ABSTRACT
Climate change poses one of the most urgent challenges to humanity, with significant impacts across various sectors, including agriculture. As global temperature rises and weather patterns become increasingly unstable, agriculture faces growing risks, including changes in precipitation patterns, an increase in extreme temperature events, and a rise in the frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and storms. These impacts present significant challenges to global food security, agricultural productivity, biodiversity, and rural livelihoods. During the COP28 conference, food issues emerged as an unprecedented focus, with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) designating December 10 as "Food and Agriculture Day" and emphasizing the transformation of food systems as a prominent agenda item. The conference also released the "Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action" declaration. However, despite the endeavors of administrative and legislative agencies worldwide, existing policies, regulations, and even international climate agreements (such as the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement) appear to be inadequate to halt the ongoing trajectory of environmental decline. Since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, global climate litigation has surged, with civil society groups and individuals strategically bringing climate issues into the judicial arena. They argue in lawsuits against governments and corporations that policies, actions, or inactions exacerbate climate change and violate people's rights, aiming to compel governments to revise policies or encourage corporations to adopt more aggressive carbon reduction measures. Therefore, climate change litigation plays a crucial role in advancing climate action, environmental protection, food security, and safeguarding the livelihoods of farmers and rural communities, effectively influencing national policy direction. In January 2024, the initiation of Taiwan's inaugural climate change constitutional lawsuit marked a significant legal milestone, with the plaintiff contending that the Climate Change Response Act violated the legislators' constitutional duty to safeguard fundamental rights. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that this violation endangered seven fundamental rights, including the right to life, survival, health, residence, property, employment, and cultural heritage (for indigenous peoples), thus rendering the Act unconstitutional. Therefore, the objective of this article is to introduce the implications of climate change litigation and the factual details of Taiwan's first climate change lawsuit case.
Keywords: climate change, litigation, sustainable Agriculture, environment, fundamental rights
INTRODUCTION
The term “anthropogenic” designates an effect caused by human activity. There are numerous examples of anthropogenic sources related to agriculture, including anthropogenic pollution of air, soil, and water by chemical pesticides and/or chemical fertilizers, anthropogenic soil salinization due to inadequate drainage of groundwater, and anthropogenic plants developed by the human alteration of plants through hybridization, artificial selection, genetic modification, and grafting.
DEFINITION OF CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION
The Urgenda Foundation filed a lawsuit against the Dutch government in September 2013, sparking a wave of climate change litigation. Urgenda contended that under Dutch and EU law, the government is legally bound to pledge a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by either 40% by 2030 or at least 25% by 2020. The foundation asserted that the government has a responsibility to manage all carbon dioxide emissions and is legally obliged to reduce the nation's impact on climate change. In June 2015, the Hague District Court ruled in favor of Urgenda, ordering the Dutch government to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25% from 1990 levels by 2020.
Subsequently, the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015. With the primary goal of effectively mitigating the impacts of climate change, the agreement aims to limit the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and preferably to 1.5°C. To achieve this goal, emissions must be rapidly reduced, aiming at net-zero emissions by the mid-21st century. To stay within the 1.5°C temperature rise threshold, emissions must be reduced by approximately 50% by 2030, according to the summary of nationally determined contributions submitted by various countries.
Considering these two events, the international community began launching climate change litigation, utilizing legal avenues to compel governments to actively strengthen climate policies. Such litigation aims to: 1. ensure that governments fulfill their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; 2. prevent both current and future carbon emissions; 3. demand that governments incorporate greenhouse gas emissions or climate change impacts into the assessment considerations for issuing development permits to companies; 4. revise regulations and guidelines to prioritize low-carbon development and mandate the revocation of permits for high-carbon emitting projects; 5. assert that high-carbon investments by companies infringe upon the rights and interests of stakeholders; 6. prevent companies from greenwashing; 7. seek national compensation or damage claims for pollution incidents; 8. demand reasonable compensation for stakeholders' economic or ecological losses ensures fairness, equity, and social justice throughout the decarbonization process.
Given the multifaceted nature of climate change litigation and the diversity of stakeholders involved, it is only feasible to broadly define climate change litigation: any lawsuit related to climate change issues falls within the scope of climate change litigation.
