Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

Ten youths challenged the State of Brandenburg for failing to set climate protection goals and emission reduction paths, arguing this violated German constitutional law and endangered future generations. The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the claims on 18 January 2022, ruling that it was not possible to determine the extent of the state legislature's power to prevent future rights violations, noting a lack of federal specifications on state-level emission budgets and the limited influence of states in climate protection areas managed by the federal government.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Ten youth plaintiffs and three landowners alleged that the State of Brandenburg violated their fundamental rights by failing to adopt a climate protection law that regulates greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the remaining CO2 budget. They argued this failure endangered their future freedoms, health, and the natural foundations of life and animals.
  • The plaintiffs' legal challenge was based on two primary counts: the inadequacy of existing climate protection laws and the failure of state legislatures, including Brandenburg and Hesse, to create uniform or sufficient reduction paths for greenhouse gas emissions.
  • On 18 January 2022, the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the complaints for adjudication. While the court acknowledged that the obligation to protect against climate change cannot be postponed, it found that the specific acts or omissions by the state did not lead to a disproportionate shift in reduction burdens.
  • The court reasoned that state-specific reduction requirements are difficult to determine because the federal government has not provided specifications on the extent, timing, or location of required emission reductions, nor an estimation of the residual CO2 emission budget. Additionally, the court noted that states have limited influence in climate protection areas historically managed by the federal government.

Cite the original document

APA
ClimaTalk (2024). Emma Johanna Kiehm, et al. v State of Brandenburg. ClimaTalk. https://climatalk.org/2024/03/18/emma-johanna-kiehm-et-al-v-state-of-brandenburg/
Chicago
ClimaTalk. Emma Johanna Kiehm, et al. v State of Brandenburg. ClimaTalk, 2024. https://climatalk.org/2024/03/18/emma-johanna-kiehm-et-al-v-state-of-brandenburg/.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=ClimaTalk |title=Emma Johanna Kiehm, et al. v State of Brandenburg |publisher=ClimaTalk |date=18 March 2024 |url=https://climatalk.org/2024/03/18/emma-johanna-kiehm-et-al-v-state-of-brandenburg/ |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{climatalk2024emma, author = {ClimaTalk}, title = {{Emma Johanna Kiehm, et al. v State of Brandenburg}}, institution = {ClimaTalk}, year = {2024}, month = mar, url = {https://climatalk.org/2024/03/18/emma-johanna-kiehm-et-al-v-state-of-brandenburg/}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated