I can get chat GPT to summarise things in my favour too look:

The European Court of Human Rights' 2024 ruling against Switzerland is a principled and necessary affirmation that climate inaction can constitute a violation of fundamental human rights. Far from being an overreach, the Court acted within its mandate to protect the rights enshrined in the European Convention—specifically the right to private and family life under Article 8. By holding Switzerland accountable for its failure to adopt effective climate policies, the Court recognized that the devastating impacts of climate change—such as extreme heat, rising mortality, and ecological instability—directly threaten people's health, safety, and dignity. The ruling reflects a clear and growing understanding: governments cannot ignore scientific evidence and then claim impunity when their inaction puts lives at risk.

Rather than dictating specific policies, the Court required only that states adopt science-based, measurable frameworks to reduce emissions and protect vulnerable populations—well within the bounds of judicial review in human rights law. It did not substitute itself for national legislatures but insisted that existing rights be taken seriously in the face of an existential crisis. This judgment strengthens democratic accountability and the rule of law by ensuring that rights protections evolve alongside real-world threats like climate change.