Abstract/Summary

Dutch courts in Urgenda ordered the government of the Netherlands to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020, compared with 1990. The case has been presented as a remarkable judicial victory of climate action advocates. With hindsight, this article questions the case’s contribution to the mitigation of climate change. If the Urgenda target has been met, this had little to do with the few measures that the government took too late and too hurriedly to achieve genuine mitigation outcomes. Rather, these measures likely caused a slight increase in global long-term emissions. And while the case has raised awareness, there is no reason to assume that it has translated into momentum for climate action more than it has hindered new policy developments. This case study sheds light on practical limitations of court-imposed climate targets that may justify the greater restraint that other courts have exercised in comparable cases.