Taiwan’s first climate change litigation case: Large Power Consumers Case
Taiwan's Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA)'s "Regulations for the Management of Setting up Renewable Energy Power Generation Equipment of Power Users above a Certain Contract Capacity" (Regulation for Large Power Consumers) for Energy Large Power Consumers[1] entered into force on January 1, 2020 and requires large power consumers to transition 10% of their contracted capacity to renewable energy[2].
On February 3, 2021, Greenpeace East Asia, the Environmental Jurists Association, and four individual plaintiffs filed suit against MOEA, alleging that the agency's Regulation for Large Power Consumers was not ambitious enough, in violation of the country's climate laws. The plaintiffs argued that the regulations improperly applied only to 10% of contracted capacity, rather than 20% of actual consumption; and the regulations improperly raised the threshold for who qualifies as a large power consumer to 5,000 kWh, exempting 90% of large company consumers. The plaintiffs contended that the Regulation for Large Power Consumers can’t align with the authorization intent of Article 12 of the "Renewable Energy Development Act"[3], thus failing to achieve the promotion objectives of renewable energy as stipulated in Article 6 of the same Act[4]. Additionally, it contravened the legislative intent of the "Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Management Act" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy structures to address climate change. The plaintiffs also asserted that according to the theory of Protective Norms (Schutz Normtheorie), the Energy Development Act shall fall within the scope of "protective norm." Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to the subjective public right to request the MOEA to amend the "Regulation for Large Power Consumers." And given that the individual plaintiffs are interested parties in climate change, they shall have the standing to sue. Furthermore, based on the right to a citizen suit under Article 34 of the "Basic Environment Act," Greenpeace and Environmental Jurists Association shall acquire the standing to sue as well. Data and research from Greenpeace and local government prove that the clauses in the "Regulation for Large Power Consumers" are inadequate, and the defendant shall amend the "Regulations for the Management of Setting up Renewable Energy Power Generation Equipment of Power Users above a Certain Contract Capacity" in accordance with the provisions of Article 1[5], Article 4(1)[6], Article 6(1)[7], Article 12(3)[8], and Article 12(4)[9] of the "Renewable Energy Development Act", which stipulate: 1. reducing emissions of greenhouse gases; 2. complying with the statutory carbon reduction targets of our country's "Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Management Act"; 3. considering the development of renewable energy in light of our country's climate environment.; and 4. achieving the statutory promotion goals for renewable energy generation equipment as specified in Article 6 of the "Renewable Energy Development Act."
However, the Taipei High Administrative Court, citing Article 107, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10 of the "Administrative Litigation Act"[10], deemed that this lawsuit did not fulfill the criteria for litigation requirement, and consequently ruled to dismiss it. The reasons for this decision are as follows: 1. Under the current legal framework, the people do not have a right of claim under public law; 2. The provisions of Article 34, Paragraph 1 of the "Basic Environment Act"[11] merely permit the declaration of lawsuits, and do not directly authorize the filing of administrative lawsuits. Whether a lawsuit can be initiated depends on other legal provisions; 3. Although the plaintiff initiated this lawsuit based on the issue of climate change, to urge the MOEA to amend the "Regulation for Large Power Consumers,” but, both "action demanding performance" and "action for a declaratory judgment" do not meet the requirement of litigation. Therefore, the court ruled to dismiss the case.
CONCLUSION
Although Taiwan's first climate change lawsuit, "Greenpeace East Asia and others v. Ministry of Economic Affairs," did not proceed to substantive litigation, it marked the beginning of a new chapter in Taiwan's climate change litigation. Thirteen individuals, including children affected by climate change, farmers and fishermen, environmental activists, and indigenous people who suffered from the 2009 Typhoon Morakot, filed a constitutional complaint against the Climate Change Response Act. They entrusted the Environmental Rights Foundation to file Taiwan's first climate constitution lawsuit with the Constitutional Court on January 30, 2024. According to Article 10, Paragraph 4 of the "Climate Change Response Act"[12], the Ministry of the Environment should have submitted carbon reduction targets for 2030 by January 1, 2024. However, the Ministry of the Environment has yet to disclose these targets.
