
Farmers sue German government over climate change failures - reddotX
https://www.euronews.com/2019/10/31/farmers-sue-german-government-over-climate-change-failures
======
jussij
> these farmers have seen dramatic floods in 2017 and then droughts in 2018

They should be so lucky.

Here in Australia we have large swaths of the country entering their fourth,
fifth and sixth years of drought with cities and towns now running low on
water.

Add to that we are now going into summer, just as we leave one of the hottest
and driest springs on recorded.

With climate change smashing Australia in the face we just re-elected a
government that thinks climate change is a hoax.

At the turn of the century Australia went through the devastating millennium
drought and less that ten years later we face a drought that easily eclipses
that disaster.

I suspect what many have failed to realise is Australia is not really in
drought, but instead is facing it's new norm.

~~~
gridlockd
> With climate change smashing Australia in the face we just re-elected a
> government that thinks climate change is a hoax.

For all practical purposes, this isn't an issue. If you have a depletion of
water coming up then spending resources on curbing CO2 (which may or may not
have an impact decades down the line[1]) is not going to be your first
priority.

You'll need desalination plants and you'll need to re-orient agriculture
around what works in the future, not the past.

edit:

[1] Hold your pitchforks! What I mean here is that the _efforts for curbing
CO2_ may or may not have an impact. I solemnly swear that I believe
anthropogenic CO2 affects climate change!

~~~
verbify
> curbing CO2 (which may or may not have an impact decades down the line) is
> not going to be your first priority

May or may not have an impact?! 97% of climate scientists believe that the
earth's climate has warmed as a result of human activities and continuing
emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects

Sure, we need mitigation efforts, but we also need to prevent things getting
much much worse.

~~~
claytongulick
> 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth's climate has warmed as a
> result of human activities and continuing emissions will increase the
> likelihood and severity of global effects

Citation?

I see this number stated a lot, but the actual polls that I've read don't
agree with it at all.

Where are you getting this number? (Original study source please, not circular
news citation)

~~~
NJRBailey
This paper seems to conclude that 97% of climate science research is in
consensus with the idea that human activities are warming the Earth:
[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/04...](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002)

~~~
mistermann
> The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by
> 90%–100% _of publishing climate scientists_ according to six independent
> studies by co-authors of this paper.

This sentence claims consensus exists 90%–100% of _all_ publishing climate
scientists.

> Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al
> (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers,
> _of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming_.

Here the story changes in two ways:

\- the number is related to _research papers_ , not individual scientists, as
is the claim. There is a difference both in fact, and in persuasive value. I
feel the greater persuasive ability of this incorrect and deceitful framing
was chosen, and I'll go out on a limb and say I suspect the choice was
subconscious, which explains the utter obliviousness to the hypocrisy below.
The human mind is highly tuned for persuasive communication, both within each
individual lifetime, but also evolutionarily across centuries. Our minds are
so good at it, we can easily pull the wool over our own eyes (might this be
one of those times?). Most people would have no problem acknowledging this if
the topic of discussion was psychology, but when it's mentioned in the context
of identity-related conversations such as this, the reception is typically far
less warm in my experience.

\- the actual percentage of papers that express concensus is 33% (4014 of
11,944 total abstracts), not 97%

> A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97%
> consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different
> conclusion _using results from surveys of non-experts_ such as economic
> geologists _and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus_. We
> demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of
> consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.

Here they seem to imply different conclusions are factually incorrect, _and_
the person who disagreed is using dishonest rhetorical techniques.

> At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that
> abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no
> position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere
> would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics.

Yet, they have absolutely no problem assuming, in the very same paragraph,
that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no
position') DO _represent endorsement_. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

> We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97%
> consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other
> surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

Indeed.

~~~
tito
Appreciate the opportunity to dive in and read this myself!

The story doesn't "change", that's the abstract where they're presenting the
different pieces of research covered in the paper. It's like they're giving a
tour of the house, here's the bedroom, here's the living room, here's the
kitchen.

There's 3 main chunks across 8 pages, including 2 pages of tables of different
studies:

\- A survey of scientific publications

\- A survey of expert scientists who published about climate science

\- Other similar studies that attempted to estimate "consensus"

I appreciated their closing statement: "From a broader perspective, it doesn’t
matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%. The level of scientific
agreement on AGW is overwhelmingly high because the supporting evidence is
overwhelmingly strong."

