Israel Faces Climate Lawsuit as Government Downplays Emission Targets and Implementation Gaps
In September 2023, the Israeli environmental group Green Course, alongside activists, youth, and seniors, filed Israel's first climate lawsuit, accusing the government of insufficient action against climate change and failure to meet international commitments. The petitioners argue that Israel's current policies expose the public to health, economic, and security risks. Despite years of public declarations by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other officials about Israel's climate commitments, the state's recent court response contradicts this, claiming no binding obligation to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets.
The government has set a target of reducing emissions by 27% by 2030 but officially forecasts only a 19% reduction, a gap it attributes to factors like rapid population growth, land scarcity, lack of regional electricity grid connections, and security constraints. The state requested dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing that the target was ambitious and that judicial intervention is unwarranted. However, the Supreme Court justices overseeing the case have pressed the government for clarity on how these targets were set, the status of the long-stalled Climate Law, and the steps being taken to reduce emissions.
Legal experts, including Dr. Uri Sharon of Bar-Ilan University, note that while international law does not mandate a specific numeric target, the government must demonstrate the highest possible ambition and continuous progress under the Paris Agreement. Sharon emphasizes that Israel, as an OECD country and tech leader, cannot claim exemption from responsibility. The State Comptroller's recent harsh report echoes these concerns, highlighting that 25 of 28 government ministries lack climate adaptation plans, the ministerial climate committee has not convened in over two years, and only 32% of approved climate budgets were actually allocated.
Sharon suggests the absence of a binding Climate Law is deliberate, allowing the government to avoid judicial scrutiny. Nonetheless, he believes the Supreme Court can require the government to base its targets on scientific evidence and present a credible implementation plan. Globally, courts in countries like the Netherlands and Germany have compelled governments to strengthen climate goals, and similar judicial standards could apply in Israel, especially under constitutional protections for human dignity and health. The court may not set emission targets itself but can demand transparency and accountability from the government.
