Juan Castro-Gil: It is a great pleasure to talk with you, Mr. Cox. The lawyers I have always admired the most are those that are not interested in making money, but dare to deal with the just lawsuits that nobody cares about. Do you think of yourself as one these kinds of lawyers?
Roger Cox: In the legal world it is not uncommon to put extra hours in on a pro bono basis or to even do a case completely pro bono and therefore without renumeration. Also lawyers tend to write papers and other publications and do so unpaid, to present their ideas, views and analysis on developments within society and the legal world. On the other hand I think that every lawyer can confirm that income is needed to have a sustainable business and be able to keep on doing this relevant unpaid work so it’s always a bit of balancing act between the two and it’s no different in our firm.
JC: Urgenda, the Association that you represent from a legal stand point is not yet very well known in Spain, despite the fact that you are a worldwide benchmark. Let me explain it further. Urgenda, a small citizen association based on The Netherlands, decided, one day, on the basis of the IPCC reports, to sue the Dutch State looking for higher CO2 emissions reductions than those established by the European Directives. Based on very important, but not commonly used concepts (by the academic orthodoxy), such as the precautionary principle or the duty of care of the State that sets an obligation to defend its citizens against the impacts of climate change, the Courts forced the government to take immediate and more ambitious decisions than those initially planned to mitigate climate change. How did you feel on the day of the judgment?
RC: Since this was the first such ruling by a court in the world, we knew this was an historic moment and we where therefore very delighted that the court followed our line of reasoning in this all important climate case. From the start we did however feel good about our chances because looking at the grave dangers that our current inadequate climate policies will have on society in the second part of this century, it is quite obvious that a lot of basic civil rights will be infringed, such as the right to life, health and property. Especially the younger generations and next generations will be hit the hardest. And that begs the question whether such future mass infringement of rights because of today’s unwillingness to act can be legally justified. We thought the answer would be no and we were happy to see that the court agreed.
JC: In Spain, in all these battles, the most powerful enemy is not the government, but the fossil fuel generation companies that clearly influence the energy policy of our country. How did you endure that pressure?
RC: Our case was a case solely against our government and we didn’t sue any fossil fuel companies. The reason being that we felt that at this point in time the best legal strategy with the most impact would be to seek preventive climate action from our government since it has the obligation to curb the national greenhouse gas emissions. So there was no pressure from the industry because they were not a party to the proceedings.
JC: The Netherlands has always been an environmentally friendly country. How is the Urgenda case being perceived by the people?
RC: Generally speaking I think that most people are in agreement that more should be done in the fight against climate change and therefore welcome this court ruling. On the other hand the most right wing parties and their constituents are critical about the ruling and feel that climate change should be left to politics and politics alone and that a court should not intervene.
JC: The Dutch government has appealed the ruling. Regardless of the final outcome, I think the process has been worth it. But what would be your guess regarding the Supreme Court’s decision?, do you think it will be brave enough?
RC: The state has an obligation to comply with the verdict notwithstanding the appeal and that’s why parliament for one thing has requested the state to start negotiating with the energy sector to phase out coal as quickly as possible. On the other hand we will have to see how the appeal court will rule upon the case but we think we have a very solid case but I am sure the state also thinks they have a good case as well. We will have to wait and see but every which way you look at it, the most important thing is that we give the courts an opportunity to become involved in what is generally viewed as the greatest challenge of our time. We can only give our utmost to present the case as favorable as possible to the court and the rest is out of our hands.
JC: Other countries and regions are starting (o have started already) similar actions as the one led my Urgenda. This is the case of Pakistan, Belgium, Oregon and Massachusetts (in the US), or the Philippines. Are you in contact with these court cases?
RC: It is a good sign that a lot of other climate cases are running right now and we are in good contact with the people who are involved in these cases and we help each other wherever we can and we will do the same with new initiatives that might arise in other countries.
JC: As you may know, the Spanish Association of Small Photovoltaic Producers (Anpier), with the support of bigger organizations such as Greenpeace, have started a project inspired by Urgenda. We have gathered the best experts in economy, engineering, medicine, ecology and law to write a report to be used in Spanish case. As you see, this is a broader approach, which includes other perspectives rather than just a legal one. What do you think about this approach taken by Anpier?
RC: It is great to hear that a legal initiative is already underway in your country and that Anpier is spearheading the effort. Spain is definitely a country for which much is at stake if global warming will breach the two degree threshold, certainly in relation to droughts, water shortages, heat stress, bush fires and so on. It will negatively affect a lot of economic sectors in Spain and the people in general of course, so it is important to try to stop that from becoming a reality. We will support it wherever we can. Much of the work that we have been doing can probably be copy pasted in a Spanish court case as Spain is a EU member state just like the Netherlands so parts of our legal reasoning can be applied in your country as well.
JC: I would like to conclude this conversation recommending everyone your fabulous book, “Revolution justified”, which explains the Urgenda case. I very much enjoyed the importance given to “the actuation of prudent men” as if you wanted to reach through it both, the brains of “the prudent judge” and of “the prudent politician”. This is really very thought-provoking.
RC: When writing the book I had in mind that I was writing it for two persons, a random citizen and random judge. That way I had to write about climate change, the political status quo and the legal tools to breach that status quo in a way that both would understand why it is so important to act now and why there is no other option anymore than to support such a court case and rule favorable upon it.
JC: Will we see you in Spain helping in the fight against the dark side?
RC: It is so important that cases like this are initiated in many more countries that I will certainly try to help in a Spanish legal battle. But of course most important is that Spanish organizations and citizens are willing to join hands and fight together to save Spain from future destruction through climate change. It has never been more urgent than it is today and the legal battle that I envisage will hopefully create the justified green revolution that I am referring to in my book.