Furthermore, if the carbon reduction target for 2030 declared by the National Development Council is 24% ± 1%, Taiwan will exhaust all remaining carbon budgets by 2030 under the 1.5°C and 1.7°C scenarios. In the scenario of consuming the 2°C carbon budget, Taiwan will reduce approximately 71% to 83% of the remaining carbon budget by 2030. This means that Taiwan will fail to fulfill its carbon reduction obligations as stipulated in the Paris Agreement.
The plaintiffs argued that the Ministry of the Environment violated Article 10, Paragraph 4 of the "Climate Change Response Act" and neglected the duty imposed by the Constitution on legislators to protect the basic rights of the people. Legislators should set carbon reduction targets independently under the Climate Change Response Act or provide basic standards to consider when setting such targets, such as the temperature limits and remaining carbon budgets stipulated in the Paris Agreement. By shifting the harms of climate change and the burden of carbon reduction onto future generations, and increasing the risk of infringement on basic rights of the people, the plaintiffs asserted that the Climate Change Response Act violates seven basic rights, including the rights to life, survival, health, residence, property, employment, and culture (for indigenous peoples), and is therefore unconstitutional.
Although this case has yet entered the acceptance and review process of the Constitutional Court, it can be foreseen that this lawsuit will have a significant impact on the future development of environmental rights in Taiwan. This impact is not limited to just agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, but will directly affect generations of Taiwanese people who rely on this land for their livelihoods. Therefore, let us continue to pay close attention to the progress of this case together.
REFERENCES
Bryan Chou. (23 July 2023). Taiwan’s Climate Change Action on Trial for the First Time. The News Lens. Available at: https://international.thenewslens.com/article/154086.
Climate Change Litigation Databases. Available at: https://climatecasechart.com/.
Environmental Rights Foundation. (30 January 2024). The first climate constitution lawsuit, implementing intergenerational justice. Available at: https://erf.org.tw/news20240130/.
Mou-Ting Ni, Hai-Ning Huang. (September 2022). Handbook of Climate Litigation. Environmental Rights Foundation. 8-12.
Taipei High Administrative Court Ruling (2021) Su Tze No.134.
[1] Article 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of Regulations for the Management of Setting up Renewable Energy Power Generation Equipment of Power Users Above a Certain Contract Capacity: 「Compulsory user of renewable energy: refers to the power user who has signed electricity consumption agreements with the electricity retailing utility enterprise, reserving capacity of no less than 5,000 kW, and shall perform the obligation in accordance with Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 12 of this Act.」
[2] Article 4, Paragraph 1 of Regulations for the Management of Setting up Renewable Energy Power Generation Equipment of Power Users Above a Certain Contract Capacity: 「The compulsory installed capacity of the compulsory user of renewable energy shall be calculated as 10% of the average chartered capacity of the user in the previous year.」
[3] Article 12 of the Renewable Energy Development Act: In the event of new construction, expansion, reconstruction of public construction or public buildings by government bodies (institutions), public schools, state-run enterprises, the construction conditions in compliance with the terms of renewable energy installation shall install renewable energy power generation equipment.
The construction conditions in compliance with the terms of renewable energy installation in the preceding paragraph will be stipulated by the central competent authority in consultation with the central authority concerning such matters.
When the chartered capacity on electricity consumption agreements signed by the user of electricity exceeds a certain capacity, the user shall install on their own or provide space to install renewable energy power generation and storage facilities with certain installed capacity or purchase a certain amount of electricity generated from renewable energy and a certificate; If the user fails to take actions according to the aforesaid regulations, the user shall pay monetary substitution to the competent authority for the purpose of the development of renewable energy.
The aforesaid chartered capacity, certain installed capacity, certain amount, categories of the renewable energy power generation facilities installed, categories of storage facilities, payment of monetary substitution and calculation formula, schedule and other relevant matters will be stipulated by the central competent authority.