Overall, I'm glad for the opportunity to read further, and agree with the
conclusions of the 8 page paper. Thanks scientists, you've done a great job.
The climate is changing, let's move on and build solutions.

~~~
mistermann
> The story doesn't "change", they're presenting the different pieces of
> research covered in the paper.

Yes, it does change. Individual forums discussions like this are typically a
popularity contest, and you will surely win that, but I suggest your concern
should be winning the war, not meaningless battles like this.

> I appreciated their closing statement: "From a broader perspective, it
> doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.

A typically bold and confident statement. _But what if it isn 't actually true
that it "doesn't matter"?_

Whether the fact I point out above (and this is just one, there are many
others) is is a _meaningful_ change _in the broader perspective_ is an
interesting question. From the purely scientific perspective, it is indeed
meaningless, of course. But from the perspective of persuading the entire
population of an entire planet of people to change their behavior, is it (and
other things like this) still meaningless? I have no way of knowing that, but
I very strongly suspect it's not meaningless, _at all_. If it was me, with the
stakes this high, I'd probably want to at least do a little bit of
investigation rather than take my chances, but then I seem to have a far more
conservative personality than others with passion for this topic.

My intuition tells me that to ultimately crack this nut, we are going to have
to beat the Big Boss: the human ego. But first, we have to realize this entity
even exists. Based on our demonstrated intelligence, awareness, and progress
thus far in this journey, I am not optimistic.

> Thanks scientists, you've done a great job. The climate is changing, let's
> move on and build solutions.

Yes, let's. The scientists have indeed done a fine job within their
specialized discipline, the rest is out of their hands. Are we up to doing as
good of a job as they've done within their discipline? Are we willing to
acknowledge and address that which is standing in the way to applying the same
level of disciplined intellectual rigor that exists in the hard sciences?
Personally, I don't think we are, at least those of us in Western cultures. My
best hope at this point is that China progresses fast enough to solve this
problem for all of humanity.

~~~
tito
Yea great point, we have to figure out what matters, meaningful change in the
broader perspective!

~~~
mistermann
I agree and thanks for your support, but based on voting patterns whenever I
raise this perspective, it seems to be a rather unpopular idea.

------
rkachowski
The article title is actually "Farmers fail in bid to sue German government
over alleged climate change failures" \- the opposite of what's implied by the
HN link.

~~~
reddotX
they changed the title

------
the-dude
In NL a similar trial has already taken place :
[https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-
case/](https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/)

The government 'lost'.

~~~
tremon
The Urgenda case was slightly different though. In NL, they argued their case
on behalf of the next generation (broadly speaking), and the outcome of the
trial was a 25% emissions reduction target for the government to meet.

The German case seems easier (on the surface), because it is about the
government failing to meet the targets it has set itself.

------
spodek
I consider a major role of government to regulate behavior that hurts others.
That is, you can swing your fist around as much as you like by yourself, but I
want a law preventing you from swinging it into my face.

Polluting the air, land, and water we share seems behavior that hurts others.

Similar cases in the U.S. and Canada:

[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/kids-sue-
us-...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/kids-sue-us-
government-climate-change)

[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canadian-
tee...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canadian-teens-
lawsuit-federal-government-over-climate-change-1.5335349)

This article mentions cases in Colombia, Holland, Norway, India, and Belgium,
saying they are progressing [https://qz.com/1334102/kids-around-the-world-are-
suing-gover...](https://qz.com/1334102/kids-around-the-world-are-suing-
governments-over-climate-change-and-its-working).

~~~
at-fates-hands
> Polluting the air, land, and water we share seems behavior that hurts
> others.

What happens when the government mandates only electric cars, solar heating
for your house and other expensive "green technologies" that low income and
poor people can't afford?

By the very same measure, your green technologies to try and halt climate
change are going to severely impact low income families who can't afford a
$40,000 Tesla electric vehicle or the $30,000 up front cost for a small solar
array.

~~~
mikelyons
Is it outside our imagination that society would change?

Would it be unreasonable that it could become more communal and unified?

(edit: spelling)

~~~
eng888888
I don't think it will change as long as the US is the hegemon superpower. Not
because they are evil or anything, but because individualism it's the core
tenet of the US.

Communal and unified?, 90% of the Americans would say that's communism

~~~
mikelyons
Sure 90% of Americans now, but if society is changing, that could include a
change out of the hegemon superpower position, and a change in perceptions and
attitudes of things current average Americans would say is communism.

It seems to my limited perspective that America is moving more left, and that
Trumpism is a reaction against that.

------
Xylakant
Seems like the court rejected to hear the case (details to follow)
[https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute/verwaltungsgericht-
berl...](https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute/verwaltungsgericht-berlin-weist-
klima-klage-gegen-bundesregierung-ab-100.html#xtor=CS5-62)

------
JackPoach
Sorry, but Germany isn't a country that seems to be affected by global warming
much.

