Environmental vulnerability, age and the promises of anti‐age discrimination law

• Published date: 01 July 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12279
• Date: 01 July 2019
• Author: Refia Kaya

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Environmental vulnerability, age and the promises of anti‐age

discrimination law

Refia Kaya

Correspondence

Email: refia.kadayifci@uclouvain.be

Funding information

Grantová Agentura České Republiky, Grant/

Award Number: 17 –26629S

Discussions on equality between age groups and the practice of anti‐age discrimin-

ation law often tend to focus on the rights of the elderly on the labour market. This

article is motivated by the current climate change cases, which emphasize broader

age inequalities. It aims to highlight the unexplored potential of anti‐age discrimin-

ation law. Moreover, it explores the possible added value of this law when other

legal ways to defend environmental rights are considered. Anti‐age discrimination

law could thus offer a meaningful and effective ground to address age‐related envir-

onmental vulnerabilities.

1

|

INTRODUCTION

Age‐related adverse effects of environmental degradation disadvan-

tage the elderly and children. On the one hand, the health‐related

response of the elderly and progressively ageing population to envir-

onmental degradation causes great concern.

1

On the other hand,

children and young generations continue to face significant environ-

mental risks, including the effects of climate change. Hence, there is

increasing awareness globally on how to foster ‘sustainable and

healthy environments’for young generations and ‘age‐friendly and

healthy environments’

2

for elderly generations. For example, the United

Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) recently held an expert

workshop in Geneva about the impacts of hazardous chemicals on

women and children. Leading global experts on chemicals and health

asserted that a specific policy focus is needed to protect children

from hazardous environmental pollution, but that this is mostly non‐

existent.

3

Similarly, at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference and subse-

quently in the Paris Agreement, States acknowledged that climate

change raises intergenerational equity issues.

4

There is also legal awareness of the age‐related disparate impacts

of climate change. Children and the elderly constitute prominent claim-

ant groups emphasizing age disparities in the context of climate

change litigation. For example, the Juliana v United States case was

brought by 21 young activists.

5

There is growing youth activism with

regard to environmental issues.

6

In Norway, a climate case against

the Norwegian government was brought by the Nature and Youth

Organization, and the Norwegian Grandparents Climate Campaign,

formed in 2006, is a co‐plaintiff.

7

Switzerland also witnessed a cli-

mate case which was brought by grandmothers.

8

In the 2015 Dutch

Urgenda climate case, the Court referred to the adverse effect of

temperature rise resulting from climate change by stating: ‘the tem-

perature rise will lead to heat‐related deaths, particularly among the

elderly and children’.

9

This was not an age discrimination case, but

as the particular disadvantaged situation of the elderly and children

in the natural environment is legally recognized, such cases may

open the door for anti‐age discrimination claims.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

1

B Weiss (ed), Aging and Vulnerability to Environmental Chemicals: Age-related Disorders and

their Origins in Environmental Exposures (RSC 2013).

2

World Health Organization (WHO), Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide (WHO 2007); WHO,

‘Global Plan of Action for Children's Health and the Environment (2010–2015)’<http://

www.who.int/ceh/cehplanaction10_15.pdf?ua=1>.

3

UNEP, ‘Women and Chemicals: The Impact of Hazardous Chemicals on Women: A

Thought Starter Based on an Experts’Workshop’(UNEP 2016).

4

UNFCC ‘Decision 1/CP.21, Adoption of the Paris Agreement’UN Doc FCCC/CP/2015/10/

Add.1 (29 January 2016) para 8; Paris Agreement (adopted 12 December 2015, entered

into force 4 November 2016) 55 ILM 740 preamble.

5

See <https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/>.

6

J Narksompong and S Limjirakan, ‘Youth Participation in Climate Change for Sustainable

Engagement’(2015) 24 Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental

Law 171.

7

For the case and media briefing of Norwegian Climate Case, see <https://www.savethea

rctic.org/en/peoplevsarcticoil/background-documents/>.

8

See <https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/global-warming_grandmothers-sue-switzerland-in-

climate-complaint/42544428>.

9

Urgenda Foundation v Kingdom of the Netherlands, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7196 [2015]

Rechtbank Den Haag, C/09/456689/HA ZA 13‐1396 para 4.16.

DOI: 10.1111/reel.12279

162

|

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/reel RECIEL. 2019;28:162–174.