German Groups Sue Major Carmakers for Fueling the Climate Emergency

“While people suffer from floods and droughts triggered by the climate crisis, the car industry, despite its enormous contribution to global warming, seems unaffected.”

Climate Lawsuit against German Corperations
Climate Lawsuit against German Corporations

Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) and Greenpeace today announced lawsuits against German corporations for failing to protect the climate. They are legally demanding that Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes significantly accelerate the climate-friendly conversion of their companies: By 2030, the three German automakers are to stop building climate-damaging internal combustion vehicles worldwide, and the oil and natural gas company Wintershall Dea must stop developing new oil and gas fields from 2026. For the first time since the landmark climate ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court, environmental associations are taking legal action against climate-damaging corporations, Greenpeace against VW, DUH against BMW, Mercedes and Wintershall Dea. The plaintiffs include the executives of the associations and the Fridays for Future activist Clara Mayer.

In this picture: Plantiff Clara Mayer, Attorney Dr. Roda Verheyen, Executive Director Greenpeace Martin Kaiser.

© Mike Schmidt / Greenpeace, 3 Sep, 2021

By Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams (CC BY-ND 3.0).

A pair of climate advocacy groups on Friday announced lawsuits against BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen for fueling the climate emergency, hoping to force the German carmakers to stop selling internal combustion vehicles and cut their carbon footprints 65% by 2030.

“With our lawsuits, we want to achieve the exit from the internal combustion engine.”

—Barbara Metz, DUH

Greenpeace Germany and Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) are accusing the companies of failing to decarbonize in line with the 1.5°C temperature goal of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

The groups addressed the legal actions during a Friday press conference, with Greenpeace targeting Volkswagen and DUH initiating proceedings against the other two carmakers as well as the fossil fuel company Wintershall Dea, aiming to prevent it from developing new oil and gas fields by 2026.

“While people suffer from floods and droughts triggered by the climate crisis, the car industry, despite its enormous contribution to global warming, seems unaffected,” said Martin Kaiser, executive director of Greenpeace Germany, in a statement.

An April 2021 ruling on climate action from Germany’s highest court “represents a mandate to quickly and effectively enforce the legal protection of our common livelihoods,” Kaiser added. “We need all hands on deck to protect our common future.”

As German broadcaster Deutsche Welle detailed:

Two lawyers—Remo Klinger and Roda Verheyen—who helped environmental activists force the German government to commit to more detailed plans of how it will reduce carbon emissions to near zero by 2050 will also represent the plaintiffs in this case, DUH said.

Following the success of the case against the government, the NGOs are hoping to pursue the precedent set by Germany’s Federal Constitution Court (BverfG) and uphold the rights of future generations.

“The BVerfG concluded in its groundbreaking climate decision that future generations have a basic right to climate protection. Large corporations are also bound by this!” the DUH said in a tweet.

Verheyen said Friday that “whoever delays climate protection harms others and thus behaves unlawfully. This is clear on the basis of the constitutional court decision, and this also and especially applies to the German car industry with its gigantic global CO2 footprint.”

“Clearly, this is not a game,” the attorney added. “Civil law can and must help us to prevent the worst effects of climate change by ordering corporations to stop emitting—otherwise they endanger our lives and deprive our children and grandchildren of the right to a safe future.”

Among the plaintiffs in the Volkswagen case is Clara Mayer of the youth climate movement Fridays for Future. Mayer declared that “climate protection is a constitutional right.”

“It is not acceptable that a company should so significantly prevent us from reaching our climate targets,” she continued. “At the moment, Volkswagen is making huge profits by producing climate-damaging cars, which we will have to pay dearly for in the form of climate consequences. The basic rights of future generations are in danger, as we are already seeing the effects of the climate crisis. The begging and pleading has come to an end, it is time to hold Volkswagen legally responsible.”

Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, and BMW “have previously announced plans to transition to producing more eco-friendly electric cars,” DW noted, “but environmentalists have said these plans are vague and nonbinding.”

The outlet also reported on carmakers’ responses to the new cases against them:

Daimler, the maker of the Mercedes-Benz brand, said it saw “no basis” for the legal action against them and that it would defend itself “through all legal means.”