To be in line with the characteristics and planning of the local development, the local governments may prescribe and implement stricter autonomous laws and regulations within their jurisdiction than the aforesaid regulations.」
[4] Article 6 of the Renewable Energy Development Act: The central competent authority may take into account the renewable energy’s development potential and the impact on the domestic economy and stable power supply in order to set the promotion objectives for renewable energy and the percentage of each category and formulate and announce development plans and initiatives for the next two years and by 2025; meanwhile, the promotion objectives for the total amount of electricity generated by renewable energy power generation equipment by 2025 is set to be more than 27,000,000 kilowatts.
The municipal and the county (city) governments shall assist in evaluating the potential for the development of relevant renewable energy in their areas pursuant to the aforesaid plans and objectives.
The central competent authority shall review the categories of renewable energy prescribed in Paragraph 1 in terms of the economic benefits, technological development, and relevant factors of different renewable energies.
The promotion objectives and schedule for heat utilization of renewable energy shall be stipulated by the central competent authority depending on the economic benefits, technological developments, and relevant factors.」
[5] Article 1 of the Renewable Energy Development Act: For purposes of encouraging renewable energy use, promoting energy diversification, improving energy structure, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, improving environmental quality, assisting relevant industries, and enhancing the sustainable development of the country, this Act is specially formulated.
[6] Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Renewable Energy Development Act: The central competent authority shall consider the domestic climate, energy demand characteristics, economic benefits, technological development, and other factors of different renewable energies upon promoting renewable energy power generation equipment.
[10] Article 107, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act: In any of the following circumstances, the administrative court shall dismiss the plaintiff's complaint by a ruling. However, if the defect is rectifiable, the presiding judge shall order the plaintiff to rectify the defect within a time period before dismissing the complaint: 10. The litigation was not initiated through the formality required by statutes, or it fails to satisfy other statutory requirements.
[11] Article 34, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Environment Act t: If a government entity at any level is negligent in enforcement, persons or public interest groups may, in accordance with laws and regulations, name said competent authority as a defendant and directly file a lawsuit with the Administrative Court.
[12] Article 10, Paragraph 4 of the Climate Change Response Act: In addition to the regulatory goal for the first stage, the central competent authority shall establish a regulatory goal for each stage two years ahead of the beginning of the next stage.
An Introduction to Climate Change Litigation
ABSTRACT
Climate change poses one of the most urgent challenges to humanity, with significant impacts across various sectors, including agriculture. As global temperature rises and weather patterns become increasingly unstable, agriculture faces growing risks, including changes in precipitation patterns, an increase in extreme temperature events, and a rise in the frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and storms. These impacts present significant challenges to global food security, agricultural productivity, biodiversity, and rural livelihoods. During the COP28 conference, food issues emerged as an unprecedented focus, with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) designating December 10 as "Food and Agriculture Day" and emphasizing the transformation of food systems as a prominent agenda item. The conference also released the "Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action" declaration. However, despite the endeavors of administrative and legislative agencies worldwide, existing policies, regulations, and even international climate agreements (such as the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement) appear to be inadequate to halt the ongoing trajectory of environmental decline. Since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, global climate litigation has surged, with civil society groups and individuals strategically bringing climate issues into the judicial arena. They argue in lawsuits against governments and corporations that policies, actions, or inactions exacerbate climate change and violate people's rights, aiming to compel governments to revise policies or encourage corporations to adopt more aggressive carbon reduction measures. Therefore, climate change litigation plays a crucial role in advancing climate action, environmental protection, food security, and safeguarding the livelihoods of farmers and rural communities, effectively influencing national policy direction. In January 2024, the initiation of Taiwan's inaugural climate change constitutional lawsuit marked a significant legal milestone, with the plaintiff contending that the Climate Change Response Act violated the legislators' constitutional duty to safeguard fundamental rights. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that this violation endangered seven fundamental rights, including the right to life, survival, health, residence, property, employment, and cultural heritage (for indigenous peoples), thus rendering the Act unconstitutional. Therefore, the objective of this article is to introduce the implications of climate change litigation and the factual details of Taiwan's first climate change lawsuit case.
Keywords: climate change, litigation, sustainable Agriculture, environment, fundamental rights
INTRODUCTION
The term “anthropogenic” designates an effect caused by human activity. There are numerous examples of anthropogenic sources related to agriculture, including anthropogenic pollution of air, soil, and water by chemical pesticides and/or chemical fertilizers, anthropogenic soil salinization due to inadequate drainage of groundwater, and anthropogenic plants developed by the human alteration of plants through hybridization, artificial selection, genetic modification, and grafting.
