Name: 大能源公司就煤炭淘汰問題起訴荷蘭索賠14億歐元｜DW新聞網 (Big energy sues Netherlands for €1.4 billion over coal phase out | DW News)
Uploaded: 2021-02-13T21:00:23.000Z
Duration: 4 min 53 s

the science is clear, the world needs to stop burning fossil fuels.

科學很清楚，世界需要停止燃燒化石燃料。

To limit the devastating effect of climate change, The Netherlands has legislated to shut down all coal fired power plants by 2030.

為限制氣候變化的破壞性影響，荷蘭已立法規定在2030年前關閉所有燃煤電廠。

But now a German energy company is suing the Dutch government for €1.4 billion over that decision.

但現在，一家德國能源公司正就這一決定起訴荷蘭政府，索賠14億歐元。

The company are W E is using a secretive international agreement to claim compensation from the Netherlands.

該公司是W E使用一個祕密的國際協議向荷蘭索賠。

W s boss, Roger Mizzen, appeared at a parliamentary committee hearing answering questions about his company's decision to sue the Dutch state.

W s老闆Roger Mizzen出現在議會委員會的聽證會上，回答了有關其公司決定起訴荷蘭國家的問題。

He said his company deserve to be paid damages from the losses that would result from the forced closure off its power plant in EMS, Harvard.

他說，他的公司應該得到因被迫關閉其位於哈佛EMS的發電廠而造成的損失賠償。

Now this case is possible because off the energy charter treaty, this international agreement allows energy investors to sue governments for their lost assets on potential profits resulting from regulatory changes.

現在這個案子之所以可能，是因為脫離了能源憲章條約，這個國際協議允許能源投資者起訴政府，要求政府賠償他們因監管變化而導致的潛在利潤的資產損失。

The cases take place in closed door hearings that private tribunals in Washington, D.

這些案件在華盛頓特區的私人法庭舉行的閉門聽證會上進行。

C so far exceed cases have resulted in payments of more than 50 billion U.

C至今超過的案件已導致支付超過500億U。

That's just the judgments we know about Most remains secret when the was created in 1991 it was promoted as a way of giving companies security when investing in countries without reliable legal systems.

這只是我們所知道的判決，大多數仍然是祕密，當1991年創建時，它被宣傳為一種方式，讓公司在沒有可靠的法律制度的國家投資時獲得安全。

But it's increasingly used within the European Union, something that many EU governments deemed to be unlawful.

但它在歐盟內部的使用越來越多，很多歐盟政府認為這是非法的。

Activists from the NGO corporate Europe Observatory say that this treaty is now a major blockage to addressing climate change and as a result of thes lawsuits that force a few companies can take.

來自非政府組織 "歐洲觀察站 "的活動家們說，這個條約現在是解決氣候變化的主要障礙，也是迫使少數公司可以採取訴訟的結果。

Under the Energy Charter treaty, governments can be forced to pay millions, if not billions, in taxpayer money.

根據《能源憲章》條約，政府可以被迫支付數百萬甚至數十億的納稅人資金。

This means that climate action will become more expensive and therefore less Yeah, attractive, I would say to taxpayers.

這意味著氣候行動將變得更加昂貴，是以對納稅人的吸引力也會降低。

But it's also big incentive for governments to not take climate action in the first case because of out of fear of being sued.

但這也是很大的動力，讓政府在第一種情況下不採取氣候行動，因為害怕被起訴。

It said the company's emissions reduction targets are in line with the Paris agreement.

它表示，該公司的減排目標符合巴黎協議。

R W E will be carbon neutral by 2040 and about the forced closure of its Netherlands power plant.

R W E將在2040年實現碳中和，並關於被迫關閉其荷蘭發電廠。

The Dutch law does not provide proper compensation for this interference.

荷蘭法律沒有對這種干擾作出適當的補償。

Big coal, oil and gas have made quite a lot of money.

大煤、大油、大氣都賺了不少錢。

Ah, with destroying the planet for decades.

Really, now that they're forced to stop destroying the planet.

真的，現在他們被迫停止破壞地球。

Um, do you really think that it's up to taxpayers to compensate them in billions, often for power plants that are no longer really worth much?

嗯，你真的認為，往往那些已經不怎麼值錢的電廠，要由納稅人賠償幾十億嗎？

Because they cannot compete on the market anymore and renewable energy?

因為他們已經無法在市場上競爭，而可再生能源?

I really think we should have a very different debate about the responsibility of these companies and the damage they've done to the climate and the environment, but definitely not force taxpayers to pay them out for yeah, I would say, a full business model in the billions.

我真的認為，我們應該有一個非常不同的辯論，關於這些公司的責任，以及他們對氣候和環境的破壞，但絕對不是強迫納稅人支付他們的是的，我會說，一個完整的商業模式在數十億。

The Energy Charter treaty is due to be reviewed this year, but activists say they hold little hope that it will be reformed.

能源憲章條約將於今年進行審查，但活動人士表示，他們對該條約的改革希望渺茫。

Instead, they say, countries should leave the treaty altogether.

相反，他們說，各國應該完全退出該條約。

Italy has done so, and France recently suggested that it and other European countries should do the same.

意大利已經這樣做了，法國最近建議它和其他歐洲國家也應該這樣做。

But Germany is so far silent on the matter.

The role of German companies and the German government in all of this is really shameful.

德國公司和德國政府在這一切中扮演的角色真的很可恥。

We have two German companies threatening to sue the Netherlands or actually suing the Netherlands for phasing out called by 2030.

我們有兩家德國公司威脅要起訴荷蘭，或者實際起訴荷蘭在2030年前逐步淘汰叫。

The German government should clearly have told the German companies that it considers such lawsuits illegal because that is actually the German position.

德國政府應該明確告訴德國公司，它認為這種訴訟是非法的，因為這實際上是德國的立場。

And at the same time, the German government should make sure, together with other EU countries, that polluters can no longer attack climate action under the energy charter treaty and pull out of the agreement.

而與此同時，德國政府應該和其他歐盟國家一起，確保汙染者不能再根據能源憲章條約攻擊氣候行動，退出協議。

When it comes to climate change, we're often told that we need to change our personal habits.

當談到氣候變化時，我們經常被告知，我們需要改變個人習慣。

This case shows that there are also larger systematic mechanisms discouraging meaningful change even when governments are willing to act.

這個案例表明，即使政府願意採取行動，也有更大的系統性機制阻止有意義的變革。

 Activists say that these shadowing legal systems must be reformed or replaced, or we have little chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change. 

活動人士說，這些影子法律制度必須改革或取代，否則我們幾乎沒有機會避免災難性的氣候變化。