BMW said in response to the announcement that it was already committed to the Paris climate agreement. Volkswagen, which owns several car brands including Audi, Porsche, and Skoda, did not comment.

Meanwhile, those behind the lawsuits warned that their actions are intended to help ensure a habitable future planet.

“It’s about the future of our children when we complain today about an end to the production of combustion cars from 2030 onwards,” said Barbara Metz, deputy federal manager of DUH.

“Like hardly any other company, BMW has blocked the exit from the internal combustion engine and a credible switch to economical, battery-electric cars,” Metz said. “While we are feeling the consequences of the climate crisis more and more clearly, BMW is constantly developing new combustion SUVs and sedans. With our lawsuits, we want to achieve the exit from the internal combustion engine that is necessary at BMW.”

Greenpeace and DUH’s moves come just before the Automobil-Ausstellung (IAA), one of the world’s largest car shows, is set to open on September 7 in Munich. German climate campaigners are planning a large march and bike ride to protest the event.

How Taking Responsibility for Future Generations Can Spur Action on Climate Change

By Stylianos Syropoulos and Ezra Markowitz, World Economic Forum (Public License).

Photo by Tyler Nix on Unsplash
Photo by Tyler Nix on Unsplash

Climate change is already here, but we know that its worst impacts are waiting in the wings for future generations. Unless we step up to the challenge, as individuals and as a species. Stylianos Syropoulos and Ezra Markowitz discuss how emphasizing personal and collective responsibility towards future generations can not only promote climate change concern, but also potentially increase support for the hard work ahead.

  • A recent analysis of US data suggests that people who feel a personal responsibility to future generations are significantly more likely to worry about climate change and support pro-environmental policies.

  • These feelings are generally indepedent of other socio-demographic variables, so increasing such perceptions could help overcome obstacles.

  • Researchers behind the work believe that it could be a powerful tool for shifting behaviour towards climate action.

As we progress through the 21st century, the true contours and effects of climate change are coming into sharper focus. Seemingly on a daily basis we are bearing witness to one climate-related disaster after another, compounding human suffering and misery now and for years to come.

But we know, too, that what we have witnessed thus far is only a prelude to what lies ahead in the face of continued inaction and foot-dragging. More frequent and more damaging impacts are highly likely in the decades to come. To put it a different way, future generations desperately need us to do something now in order to give them a chance when it’s their turn.

Luckily, there is something we can do now. In fact, there are many different things that we—people alive today—can do to avoid or at least deflect the worst impacts of climate change on future generations. And not only can we do something: we have a responsibility to do so, to take concrete steps to ensure that this bleak future is prevented. The question is, how do we encourage people to take this responsibility seriously, or to even recognize it in the first place?

A growing body of research in the behavioral and social sciences can provide actionable insights. Over the past two decades, researchers have explored a wide variety of approaches to increasing people’s recognition and acceptance of climate change as an issue of personal and collective responsibility and action. To name just a few, these include leveraging people’s motivation to leave a positive legacy, encouraging them to reflect on the sacrifices made by previous generations on their behalf, and emphasizing self-transcendent and altruistic values in environmental messaging campaigns.

But do perceptions of responsibility towards the future really matter? After all, we all know there are things we should do in our lives—eat better, exercise more, be more generous—but choose not to. In fact, our recent analysis of nationally-representative U.S. survey data, published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, found that people who feel a personal responsibility to protect future generations are significantly more likely to worry about climate change, support pro-environmental policies, and believe that climate change represents a critical threat to humanity.

In our analyses we found that this perception of responsibility was, for the most part, unrelated to news consumption, gender and racial identities, and income level. Perhaps more surprisingly, perceived responsibility was also not meaningfully related to political ideology, one of the strongest drivers of climate change public opinion in the US. As a result, our findings strongly suggest that perceptions of responsibility towards future generations are a robust mechanism that can be harnessed to promote pro-environmental action and policy support, regardless of individual and group differences previously shown to sow discord in the context of climate change.

