this wasn t the only case heard in the european court of human rights today. there was a second case brought against france by a former mayor. that also argues that the paris government has failed to meet its obligation to protect life, by taking insufficient steps to prevent climate change. a third pending case, without a date for a hearing so far, has been brought by a group of portuguese applicants, claiming that climate inaction by dozens of states has contributed to heatwaves in portugal which they say is affecting their rights. you may remember back in 2019, the dutch supreme court ordered the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions there, following a complaint by an environmental organisation. i raise that in the broader legal interventions with jessica. he waves put older women at serious
risk of illness and death and four of the most serious heat waves, the greatest heat waves ever in the last eight years, in switzerland, people may not realise but average temperatures in switzerland have increased 2.1 degrees which is double the global average. and continue to rise. so heat is a serious problem. if you look at the numbers on glaciers into the rest of it, it is a serious issue already for these women. some of the daily highlight beyond dispute but you were aware that a number of swiss courts are ready rejected this case. why do you think this particular court will take a different view? the swiss courts rejected this case on a technical basis which is the basis of standing because strangely,
of climate seniors. she said she s not surprised at the rise of human rights climate change cases being brought to the courts. what we re now seeing is the actual impact of climate change affecting people today. and so people are already able to argue that their rights are being affected by the failure of states to do with they said they would and to do what they agreed to do and have failed to do under international treaties. so the law is the international binding commitment by states to reduce admissions and protect individual rights. and individuals are relying on those rights to bring claims. so it is not surprising, but it will be very interesting to see how the court handles this, because obviously it is a very complex case to deal with.
seemed viable to those who are not open to a pause? open to a pause? yes, it is important to open to a pause? yes, it is important to realise - open to a pause? yes, it is important to realise that i open to a pause? yes, it is important to realise that in open to a pause? yes, it is i important to realise that in al there will be two phases one is the building and training of the ai which is very expensive and then there is the use of ai which is much cheaper and basically at this point, indeed, pretty much anyone can join the game. so therefore the letter specifically calling for the pause in training which is the expensive part and easier to pause than the later proliferation. in part and easier to pause than the later proliferation. later proliferation. in your letter that ou later proliferation. in your letter that you signed later proliferation. in your letter that you signed with later proliferation. in your letter that you signed with others, - later proliferation. in y
in switzerland, in order to be able to make such a claim, you have to show that you are more affected than someone else and they rejected that, wrongly we say. they also said that until temperatures reach 1.5 degrees they cannot yet say that they are affected which we say is wrong and that test it does not apply in strasburg the test is are you directly affected. the other point is the dutch to supreme court and the german constitutional court have already, effectively held, that failure to take protective action by way of reducing emissions is a potential and in case of the dutch supreme court, in actual breach of people s human rights. so when the strasburg court is held considering this case the dutch supreme court court has already found the issue that was being determined today. in