Landmark ruling by the International Court of Justice on climate protection: But Luxembourg’s Ministry of the Environment disregards climate protection law and government members fail to recognize the issue

According to Luxembourg’s climate law, the Ministry of the Environment should have published its 2024 interim report by yesterday, 31 July, at the latest, detailing the extent to which Luxembourg has met its CO₂ reduction targets for this year. This report covers various sectors, including mobility, industry/construction, buildings, agriculture and forestry, waste management and wastewater treatment.

However, this report has not been presented, nor has it been published on the Ministry of the Environment’s website.

This once again demonstrates the importance that this government in general, and the Ministry of the Environment in particular, attaches to the climate crisis. The results will be eagerly awaited. Given the economic situation and the problems in the construction industry, the fact that the full subsidies for electric cars will still be in place in 2024, and other factors, Luxembourg may not miss its targets by too much.

However, if the government’s current view prevails in important climate-related dossiers, Luxembourg will most likely fall well short of its climate protection responsibilities in the coming years.

According to official figures, e-mobility will decline again in 2025 (only 2,2826 new electric cars were registered in the months from April to June, compared to 3,734 in the first three months and more than 3,000 in each of the previous quarters). It is entirely justified to ask whether this is also due to the reduction in subsidies, for which – it should be remembered – the government was unable to provide any calculations to show that they were legitimate and appropriate in this form. If the expansion of e-mobility were to stall, this would undoubtedly call into question the implementation of Luxembourg’s climate and energy plan – the mobility sector is responsible for a large proportion of Luxembourg’s CO2 emissions.

However, a statement made by Claude Meisch, Minister for Housing and Spatial Planning, in a recent press interview is also highly irritating. When asked whether he would buy a new build, he replied that he would if he needed the apartment for himself. When asked whether it would be cheaper to buy an existing property, he replied that with a new build, you can design it yourself and have a say in what the apartment will look like. A minister’s personal preferences are a private matter. However, when he expresses this view as Minister for Housing in times of climate change, it must be open to critical scrutiny. Regardless of the fact that renovation also offers considerable scope for design and participation, Luxembourg’s Climate and Energy Plan clearly states that increased support for renovation rather than new construction is essential if climate targets are to be achieved (reduction of so-called ‘grey emissions’ but also saving land from sealing). Minister Meisch’s stance probably explains why Luxembourg has so far done little to promote the renovation of houses to the extent necessary. Renovation creates jobs, has ecological and urban planning advantages and, given the right conditions, would allow housing to be mobilised much more quickly. The potential is currently not being exploited: according to estimates, 10-15% of buildings in towns and villages are currently unused.

However, recent statements by Mobility Minister Yuriko Backes were the last straw. With remarkable nonchalance, she argued that Luxembourg’s airport needed to be expanded and that Luxembourg would need a new airport in the long term. Quote: ‘The forecasts we have indicate that we will have over eight million passengers by 2040. Today, we are at five million. We are now working on anticipating the next 20 to 30 years. I want us to shape the future and not continue to chase growth. I therefore assume that Luxembourg will need a new airport in the future.’ In times of climate change, when other countries are discussing reducing air traffic (e.g. by cutting certain short-haul flights) and strengthening the regional economy, making such statements is simply irresponsible towards future generations.

All this is probably in line with the ‘pragmatic’ climate protection announced by the Minister of State.

These problematic statements and positions were grotesquely expressed at virtually the same time as a landmark opinion on climate change issued by the International Court of Justice on 23 July 2025.

In this opinion, the Court (ICJ) clearly sets out key obligations under international law – including those of each individual country – in dealing with the climate crisis.

It is worth noting that it clearly states that the 1.5°C limit is relevant under international law, that national climate targets must be ambitious and fair, that climate protection is part of the protection of human rights, and that private emissions are also subject to state responsibility. Individual countries facing an acute existential risk must also retain recognition under international law. This ruling therefore also reinforces the requirements for EU member states to set an ambitious target for reducing emissions by 2040 and to underpin this with clear contributions (NDCs) from EU countries.

The actions of Luxembourg’s politicians have not lived up to this requirement to date, and the examples cited show that there still seems to be a lack of basic understanding of the climate crisis.

Yet the devastating effects of the advancing climate crisis are threatening human life. Those who subordinate climate policy to everyday pragmatism are acting negligently towards present and future generations … and in contradiction to the opinion of the International Court of Justice.

Mouvement Ecologique asbl

1 August 2025

You find the press release in the downloads on the right. 

01.08.25