Climate Justice
Climate litigation:
Youth administrative lawsuits against national reduction targets
Case Story
Seven young people have jointly filed an administrative lawsuit against the Ministry of Environment. The plaintiffs argue that the Ministry’s recently announced third phase of greenhouse gas emission reduction targets (i.e., a 26% to 30% reduction by 2030) sets only a single-year target and the reduction amount is insufficient, which will lead to Taiwan’s carbon budget being exhausted earlier, failing to meet international climate agreement standards. They claim that if the government is not proactive enough in reducing carbon emissions in the early stages, it is tantamount to postponing the burden of carbon reduction and the risks of climate change to the younger generation, forcing them to bear more stringent carbon reduction pressures in a shorter period of time, seriously infringing on their freedom and development opportunities, and creating generational injustice. Therefore, the plaintiffs request the court to require the Ministry of Environment to revise and improve the phased carbon reduction targets based on international carbon reduction standards and the principle of intergenerational justice.
Plaintiff
Seven young people (aged 18 to 27 at the time of the indictment)
Appointed attorney
Attorneys Huang Xinwen, Yan Shicheng, and Luo Fangchen
Defendant
Ministry of Environment
Where is the case currently progressing?
The lawsuit was filed on July 3, 2025, and is currently being heard by the Taipei High Administrative Court.
What happened? Why file an administrative lawsuit against the Ministry of Environment?
Following the assistance provided by this organization to 13 petitioners in filing a constitutional lawsuit regarding national emission reduction targets, the Ministry of Environment formally established the third phase of greenhouse gas control targets on May 6, 2025: a reduction of 26% to 30% by 2030 compared to the base year of 2005.
However, the third phase control targets set by the Ministry of Environment violate the provisions of the Climate Act:
- Setting only a single-year target for 2030, without outlining comprehensive targets for 2026-2030, not only violates Article 10 of the Climate Change Act but also contradicts the format of the previous announcements for the first phase (2016-2020) and the second phase (2021-2025).
- If the target of a 26% to 30% reduction by 2030 is set, Taiwan would have exhausted its carbon budgets for 1.5°C and 1.7°C by 2030 and its carbon budget for 2°C by around 2035. This would mean Taiwan would be violating its reduction obligations under the Paris Agreement.
The third phase of control also infringes on the rights of youth/younger generations:
If the long-term goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 is not achieved, the damage caused by exacerbated extreme weather events due to climate change will largely fall on the shoulders of the younger generation.
Furthermore, if the early-stage carbon reduction targets are not proactive enough, it will be tantamount to leaving the carbon reduction work to be completed later, thus increasing the future carbon reduction burden on the younger generation. They will have to drastically change their lifestyles in a shorter period of time, and their freedom will be disproportionately restricted.
This is why a group of young people stood up to point out that the current Phase 3 control targets contain issues of generational injustice and unequal development opportunities, and requested the Ministry of Environment to revise them.
What demands do we have for the court?
- First request: The Ministry of Environment should, in accordance with the legislative intent of Articles 1, 5(3), 6 and 10(1) of the Climate Change Response Act, revise the third phase of greenhouse gas control targets based on carbon budgets under the Paris Agreement warming scenario and in accordance with intergenerational justice.
- Backup request: Confirm that the Ministry of Environment has the obligation to revise the third phase of greenhouse gas control targets in accordance with the legislative authorization of Articles 1, 5(3), 6 and 10(1) of the Climate Change Response Act, based on the carbon budget under the Paris Agreement warming scenario and to implement intergenerational justice.
What are the main legal issues in this case?
- Does the plaintiff have a public law right to request the Ministry of Environment to revise the control targets for the third phase?
- Does the third phase of control targets set by the Ministry of Environment on May 6, 2025, violate the Climate Change Response Act?
What effect/goal does this lawsuit hope to achieve?
1. The Ministry of Environment has revised the third phase of the control targets to a carbon budget calculated based on the warming limits under the Paris Agreement, which is in line with generational justice; this model will also be continued in the setting of control targets for subsequent phases.
Looking at international reduction target litigation in other countries, whether it’s the Dutch Supreme Court’s Urgenda Foundation v. the Netherlands, the German Federal Constitutional Court’s Neubauer et al. v. Germany, the Korean Constitutional Court’s Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea, or the European Court of Human Rights’ Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, all emphasize the concept of balancing intergenerational obligations and development opportunities. It can be said that judgments concerning national reduction targets generally address the issue of intergenerational justice. Therefore, we also hope that our courts will recognize this concept.
2. The court can affirm that the people have the public law right to request an "order to amend regulations".
The third phase of regulatory objectives is a legal order. According to the majority opinion of Taiwan’s administrative courts, the people can only petition or propose to the authorities regarding the enactment of laws and regulations (see Article 152 of the Administrative Procedure Act), but cannot bind the authorities to enact them or how they should enact them.
We hope that this case will break through the above views and make the court acknowledge that the Climate Change Response Act is a protective norm for the younger generation, and that the younger generation can request amendments to the Phase III control targets based on the public law claims granted by the Climate Act.
In fact, prior to the enactment of the current Climate Act in 2023, our organization and other NGOs, considering the typically wide-ranging impact and unspecified interests of environmental issues, advocated for the inclusion of public interest litigation provisions in the Climate Act [link to Climate Act page], to avoid the predicament of relying solely on subjective litigation, which leaves no one with the right to legally challenge the illegality of environmental issues. Although this proposal was unfortunately not enacted, meaning related lawsuits still require subjective litigation, we still hope to demonstrate, through a systematic interpretation of the Climate Act, that the Phase 3 control targets set on May 6, 2025, do indeed infringe upon the rights of the younger generation.