DEFINITION OF CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION
The Urgenda Foundation filed a lawsuit against the Dutch government in September 2013, sparking a wave of climate change litigation. Urgenda contended that under Dutch and EU law, the government is legally bound to pledge a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by either 40% by 2030 or at least 25% by 2020. The foundation asserted that the government has a responsibility to manage all carbon dioxide emissions and is legally obliged to reduce the nation's impact on climate change. In June 2015, the Hague District Court ruled in favor of Urgenda, ordering the Dutch government to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25% from 1990 levels by 2020.
Subsequently, the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015. With the primary goal of effectively mitigating the impacts of climate change, the agreement aims to limit the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and preferably to 1.5°C. To achieve this goal, emissions must be rapidly reduced, aiming at net-zero emissions by the mid-21st century. To stay within the 1.5°C temperature rise threshold, emissions must be reduced by approximately 50% by 2030, according to the summary of nationally determined contributions submitted by various countries.
Considering these two events, the international community began launching climate change litigation, utilizing legal avenues to compel governments to actively strengthen climate policies. Such litigation aims to: 1. ensure that governments fulfill their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; 2. prevent both current and future carbon emissions; 3. demand that governments incorporate greenhouse gas emissions or climate change impacts into the assessment considerations for issuing development permits to companies; 4. revise regulations and guidelines to prioritize low-carbon development and mandate the revocation of permits for high-carbon emitting projects; 5. assert that high-carbon investments by companies infringe upon the rights and interests of stakeholders; 6. prevent companies from greenwashing; 7. seek national compensation or damage claims for pollution incidents; 8. demand reasonable compensation for stakeholders' economic or ecological losses ensures fairness, equity, and social justice throughout the decarbonization process.
Given the multifaceted nature of climate change litigation and the diversity of stakeholders involved, it is only feasible to broadly define climate change litigation: any lawsuit related to climate change issues falls within the scope of climate change litigation.
Taiwan’s first climate change litigation case: Large Power Consumers Case
Taiwan's Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA)'s "Regulations for the Management of Setting up Renewable Energy Power Generation Equipment of Power Users above a Certain Contract Capacity" (Regulation for Large Power Consumers) for Energy Large Power Consumers[1] entered into force on January 1, 2020 and requires large power consumers to transition 10% of their contracted capacity to renewable energy[2].
On February 3, 2021, Greenpeace East Asia, the Environmental Jurists Association, and four individual plaintiffs filed suit against MOEA, alleging that the agency's Regulation for Large Power Consumers was not ambitious enough, in violation of the country's climate laws. The plaintiffs argued that the regulations improperly applied only to 10% of contracted capacity, rather than 20% of actual consumption; and the regulations improperly raised the threshold for who qualifies as a large power consumer to 5,000 kWh, exempting 90% of large company consumers. The plaintiffs contended that the Regulation for Large Power Consumers can’t align with the authorization intent of Article 12 of the "Renewable Energy Development Act"[3], thus failing to achieve the promotion objectives of renewable energy as stipulated in Article 6 of the same Act[4]. Additionally, it contravened the legislative intent of the "Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Management Act" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy structures to address climate change. The plaintiffs also asserted that according to the theory of Protective Norms (Schutz Normtheorie), the Energy Development Act shall fall within the scope of "protective norm." Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to the subjective public right to request the MOEA to amend the "Regulation for Large Power Consumers." And given that the individual plaintiffs are interested parties in climate change, they shall have the standing to sue. Furthermore, based on the right to a citizen suit under Article 34 of the "Basic Environment Act," Greenpeace and Environmental Jurists Association shall acquire the standing to sue as well. Data and research from Greenpeace and local government prove that the clauses in the "Regulation for Large Power Consumers" are inadequate, and the defendant shall amend the "Regulations for the Management of Setting up Renewable Energy Power Generation Equipment of Power Users above a Certain Contract Capacity" in accordance with the provisions of Article 1[5], Article 4(1)[6], Article 6(1)[7], Article 12(3)[8], and Article 12(4)[9] of the "Renewable Energy Development Act", which stipulate: 1. reducing emissions of greenhouse gases; 2. complying with the statutory carbon reduction targets of our country's "Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Management Act"; 3. considering the development of renewable energy in light of our country's climate environment.; and 4. achieving the statutory promotion goals for renewable energy generation equipment as specified in Article 6 of the "Renewable Energy Development Act."