~~~
yifanl
The whole notion of country shouldn't exist in the conversation of "global
warming". Unless Germany plans on building rockets and leaving the planet
entirely, they'll be as affected as everyone else on the long-term scale.

~~~
PeterisP
The notion of country matters very much in the conversation of global warming
- while every country will be _somehow_ affected, the effect will be very
different for different countries. A rise of sea level will eliminate or
devastate some contries while barely affecting others; the change in rainfall
and temperature patterns will devastate agriculture in some countries while
improving it in others; etc.

And a lot of how and why climate change mitigation is (not) working is
explainable by the difference between the countries who'd bear the worst
consequences of climate change and the countries who'd bear the worst costs to
reduce these consequences.

~~~
belltaco
Apart from droughts and the heat etc. what happens when people try to escape
all those consequences in their countries by becoming refugees? Germany would
need to do _something_ about it, whether let them in, keep them out by huge
military force etc.

[https://www.climateforesight.eu/migrations/environmental-
mig...](https://www.climateforesight.eu/migrations/environmental-migrants-up-
to-1-billion-by-2050/)

~~~
PeterisP
Of course, that would affect Germany as well, but it's obvious that the effect
of that migration on Germans would be fundamentally different from the effect
of that same migration on e.g. Bangladeshis, the choices they need to make (or
can make) to mitigate that impact are substantially different.

------
panny
Submission link is a little light on detail.

[https://www.dw.com/en/german-farmers-sue-government-over-
cli...](https://www.dw.com/en/german-farmers-sue-government-over-climate-
change-failures/a-51010598)

Funny, when you consider the largest source of CO2 emissions on the planet.
They're plowing up wetlands and blaming German govt for CO2. Mind boggling.

~~~
Xylakant
> Funny, when you consider the largest source of CO2 emissions on the planet.
> They're plowing up wetlands and blaming German govt for CO2. Mind boggling.

Not at all. Agriculture may be a large producer of CO2, but the plaintiffs are
organic farmers that work hard to reduce the impact that farming has on CO2
production.

~~~
panny
Plowing. Wetlands.

[https://www.ramsar.org/news/wetlands-and-climate-
change](https://www.ramsar.org/news/wetlands-and-climate-change)

>The science is clear. Wetlands are the most effective carbon sinks on our
planet.

Let me guess the next story headline, "Brazilian slash and burn farmers sue
government for failing to meet CO2 reduction targets."

The downvotes here prove to me the people reading HN are rabid zealots who are
not interested in truth or science at all.

------
_aleph2c_
The sun is the most significant contributor to the temperature on the planet
earth. For now, this contribution seems stable, but in the past, the heat of
the sun has fluctuated quickly. CO2 may be the primary contributor to our
climate temperature at the moment, but to think that a government is entirely
responsible for climate temperature is like saying your parents are
responsible for the current behaviour of the sun. It is too simplistic, and it
will encourage people to believe that a government has more say about reality
than it does. We should prepare for warmer and colder climates: In our near
future, there could be a small scale nuclear war between Pakistan and India,
there could be a massive volcanic eruption or a meteor strike. This last era
of climatic temperature stability was a lucky thing that let civilization rise
as quickly as it did. A responsible government would harden it's seed stocks
against warmer/colder temperatures and train up its youth to be dynamic and
imaginative problem solvers.

~~~
JonnyaiR
They aren't suing the German Government because they say it's responsible for
Global Warming, they're suing because the German Government publicly announced
Goals for CO2 reduction till 2020 by 40% which they failed to deliver by a
wide margin.

By the way the scientific consensus is that CO2 is the biggest contributor to
global Warming, proven time and time again.

~~~
ratboy666
I imagine that the "consensus" has been proven, sure.

"scientific consensus" is not a thing. Also, "proven time and time again"?
Just to let you know, water vapour is a much larger contributor.

Sure, sue because the Government lied. Why don't you vote them out? Can you
sue them?

~~~
pjc50
Yes, water vapor is a contributor - but at an equilibrium rate determined by
the temperature! In the narrow band of temperature we live in, increases in
CO2 drive an increase in vapor which magnifies their effect.

There's even a nice explainer in IPCC AR5 about this ("FAQ 8.1"):
[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapt...](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf)

> Currently, water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect in the Earth’s
> atmosphere. However, other greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are necessary to
> sustain the presence of water vapour in the atmosphere. Indeed, if these
> other gases were removed from the atmosphere, its temperature would drop
> sufficiently to induce a decrease of water vapour, leading to a runaway drop
> of the greenhouse effect that would plunge the Earth into a frozen state. So
> greenhouse gases other than water vapour provide the temperature structure
> that sustains current levels of atmo-spheric water vapour. Therefore,
> although CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate, water vapour
> is a strong and fast feedback that amplifies any initial forcing by a
> typical factor between two and three. Water vapour is not a significant
> initial forcing, but is nevertheless a fundamental agent of climate change.

