Prime Minister Kristen Michal (Reform) stated at a government press conference that businesses also need strong climate legislation, as without it, they may soon find themselves in court with "climate activists for better or worse," claiming that certain industries being developed do not align with Estonia's climate goals.

Michal is right. As one of the handful of people who have been among the first to take legal action in Estonia to protect the environment and human rights in light of inadequate climate regulations, I will explain in more detail how this happens.

Effects of climate change threaten human rights

The severity of the consequences of the climate crisis is abundantly clear, based on decades of global scientific research. If we continue on the current path, global warming will reach at least three degrees Celsius within the next 80 years. This will lead to more dangerous and unpredictable weather patterns, jeopardizing water and food security.

Coastal urban areas and entire island nations will be submerged, forcing people to seek new places to live. It is easy to see how these consequences will escalate security tensions and lead to new wars. This will result in widespread human suffering and the premature deaths of millions.

The effects of climate change are exacerbated by human activity and will not be alleviated simply because Estonia chooses to do nothing to alter its current course or fails to establish the necessary targets in climate legislation to curb these changes. Stronger heatwaves will aggravate chronic illnesses, unpredictable weather will destroy farmers' crops and the impacts of climate change will increasingly threaten people's rights. Every ton of greenhouse gas emissions intensifies this crisis.

Human and fundamental rights still apply in Estonia. A recent survey commissioned by the Estonian Human Rights Institute confirmed that the vast majority of Estonians are aware of these rights. This spring, the European Court of Human Rights explicitly stated that the right to private and family life also protects people's health from increasingly intense heatwaves.

In Estonia, every person has the right to an environment that meets their health and well-being needs. It is easy to understand how more frequent storms and other effects of climate change infringe on this right. Moreover, this right underpins all other fundamental rights: without a livable environment, how can a person exercise their right to life, health protection, education, food production or conducting business?

Who brings climate action?

Because of the all-encompassing nature of climate change, it is impossible to protect people from its consequences on an individual basis. There is no sanctuary where one can escape extreme heat, torrential rains, diseases spread by invasive species or security threats exacerbated by climate change. We either mitigate climate change and protect everyone collectively, or we place everyone in increasing danger – perhaps with the exception of the ultra-wealthy, who might retreat to living in capsules on Mars.

To defend their rights against the consequences of climate change, those most directly affected are often the ones who turn to courts as a last resort for protection. For instance, elderly women have sued the Swiss government, young people have sued the German government and a man suffering from multiple sclerosis has a climate-related lawsuit pending against the Austrian government.

When political processes prove too slow or even regressive in protecting people's rights, the courts become the final instance responsible for ensuring these rights are upheld.

Additionally, environmental organizations turn to courts to advocate for the needs of society as a whole, ensuring that governments or corporations comply with environmental regulations designed to provide an adequate living environment for everyone.

In these situations, environmental organizations act as a voice for nature or future generations – entities that cannot advocate for themselves in court. Their role is to serve as a beacon in the storm of competing interests, reminding society of the critical importance of a healthy natural environment as a prerequisite for its very existence.

All basic rights deserve protection

According to the Constitution, fundamental rights are generally considered equally important. Both the right to life and health and the right to education and entrepreneurship deserve protection.

The Constitution does not, by any means, prioritize entrepreneurial freedom above all other fundamental freedoms, nor should all other rights be subordinated to it. Similarly, no single business sector is more important than another. At the same time, the use of fossil fuels increasingly threatens food production, the operation of manufacturing facilities during storms and logistics during floods. As with other fundamental rights, one person's entrepreneurial freedom ends where another person's fundamental rights begin.

There is a well-known saying that equality feels like oppression when one is accustomed to privilege. In light of the special audit report on Eesti Energia, this sentiment applies to entrepreneurial freedom as well. When entrepreneurial freedom has, for years, taken precedence over compliance with environmental standards set to protect public health, adhering to these norms to safeguard others' rights might indeed feel restrictive.

In Estonia, we have not entered into a societal agreement to sacrifice a livable environment – essential for ensuring fundamental rights – for the short-term profits of a small number of businesses. On the contrary, the Estonian state exists to serve as a guarantee for the societal success and general welfare of current and future generations, as stated in the Constitution. This guarantee encompasses economic prosperity but also, equally, a livable environment.

Ultimately, money is of little use if clean drinking water or breathable air at reasonable temperatures is unavailable. A livable natural environment is a prerequisite for generating economic value.

The devastating consequences of climate change and the associated human rights violations are becoming increasingly evident to courts. This is why climate lawsuits are seeing more frequent success.

In Europe, courts in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland have found that these countries have done too little to protect people from the effects of climate change and have mandated greater action. There is no reason why the Estonian state – with obligations similar to those of these countries to protect human rights against climate change – or the companies operating here should not also be held accountable in court for exacerbating climate change.

If the climate law leaves people unprotected, we will see you in court

If the climate law does not establish clear frameworks for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change in a way that aligns with the protection of human rights, it is indeed foreseeable that climate lawsuits will arise in Estonia. Both the Estonian state and individual companies could find themselves in court, reminded of the fact that limiting global warming requires a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

As previously explained, those turning to the courts may not only include established environmental organizations but increasingly any Estonian individual experiencing the impacts of climate change: a vegetable farmer, a homeowner living on the low-lying coast of Western Estonia or a child with multiple sclerosis.

However, a climate law is currently being drafted, offering an opportunity to prevent the need for such lawsuits. This can be achieved by stipulating emission reduction targets in the law that align with the Paris Agreement's goal of keeping global temperature increases well below 2 degrees Celsius, while striving to limit the rise to 1.5 degrees.

Unlike the current draft, which would permit the continuation of climate-warming activities at the same level for at least the next six years, immediate and substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions must begin. While this is not an easy task, there is no alternative if we are to protect human rights from the impacts of global warming exceeding three degrees.

A climate law that sets sufficiently ambitious goals to safeguard human rights would create much-needed clarity for everyone. Businesses would gain a framework for planning their future activities and individuals would have the assurance that the state is doing enough to protect them. In such a case, no one would need to go to court.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!