This is CBSI in the world. I'm John Batsley with the very generous Professor Charlotte Blotner

of the University of Bairn, speaking of an article that she and her colleagues have

published in Nature magazine about recommendations to go forward with court cases in different

sovereignty across the globe because governments are not acting sufficiently or in time enough

to protect individuals in the country who are prey to the vicissitudes of climate change.

The European Court of Human Rights now has accepted this case, although there had to be

a rush, I understand, to get everything in by December of 22. It's now before the courts.

And Charlotte, as I understand it, you used the logic of science, but you have recommendations

going forward to establish a baseline to look specifically at cases that can be documented

and also to use numbers and not percentages, other recommendations. These recommendations,

how are they hammered out? Did the women bringing this case, the clearest in urine and

shfights? Did they all come together as a group? Did you assist them? Is that what's going

on now? This is the frontier of how to do this. Excellent questions. Thanks so much for giving

me the opportunity to respond to them. So, in fact, the role of science in these climate

litigation cases is integral to their success. If judges don't understand the science,

they will not rule in favor of the case because they find or feel that it's unsettled or

that it's not clear enough or they find it too complex saying, for example, oh, this

issue is not just dishable. We should have parliament decide over this that have experts

dealing with climate science, etc. But over the past few years, more and more informal

information groups have been gathered around courts who want to know more about climate

sciences and how to translate those findings into legal terms. For example, just because

we know that climate change is anthropogenic in nature doesn't mean we can fully say these

...