Israel’s ratification of international agreements to reduce carbon emissions does not oblige it to have any concrete, national emission-reduction targets, the state told the High Court on Sunday, in response to the country’s first petition against its policy on climate change.
International law does not demand full certainty to achieve the target, but rather “continuous effort to meet it, with the emphasis on continuous effort and proper diligence, not necessarily on meeting the target itself,” it said.
Addressing the landmark Paris climate deal, signed in 2015, it cited Article 4, focusing on its references to “common but differentiated responsibilities,” “respective capabilities,” and the “different national circumstances of every state.”
The response further charged that there was no justification for the court’s intervention in the state’s climate-goal decisions.
The petition, against the government and the ministers of Environmental Protection, Energy, and Health, was submitted by two NGOs, Green Course and Youth Climate Protest, and first discussed by a panel of three judges in February.
At that hearing, the lawyer for the petitioners, Assaf Fink, charged that there was an internal contradiction between the international community’s goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 43 percent by 2030 and the government’s target for the same date of 27%.
Fink also accused the government of reneging on its election promise to pass a climate law within six months, including a commitment to reduce emissions by 50% by 2030.
A day later, the High Court of Justice ordered the government to define and explain its minimum target for cutting global warming emissions, detail the steps it was taking to reduce those emissions, and explain what was happening with its climate bill.
In response to that order, the state said Sunday that international agreements included global targets, rather than specific country ones, so that goals agreed by individual governments could not be viewed as violations.
The Paris Agreement required every state to submit targets every few years that show progress relative to its previous targets, as well as “the highest possible level of ambition,” the response said.
The decision to cut emissions by 27% by 2030 was reached after taking into account a range of considerations, including the environment, the economy, industry, national security, health, transportation, energy, and socio-economic priorities, the response went on, adding that it reflected the “highest level of ambition possible in the circumstances of Israel.”
It stated that comparing Israel to other OECD countries was inappropriate because calculation methods varied, and Israel’s circumstances were special. It was experiencing exceptional population growth compared with other developed countries, lacked connectivity to regional electricity grids, had limited land available for renewable energy facilities, and faced security and infrastructure constraints.
Regarding the Climate Bill, which passed its first reading in April 2024, the state said that “the internal governmental discourse has not yet been completed, and in light of the existing gaps, up to this date, the revised bill has not been brought for discussion in the Ministerial Committee on Legislation.” The Finance Ministry has consistently objected to any binding clauses.
Tomer Gertel of Green Course said, “The government’s concept is that you can manage the climate crisis with declarations instead of deeds, and the price will be paid in human lives.”
Source:
www.timesofisrael.com
