Argumentation

The sections below are summaries of the sections in the lawsuit. For source references and the detailed version of the argument, see Aurora's lawsuit.

Science

The lawsuit explains important conclusions from the best available climate science. Most of the science in the lawsuit is from the UN's climate panel, the IPCC.

Human influence on the climate has caused a global climate crisis

The effects of the climate crisis are already destroying ecosystems, lives, and communities around the world, especially for the people and groups who are most vulnerable and have contributed the least to causing the crisis. Those who have contributed the most to causing the crisis are rich, high-emitting countries in regions such as North America and Europe. If global warming is not limited to 1.5°C, the world risks irreversible and catastrophic climate collapse. With current climate measures, the world is on track for a 2.8°C rise in temperature this century.

The impact of the climate crisis on young people in Sweden

Sweden is not spared from the effects of the climate crisis. If sufficient climate action is not taken, the climate crisis will cause serious health problems, harm, and threats to Aurora's members during our lifetime. These include, for example, heat-related deaths, tick-borne infections that can cause encephalitis, meningitis, and paralysis, mental problems, flood-related accidents, damage, disruption to important social functions, increased spread of infectious diseases, contaminated drinking water, increased risk of death from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, spread of anthrax, and waterborne exposure to chemical substances.

What is needed at the global level to limit warming to 1,5°C

Science already knows what measures are needed to limit warming to 1.5°C and thus prevent climate collapses. The world needs states to transform their social systems on a larger scale than ever before in history. This must happen immediately, before 2030. Greenhouse gas emissions reductions must be deep, rapid, and sustained. Removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere must be increased through the protection and restoration of natural ecosystems such as forests, wetlands, and oceans.

Law

Sweden has obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to protect human rights. To understand what these obligations mean in the context of the climate crisis, the European Convention is interpreted in light of various national and international legal commitments concerning the climate.

European Convention on Human Rights

Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR mean that Sweden must protect people's lives, health, well-being, and quality of life from the dangers of the climate crisis. Article 14 means that the state may not discriminate against people by giving certain groups less protection, for example because they are young.

The European Court of Human Rightsis a court that determines how the ECHR should be interpreted. The Court has stated what obligations states have to take sufficient climate action when it ruled in a case called KlimaSeniorinnen in 2024. In that case, an association of thousands of Swiss older women sued Switzerland for exacerbating the climate crisis, and the Court ruled in favor of the women.

According to the European Court of Human Rights, states such as Switzerland and Sweden must take climate measures that are sufficient to effectively protect human rights to life, health, well-being, and quality of life from the serious adverse effects of climate change. For example, states must have a capable plan to not emit more greenhouse gases than their budget, which must be compatible with the 1.5°C target, allows. And then they must follow that plan.

National and international climate law

Some examples of Swedish laws that are relevant to the state's climate obligations are the Climate Act, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Constitution. Some international conventions are the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. 

In July 2025, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion making it clear that states are obliged under international law to contribute adequately to limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Two youth groups, Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change and World’s Youth for Climate Justice, were instrumental in the process, and the court ruled in their favor on many points.

According to national and international rules, Sweden must act in line with the best available climate science and the 1.5°C limit. They must also prevent significant damage to the environment and climate, follow the precautionary principle, and promote sustainable development and intergenerational justice. Rich and high-emitting countries like Sweden must take more ambitious climate action than others, according to, among other things, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.

According to the rules, Sweden must use all means at its disposal to reduce total emissions from all sources under its control and increase greenhouse gas removal by protecting and restoring ecosystems. The state must reduce its emissions as much and as quickly as required to be in line with its fair share of the global climate measures required to limit warming to 1.5°C.

A fair share is a calculation of how much each individual state must contribute to reducing emissions in order to sufficiently ease the climate crisis. The rules governing which states must do more than others are legal, but scientific methods help to translate the law into numbers. A fair share is calculated taking into account factors such as responsibility, i.e. how much greenhouse gases a country has emitted, and capability, i.e. how much resources a country has. Rich, high-emitting countries such as Sweden have the largest fair shares. Read more about fair shares and Sweden's fair share here.

The Swedish state is failing to meet its legal obligations and violating human rights

The state's climate action is insufficient

The state is not doing its fair share

Fair shares can be expressed in two different ways. 

Calculations of Sweden's fair share of the necessary global mitigation pathways indicate that Sweden's net-zero target is more than 15 years too late. According to the state's fair share, Sweden's emissions in the industry, product use, energy, agriculture, and waste (IPEAW) sectors must be below zero by 2030.

Calculations of Sweden's fair share of the remaining global carbon budget indicate that the Swedish government has no fair carbon budget left at all. Instead, the government has an emissions debt that is 42 to 118 times greater than Sweden's current annual carbon emissions. And the emissions debt is constantly growing.

The state does not sufficiently protect ecosystems that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere

Sweden has great potential to increase greenhouse gas removal, for example by protecting more forests and restoring wetlands. The level of ambition in the removal targets is not in line with this potential: the targets state that the removal in 2030 may be even less than the removal in 1990.

The state has no plan to reduce the total amount of emissions under its control

Sweden's climate targets exclude large parts of the emissions that Sweden has control over reducing. For example, the state has no plan to reduce Swedish consumption-based emissions abroad 

• (approx. 52 Mt CO2e per year) and emissions from the combustion of imported biomass (approx. 10 Mt CO2e per year) and international air and sea transport (approx. 7 Mt CO2e per year). 

Conclusion

Sweden is hundreds of millions of tons away from being in line with its fair share and from protecting greenhouse gas-removing ecosystems sufficiently. The state has no plan to reduce the total amount of emissions it can control. The state is thus failing in its obligations and failing to effectively protect young people's human rights from the consequences of the climate crisis. The state is breaking the law. 

Last updated 2026-02-06.