Importantly, the effects of responsibility towards future generations could be linked to support for specific policy proposals and collective actions, including opposition to the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, opposition to the use of fracking as a drilling method, and support for enforcing stricter limits on the amount of carbon dioxide produced by societies. Increased perceptions of responsibility also predicted increased support for funding renewable energy initiatives.

In addition, people who felt a strong responsibility to protect future generations also considered the protection of the environment as an important personal value. These people were also more likely to experience awe towards nature (a feeling of wonder over nature’s beauty), another previously identified predictor of pro-environmental engagement. Importantly, those who expressed increased perceived responsibility towards future others were also more likely to see climate change and global warming as a threat and an issue that demands more of our attention, and more likely to accept the science of climate change.

Photo by redcharlie on Unsplash
Photo by redcharlie on Unsplash

These findings are promising, as they suggest at least three key takeaways:

  1. People who consider themselves responsible for protecting future generations also express endorsement of values and beliefs associated with wanting to protect the natural world. These people express more support for pro-environmental policies, they see climate change for the threat that it is, they are more likely to accept scientific findings on the subject, and they endorse values that aim to protect the environment overall. Perceived responsibility towards the future can translate into concrete action to protect the environment for future generations.

  2. Perceptions of responsibility towards future generation are, for the most part, independent of many socio-demographic variables previously identified as barriers to public engagement on climate change. This suggests that future efforts focused on increasing such perceptions may be able to circumvent or overcome established obstacles to pro-environmental action.

  3. Most respondents in the survey strongly endorsed a personal responsibility towards future generations. Nearly 50% considered such responsibility “extremely important” to themselves and another 38% said it was “very important.” Americans tend to disagree on many things, particularly across the political aisle, so finding such strong agreement suggests perceptions of responsibility towards the future may represent a powerful starting point for meaningful collective action on the major issues of our time.

Let’s face it—dealing with the environmental challenges we face will be tough, in no small part because to do so will require the present generation to take costly action to protect people who will be alive far in the future. We will need to leverage every resource available to encourage individuals, communities, organisations, businesses, and entire nations to do what is needed. This includes our psychological, social, and cultural resources in addition to the political, economic, and technological ones we tend to look towards first. Our work suggests that widely shared perceptions of responsibility towards future generations represent an important and powerful tool for shifting behaviour in a positive direction to confront the climate change challenge before us. Luckily, such perceptions of responsibility are already widely shared within American society. Now it’s time to put them to work.

This blog post is based on Perceived responsibility towards future generations and environmental concern: Convergent evidence across multiple outcomes in a large, nationally representative sample, Journal of Environmental Psychology

The post expresses the views of its author(s), not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics.

The Seven Sacred Laws

The Seven Sacred Laws, written by Anishinaabe Elder, Dr. David Courchene (Nii Gaani Aki Inini (Leading Earth Man)) and Cree Director Erica Marie Daniels, follow an Indigenous boy on his vision quest, growing, thriving, and gaining wisdom. On his spiritual journey, he meets seven sacred animals who teach him how we should live our lives on Mother Earth. 

The vignettes, released in English, French, and Anishinaabe, were produced by Turtle Lodge in partnership with Manitoba 150 and IG Wealth Management and animated by Manitoba’s Peg City Pictures Inc.

In Episode 1, The Creation Story, the young boy sets out on a vision quest in a sacred place known as Manito Api, which translates to “where the Creator sits”.

Episode 1: The Creation Story

The young boy sees an apparition of a buffalo which emerges from the sacred fire, and teaches the boy the law of respect.

Episode 2: Buffalo (Respect)

Then, a large eagle appears overhead to teach the law of love.

Episode 3: Eagle (Love)

A bear emerges from the woods and startles the boy, as he learns about the law of courage.

Episode 4: Bear (Courage)

A large and imposing creature similar to Bigfoot appears, and teaches the boy about honesty.

Episode 5: Sabe (Honesty)

A beaver scurries up the boy to provide the law of wisdom.

Episode 6: Beaver (Wisdom)

The boy is approached cautiously by a wolf, who explains to him the value of humility.

Episode 7: Wolf (Humility)

A beautiful song draws the boy to a special encounter with a turtle, who helps him understand the importance of truth.

Episode 8: Turtle (Truth)