Dutch Cabinet misses court deadline on remaining emissions allowed in Bonaire
The Dutch government has failed to meet a court-ordered deadline to disclose the remaining greenhouse gas emissions it can release without breaching the Paris climate targets, according to responses to questions from NOS. Legal experts described the inaction as negligence and a failure to treat a judicial ruling with the seriousness required in a rule-of-law state.
On Jan. 28, a court ruled that the Netherlands must take greater steps to protect residents of Bonaire from the effects of climate change. The judgment stated it was reasonable for the Cabinet to provide, no later than six months after the ruling, public insight into the volume of greenhouse gases the country still believes it can emit while staying within the Paris goals.
The 2015 Paris Agreement commits nations to limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius and preferably to no more than 1.5 degrees. Each country has been allocated a finite remaining budget of greenhouse gas emissions to achieve that limit.
Failure to disclose that remaining emissions budget carries significant consequences. The same court ordered the Cabinet to adopt new legally binding climate targets for the entire economy within one year of the ruling. Determining those targets requires clarity on how much emissions space remains.
Climate Minister Sophie Hermans van Veldhoven of the D66 party declined to respond on camera to NOS. Her ministry later stated in writing that the Cabinet would provide further information on Prinsjesdag about how it intends to implement the Bonaire judgment. That date falls well beyond the six-month period the court deemed reasonable, and the ministry offered no assurance that the information would clarify the remaining emissions space.
The Cabinet said it is preparing to incorporate binding economy-wide emission-reduction targets into national legislation by July 28 of next year and intends at that time to also disclose the remaining emissions budget for the Netherlands.
“I am sincerely concerned if, half a year after the ruling, they still cannot even communicate the space they are assuming,” said climate lawyer Tim Bleeker of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He said it is difficult to imagine a fully developed package of measures ready within a year. “A disgrace for the Netherlands.”
Climate lawyer Laura Burgers of the University of Amsterdam called the delay a lack of “constitutional courtesy.” In a state governed by the rule of law, and from a Cabinet that claims to defend that principle, a more serious response to a court ruling should be expected, she said. Both lawyers noted that international rules require states to make their remaining emissions budgets public.
Burgers pointed out that the government had told the court the underlying data needed to estimate the emissions space were already available. “They had argued that they already had that information. That is why the court said, 'Then make it public within half a year.’ Why wait a few more months?”
In May, both Bleeker and Burgers were invited by the Tweede Kamer for a technical briefing on the Bonaire ruling. At that session the Scientific Climate Council indicated it could assist in calculating the remaining emissions budget. NOS inquiries established that the ministry never submitted such a request.
The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, a natural candidate for advice on the calculation, likewise was not approached. “Not making that space transparent is simply negligent,” Burgers said. Bleeker added, "We live in a country where everyone must abide by the rules, but in the area of environment and climate the government itself does not seem to take it so strictly.”
Tycho Scholten, a lecturer and researcher in constitutional and administrative law at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, described a broader pattern. “The tendency is that it is becoming less and less self-evident that the state complies with court rulings,” he said. “It is a pattern. You saw it with nitrogen too. Then the court already said ‘normally we assume the state complies with rulings, but we can no longer assume that, so we are now imposing a penalty payment.’ That is worrying.”
In April the government filed an appeal against the Bonaire judgment and initiated a separate procedure seeking to suspend the immediate-action requirements. The lawyers who spoke with NOS emphasized that neither step relieves the Cabinet of its obligations. The court declared the ruling provisionally enforceable, meaning it must be complied with immediately, regardless of any appeal or objection.