However, the Taipei High Administrative Court, citing Article 107, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10 of the "Administrative Litigation Act"[10], deemed that this lawsuit did not fulfill the criteria for litigation requirement, and consequently ruled to dismiss it. The reasons for this decision are as follows: 1. Under the current legal framework, the people do not have a right of claim under public law; 2. The provisions of Article 34, Paragraph 1 of the "Basic Environment Act"[11] merely permit the declaration of lawsuits, and do not directly authorize the filing of administrative lawsuits. Whether a lawsuit can be initiated depends on other legal provisions; 3. Although the plaintiff initiated this lawsuit based on the issue of climate change, to urge the MOEA to amend the "Regulation for Large Power Consumers,” but, both "action demanding performance" and "action for a declaratory judgment" do not meet the requirement of litigation. Therefore, the court ruled to dismiss the case.
CONCLUSION
Although Taiwan's first climate change lawsuit, "Greenpeace East Asia and others v. Ministry of Economic Affairs," did not proceed to substantive litigation, it marked the beginning of a new chapter in Taiwan's climate change litigation. Thirteen individuals, including children affected by climate change, farmers and fishermen, environmental activists, and indigenous people who suffered from the 2009 Typhoon Morakot, filed a constitutional complaint against the Climate Change Response Act. They entrusted the Environmental Rights Foundation to file Taiwan's first climate constitution lawsuit with the Constitutional Court on January 30, 2024. According to Article 10, Paragraph 4 of the "Climate Change Response Act"[12], the Ministry of the Environment should have submitted carbon reduction targets for 2030 by January 1, 2024. However, the Ministry of the Environment has yet to disclose these targets.
Furthermore, if the carbon reduction target for 2030 declared by the National Development Council is 24% ± 1%, Taiwan will exhaust all remaining carbon budgets by 2030 under the 1.5°C and 1.7°C scenarios. In the scenario of consuming the 2°C carbon budget, Taiwan will reduce approximately 71% to 83% of the remaining carbon budget by 2030. This means that Taiwan will fail to fulfill its carbon reduction obligations as stipulated in the Paris Agreement.
The plaintiffs argued that the Ministry of the Environment violated Article 10, Paragraph 4 of the "Climate Change Response Act" and neglected the duty imposed by the Constitution on legislators to protect the basic rights of the people. Legislators should set carbon reduction targets independently under the Climate Change Response Act or provide basic standards to consider when setting such targets, such as the temperature limits and remaining carbon budgets stipulated in the Paris Agreement. By shifting the harms of climate change and the burden of carbon reduction onto future generations, and increasing the risk of infringement on basic rights of the people, the plaintiffs asserted that the Climate Change Response Act violates seven basic rights, including the rights to life, survival, health, residence, property, employment, and culture (for indigenous peoples), and is therefore unconstitutional.
Although this case has yet entered the acceptance and review process of the Constitutional Court, it can be foreseen that this lawsuit will have a significant impact on the future development of environmental rights in Taiwan. This impact is not limited to just agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, but will directly affect generations of Taiwanese people who rely on this land for their livelihoods. Therefore, let us continue to pay close attention to the progress of this case together.
REFERENCES
Bryan Chou. (23 July 2023). Taiwan’s Climate Change Action on Trial for the First Time. The News Lens. Available at: https://international.thenewslens.com/article/154086.
Climate Change Litigation Databases. Available at: https://climatecasechart.com/.
Environmental Rights Foundation. (30 January 2024). The first climate constitution lawsuit, implementing intergenerational justice. Available at: https://erf.org.tw/news20240130/.
Mou-Ting Ni, Hai-Ning Huang. (September 2022). Handbook of Climate Litigation. Environmental Rights Foundation. 8-12.
