the most recent UN climate change conference, COP25, mean for climate justice and climate litigations?

The big decisions such as the financing of adaption measures, as well as loss and damage, were postponed to the next conference. These are central issues of climate justice. The concept of climate justice itself was only mentioned in passing. As long as the demands of the climate justice movement are not met, there will be a steady rise in climate litigation. But frankly, the underlying problem is that, in the face of climate change, the international community has shown itself incapable of ensuring the full enjoyment of human rights. Climate litigation is only a symptom of an underlying problem: the continuous failure of governments to properly respond to the climate crisis.

How are Greens preparing for the next COP? What should be done there?

There is a large discrepancy between the goals set in the Paris Agreement and insufficient climate policies that will clearly fail to reach them. Stricter rules are necessary to achieve the 1.5 degrees target. As Greens, we want to push the European Union and all signatories to the Paris Agreement to step up their commitments. From a human rights perspective, it cannot be overstated how important it is to actually reach this goal. The upcoming summit in Glasgow in November 2020 needs to be about raising national targets. And about clear implementation plans for how to reach them with strict mechanisms in cases of non-compliance.

Climate litigation is only a symptom of an underlying problem: the continuous failure of governments to properly respond to the climate crisis.

A good occasion to show our sincerity are the various on-going negotiations for trade deals such as Mercosur, or the upcoming EU-China summit in September. All EU trade deals have to be compatible with the Paris Agreement and should not undercut climate objectives. A way to achieve this is through mandatory provisions for both signatories. This tool has not been used so far, but Greens on all political levels are pushing for this to change.

You call litigation a symptom and say that politics should react. But can’t it act as a tool to bring about change? In the fight for marriage equality, the abolition of the death penalty, and the end of segregation, the courts led the fight, while parties tried to avoid controversial topics, out of fear that they would alienate their core voters. Can climate litigation be used to overcome political stalemate?

The right to a remedy is central to a human rights-based approach to climate change. It is essential under the rule of law and I fully support this. If we only think about landmark rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education in the United States, which put an end to racial segregation, we can get a glimpse of what litigation can achieve. But again, as a part of the legislature, I insist on bringing about a regulatory framework that protects its citizens by default. In most cases, we turn to courts when our rights have been violated. But what if the violation never happened in the first place? In an ideal world, there would not be a grievance and no damages either and, therefore, the international climate regime should be designed in a way that it actually protects the environment and allows for the full enjoyment of our human rights.

Is climate litigation, seen in cases such as Saúl vs. RWE, becoming more relevant in Germany?

Things are changing in Germany. The particular case that you mention is especially intriguing because it was filed by a Peruvian farmer under German law. This is not the only high-profile case in Germany. Fridays for Future activists have recently filed complaints with the Federal Constitutional Court against the German government and the Parliament. The number of cases is growing, and rightfully so because Germany is missing its climate targets by about 7 per cent. The outcome remains to be seen but it shows once more the close link between human rights and climate change.
FOOTNOTES

[1] The case was initiated by former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who subpoenaed Exxon for numerous internal documents in 2015 after news broke about the company misleading investors and the public. In the following case, the judge ruled that the state failed to provide sufficient evidence that the company made false statements in its disclosures to investors and that the false statements might have influenced investors’ decisions.

[2] NOx is a generic term for nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, two gasses that contribute to air pollution.