Scientist Rebellion has sent a formal request to the Ministry of Climate in the Netherlands to set a carbon budget for the country, until a climate-neutral economy has been realised. On Tuesday 24th of February, our request passes through court in Zwolle, to test whether the ministry is obliged to dignify it with an answer. Expanding on the case won by Greenpeace, this would be a deadline-bound legal obligation for the executive branch of government, regardless of political will — or won’t.
Why?
Climate change is the result of accumulation of greenhouse gasses. These gasses are commonly measured in CO₂(eq) units, so equivalents-of-CO₂. A carbon budget defines how much more of this accumulation each country can still emit. Managing a budget of remaining emissions is the one certain way of managing the actual problem. It is also the way to behave consistently to the climate crisis, something that we currently find lacking in our country.
Political?
A central question is whether this topic is political. There are strong signs that politics is not taking responsibility, presumably because it is not popular. At COP30, a recent ICJ opinion forced countries to file their resolutions in such a manner that global heating would be no more than 1.5 ⁰C, but politics failed.
How?
The Klimaseniorinnen case made it abundantly clear (in §550) that each country needs to set a national target for their territory. It also states that this must not only be assured via political mans (in §412). In our case, the ministry admitted that politics saw no added value in the obligation of setting a national carbon budget. But the least it would add is clarity and responsibility! We believe that the ministry has its own independent obligation to implement this obligation of international law. Merely touting it as political may work under Dutch law (Awb 8:3) but not under international climate law.
Outcome?
We want to record that the executive branch of government has its own independent obligation to uphold climate law, irrespective of politics. In practice, it could provide a default implementation to follow if politics can’t form a consensus by its deadline. In our case, this would mean that they have an obligation to state the carbon budget when politics is reluctant to do so. The judge would not be making a political move by acknowledging this on grounds of international law, because the budget is still decided going to be decided on by government. What would happen is that a pressure of minimum performance is imposed on politics. A pressure that has been absent in the past, resulting in insufficient climate law. And that is an intrusion of human rights.
Status?
The expedited initial ruling on this was negative, but we filed procedural complaints; international law was not discussed at all. The public hearing to discuss whether this was appropriate, and possibly to take a decision in the matter, will be held at the court in Zwolle, Schuurmanstraat 2, on Tuesday 24th of February 2026, at 11:45, estimated to last 45 minutes. This is an administrative case, so expect technical detail rather than fireworks.