Environmental activists are on the news a lot,
but are they making a real difference?
We'll show you whether the law supports their cause.
She's the climate superstar,
but what has Greta Thunberg actually achieved?
And... the elderly women taking their government to court
to protect the environment.
She seems to have made more difference than anyone ever before:
Greta Thunberg has made people more aware of the climate crisis
and got thousands of young people to protest.
But how can that support become legal change?
It wasn't a big start:
a single fifteen-year-old girl sitting in the street.
But Greta's school strike, outside the Swedish Parliament,
soon caught people's attention.
'Save our world!'
Children around the world did the same –
more than a million of them, in 1,600 cities.
Greta started getting invited to speak at major events –
even sailing to North America,
where she attended the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit.
And she isn't afraid to tell politicians and lawmakers
they need to make responsible choices for our planet...
We, the young people, are the ones
who are going to write about you in the history books.
We are the ones who get to decide how you will be remembered,
so my advice for you is to choose wisely.
She's been on lists of the world's most powerful women,
and nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize more than once,
but does that mean she's actually changed anything really?
Let's hear from climate activist and lawyer, Rizwana Hasan,
about why she's important.
What is most important about her movement is the fact that
she is spreading a message to a different generation,
who will be taking the leadership.
So, the hope actually lies there.
It's not about changing law,
it's not about changing the present-day policies yet
but it's about creating leadership for the future.
Although Greta hasn't directly changed any other laws,
she has inspired others in her generation.
They may be the ones to fix the climate.
So, do current laws support the aims of campaigners like Greta?
To some extent, international laws are supportive
of the claims of the climate activists and environmental justice activists.
We do have good... some good international environmental law,
but we actually need more of it.
We actually need more provisions in the international law
against use of fossil fuel, against deforestation,
against pollution of water courses.
Although she agrees with some international law,
campaigners like Rizwana want laws against fossil fuels,
cutting down trees and polluting water.
And she thinks Greta's fame could help make that happen.
That is why we see that
the US is making a comeback to the Paris Agreement.
The media attention is actually creating wider awareness
among people, about the problems of climate change,
because of the media attention.
It is because of the media attention
that a Bangladeshi farmer would now know
why the changes that he's seeing in the weather patterns is happening.
She thinks media attention on Greta pushes politicians to do things,
like when the US rejoined the Paris climate agreement.
It also raises awareness of the problems.
What is the main problem for campaigners like Greta, legally?
Not having an international platform,
where the campaigners can actually take their grievances to... for redress.
Had there been an international court,
that would deal with crimes against environment
and where the campaigners would be able to go
when their national governments are not giving them relief,
that could actually advance that cause of the campaigners.
Unlike human rights abuses,
there isn't an international court specially for climate cases.
Rizwana says this is a big problem for campaigners.
Even though there isn't a special climate court,
campaigners do use other courts.
Let's hear about a very unusual group of activists.
Climbing temperatures:
one of the most talked about parts of climate change.
A heatwave in Europe in 2019 killed thousands of people
across the continent, according to officials.
And some of the people most affected by rising heat are the elderly.
And some of the elderly are doing something about that.
These women are the Union of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection,
or the KlimaSeniorinnen.
Here's how one of them dealt with the heat.
You don't even want to turn on the light because you fear that...
I mean, when you close the shutters – it's dark inside,
you don't want to turn on the light, or I did want... not want to,
because you feel like you are heating the room with that.
They took a case to Swiss court, but lost.
We want our government to implement a climate plan
that guarantees the required 1.5° limit on global warming.
So, now they're going to try to use international law
at the European Court of Human Rights.
Georg Klinger worked with the women.
He explains what argument they used in Swiss court.
So, the main point about that case is that
the climate law of the Swiss government is actually unlawful.
So, not doing enough to protect people from climate collapse
is a violation to fundamental rights
that are protected in our constitution, like the right to live,
and also in the European Convention of Human Rights.
The women argued, in Swiss court,
that Swiss law broke human rights laws, like the right to life,
by not protecting them from climate change.
So, why did they lose?
The Supreme Court came to the conclusion
that we still have time
to avert the most dangerous impacts of climate change.
They said that this threshold of 1.5° is not reached yet.
So, the intensity of the threat to human rights is not big enough
for a court to get involved.
The court said climate change wasn't yet a big enough threat
to the women's human rights for them to get involved.
Why would an international court say something different?
I think they could come to a different conclusion
because this court is specialised on human rights.
They really know about the threats to human rights
and we also heard from this court that they realise
that climate change is such a threat.
They believe they have a better chance in the international court,
because it specialises in human rights
and they have heard it considers climate change a big threat.
Georg thinks the law needs to change.
Yeah, I think our actual law really needs to be changed,
because it's well done for direct threats like,
for example, a chemical spill.
It's not good for, like, these bigger, overall threats,
like climate change, which is without any doubt
the biggest threat to our fundamental human rights,
but for which our law is not really made to deal with.
Georg says the law isn't made
to deal with big overall threats, like climate change.
It's better at one-off events, like an oil spill.
Young and old, climate campaigners are trying to help the climate.
We've seen that their efforts put pressure
on politicians to change the law,
giving all generations hope for the future.