0
()
submitted a long while ago by @ to c/@
all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FMT99@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago

Those damn boomers at it again. Effecting actual change and... Wait..

[-] Akasazh@feddit.nl 5 points 2 months ago

If there's one thing the boomers have always successfully managed, its leveraging their demographic overweight to their benefit.

Quite often that benefited following generations too, only when they got older they got more into the conservative 'fuck you, got mine' mindset.

However they show here that they can be quite irreverent and ideological too, like they used to be.

[-] FMT99@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

It's almost like there's no such thing as "the boomers" that all share the same characteristics based on their age group, but rather that they are a highly diverse and ideologically varied group of people like any other.

[-] Akasazh@feddit.nl 2 points 2 months ago

Well the one thing that unifies them is said demographical overweight.

[-] FMT99@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

And if they were a single ideologically aligned block that would mean something.

It's time to give up the idiotic ageist boomer hate and focus on the real enemy: large capital.

[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

From the first link, that's unexpectedly about last autumn:

It makes us worried about our future. How could we not be scared?

So very true, but the hypocrisy of the defendants is overwhelming:

The government in Greece – a country which has just experienced a deadly summer of heat, fire and storms – said in its response: “The effects of climate change as recorded so far do not seem to directly affect human life or human health.”

Edit: it was a bit hard to find the outcome of Portuguese claimants' case, but it appears to be rejected:

The European Court of Human Rights rejected two other, similar cases on procedural grounds — a high-profile one brought by Portuguese young people and another by a French mayor that sought to force governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[-] FantasmaNaCasca@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

So, the same court that gave the case to the Swedish woman, denied countries that are worse off.

Makes sense.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 10 points 2 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, France delivered its ruling in a case brought by more than 2,000 Swiss women, the majority of whom are in their 70s, against Switzerland’s government.

The court ruled that the Swiss government had violated some of the women’s human rights due to “critical gaps” in its national legislation to reduce planet-heating emissions, as well as a failure to meet past climate targets.

“Today’s rulings against Switzerland sets a historic precedent that applies to all European countries,” Gerry Liston, a lawyer at Global Legal Action Network, which supported the Portugal case, said in a statement.

Vesselina Newman, from the environmental lawyers organization ClientEarth, said this result “from one of the world’s highest courts sends a clear message: governments must take real action on emissions to safeguard the human rights of their citizens.”

The court also delivered judgments on two other claims, one brought by a municipal mayor against the French government and a third, the largest and highest-profile, by six young people in Portugal against 32 European countries.

Tuesday’s judgment in favor of the Swiss women sets “a precedent for other international courts to follow,” Liston, from Global Legal Action Network, told CNN.


The original article contains 689 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 01 Jan 0001
0 points (NaN% liked)

0 readers
0 users here now

founded a long while ago