Taipei High Administrative Court Ruling (2021) Su Tze No.134.
[1] Article 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of Regulations for the Management of Setting up Renewable Energy Power Generation Equipment of Power Users Above a Certain Contract Capacity: 「Compulsory user of renewable energy: refers to the power user who has signed electricity consumption agreements with the electricity retailing utility enterprise, reserving capacity of no less than 5,000 kW, and shall perform the obligation in accordance with Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 12 of this Act.」
[2] Article 4, Paragraph 1 of Regulations for the Management of Setting up Renewable Energy Power Generation Equipment of Power Users Above a Certain Contract Capacity: 「The compulsory installed capacity of the compulsory user of renewable energy shall be calculated as 10% of the average chartered capacity of the user in the previous year.」
[3] Article 12 of the Renewable Energy Development Act: In the event of new construction, expansion, reconstruction of public construction or public buildings by government bodies (institutions), public schools, state-run enterprises, the construction conditions in compliance with the terms of renewable energy installation shall install renewable energy power generation equipment.
The construction conditions in compliance with the terms of renewable energy installation in the preceding paragraph will be stipulated by the central competent authority in consultation with the central authority concerning such matters.
When the chartered capacity on electricity consumption agreements signed by the user of electricity exceeds a certain capacity, the user shall install on their own or provide space to install renewable energy power generation and storage facilities with certain installed capacity or purchase a certain amount of electricity generated from renewable energy and a certificate; If the user fails to take actions according to the aforesaid regulations, the user shall pay monetary substitution to the competent authority for the purpose of the development of renewable energy.
The aforesaid chartered capacity, certain installed capacity, certain amount, categories of the renewable energy power generation facilities installed, categories of storage facilities, payment of monetary substitution and calculation formula, schedule and other relevant matters will be stipulated by the central competent authority.
To be in line with the characteristics and planning of the local development, the local governments may prescribe and implement stricter autonomous laws and regulations within their jurisdiction than the aforesaid regulations.」
[4] Article 6 of the Renewable Energy Development Act: The central competent authority may take into account the renewable energy’s development potential and the impact on the domestic economy and stable power supply in order to set the promotion objectives for renewable energy and the percentage of each category and formulate and announce development plans and initiatives for the next two years and by 2025; meanwhile, the promotion objectives for the total amount of electricity generated by renewable energy power generation equipment by 2025 is set to be more than 27,000,000 kilowatts.
The municipal and the county (city) governments shall assist in evaluating the potential for the development of relevant renewable energy in their areas pursuant to the aforesaid plans and objectives.
The central competent authority shall review the categories of renewable energy prescribed in Paragraph 1 in terms of the economic benefits, technological development, and relevant factors of different renewable energies.
The promotion objectives and schedule for heat utilization of renewable energy shall be stipulated by the central competent authority depending on the economic benefits, technological developments, and relevant factors.」
[5] Article 1 of the Renewable Energy Development Act: For purposes of encouraging renewable energy use, promoting energy diversification, improving energy structure, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, improving environmental quality, assisting relevant industries, and enhancing the sustainable development of the country, this Act is specially formulated.
[6] Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Renewable Energy Development Act: The central competent authority shall consider the domestic climate, energy demand characteristics, economic benefits, technological development, and other factors of different renewable energies upon promoting renewable energy power generation equipment.
[7] See Footnote 4.
[8] See Footnote 3.
[9] See Footnote 3.
[10] Article 107, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act: In any of the following circumstances, the administrative court shall dismiss the plaintiff's complaint by a ruling. However, if the defect is rectifiable, the presiding judge shall order the plaintiff to rectify the defect within a time period before dismissing the complaint: 10. The litigation was not initiated through the formality required by statutes, or it fails to satisfy other statutory requirements.
[11] Article 34, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Environment Act t: If a government entity at any level is negligent in enforcement, persons or public interest groups may, in accordance with laws and regulations, name said competent authority as a defendant and directly file a lawsuit with the Administrative Court.
[12] Article 10, Paragraph 4 of the Climate Change Response Act: In addition to the regulatory goal for the first stage, the central competent authority shall establish a regulatory goal for each stage two years ahead of the beginning of the next stage.