Consilience requires the use of independent measurement methods, which means that the methods have few common characteristics. In other words, the mechanism used to make the measurement is different; Any method depends on an unrelated natural phenomenon. For example, the accuracy of laser zone measurements is based on scientific understanding of lasers, while satellite images and measuring bars are based on different phenomena. Since the methods are independent if one of the methods is defective, it is very unlikely to be defective in the same way as any of the other methods, and a difference between the measurements is observed. [Note 1] If the scientific understanding of the properties of lasers was imprecise, then laser measurement would be imprecise, not the others. (3.6) It follows that the world`s largest community recognizes the need to do something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in particular CO2 emissions. However, the urgency is judged differently within the global community. In this context, a number of treaties, agreements and agreements have been drawn up within the framework of the United Nations, within the EU and the Netherlands, the main aspect of which is detailed in the case under attack in the legal bases 2.34 to 2.78. Global warming can be prevented or reduced by reducing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.
This is called “reduction.” In addition, measures can be taken to counteract the effects of climate change, including increasing to protect deep areas. This is called “adaptation.” 28. Urgenda largely agrees with the Tribunal`s decision. Urgenda believes that the state is not doing enough to limit greenhouse gas emissions and that it must take responsibility. Urgenda believes that many things are at stake (dangerous climate change) and that the world is moving without rapid intervention towards a planet that will be largely habitable for a significant part of the world`s population and which, because of the inertia of the climate system, cannot be or little habitable. In this context, Urgenda refers to relevant publications, including IPCC AR4 and AR5, which were detailed in the judgment. Mr Urgenda acknowledged that this was a global problem, that the state could only intervene in emissions from the Netherlands and that Dutch emissions were low in absolute terms and that the reduction he claimed represented a decrease in the ocean at the global level, considering that the climate problem was a global problem. On the other hand, according to Urgenda, the Netherlands is a rich and developed country, a Schedule I country within the meaning of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change, which has benefited from the use of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution and which still benefits today from the fact that the Netherlands is one of the countries with the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the world. , mainly hazardous CO2 emissions. which remains in the atmosphere for a long time – and that the signing and ratification of the UN climate convention by the Netherlands should not be a mere formality.
For reasons of fairness, the convention provides for developed countries to take the lead at the national level (Article 3). In addition, Mr Urgenda points out that the Netherlands has taken its own 30% reduction target by the end of 2020 as a starting point by 2011. It was then reduced to an EU-wide reduction target of only 20% by the end of 2020, apparently due to difficult policy decisions. However, the state has not provided any scientific arguments (air conditioner) in favour of this reduction.