After winning a landmark legal case, the so-called Swiss Grannies who brought climate change to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) might have expected to be declared national treasures.
But while feted by climate activists around the world, Isabelle Jorg says the reception at home has not been so warm.
“Egoistic, stubborn, unpatriotic old b***h” is how she and her co-litigants have been described by the more vicious elements of the 60 per cent of the population she believes disapprove of their efforts.
She embraces the “stubborn” part though.
READ MORE
“We are quite stubborn old ladies,” she says. “We did not give up.”
Ms Jorg (72) is a member of the KlimaSeniorinnen, or Senior Women for Climate Protection, who formed in 2016 to challenge the Swiss government’s failure to act effectively on climate change.
Ten years on, she addressed a webinar hosted by the Irish legal charity, Community Law and Mediation (CLM), which is supporting several climate cases in the Irish courts.
The KlimaSeniorinnen made headlines around the world, but Ms Jorg said they had not – not yet at least – made the changes hoped for.
They started the case in the Swiss courts by using a group of women aged 65 to show medical evidence that their age cohort was among the most vulnerable to increasingly common heatwaves.
“The female physiology is quite different to males and there is a higher risk for elderly women than elderly men,” she said.
“But our case was dismissed because of the usual reasons – no identifiable victim, climate change affects everybody, Switzerland is a tiny country, its emissions are a drop in the ocean.”
That is where their stubbornness helped. Undaunted, the women filed a claim with the ECHR, which came to hearing in 2023.
In a move that perplexed climate activists here, Ireland was the only country other than Switzerland to request speaking time during the hearing to oppose the claim.
In its ruling the following year, the court found the 46 ECHR member states were obliged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with global net zero goals, and to implement protections against the impacts of existing climate change.
To fail to do so – and to fail to take the claim seriously in the national courts – breached human rights, the court said.
[ Delays in updating climate policies eating into diminishing time for actionOpens in new window ]
Since then, Switzerland has enacted climate legislation, devised carbon budgets and set new emission reduction targets. But Ms Jorg said the measures were evident on paper only.
“The Swiss government and the majority of parliament were very much against the ruling and have continued deferring implementation,” she said.
The ECHR’s Committee of Ministers, which oversees compliance with rulings, has produced two reports attempting to nudge Switzerland into action.
“The ECHR has no sanction methodology. The only sanction is reputational damage,” Ms Jorg said. That had limitations at a time when international rule of law was being sidelined, she said.
The case has not been without impact, however, as the ruling is being cited in other cases. One taken by CLM and shortly due for hearing involves a grandfather, a youth activist and a child who claim their rights to health, safety and wellbeing are threatened by the State’s failure to adequately tackle climate change or protect them from its consequences.
Another case, taken by Friends of the Irish Environment and supported by CLM, challenging the validity of the 2023 Climate Action Plan, is awaiting an appeal court judgment.
Ms Jorg said this was the legacy that made the battle worthwhile. “It gives me hope that the younger generation is continuing in our footsteps,” she said.
