Abstract
One of the most complex dilemmas that European legal systems (and beyond) must address is whether states can be justified in infringing upon constitutionally or legally protected citizen rights and how ethical such an approach is in the effort to combat climate change. Can the goal of stopping and combating climate change serve as a strong enough argument to justify any state action? Obviously, the answer cannot simply be "yes" or "no." Climate change mitigation policies not only lead to an increase in quality of life but also involve coercive measures that may even affect fundamental rights. Constitutionally protected rights such as the right to a healthy environment, which is both a right and an obligation, can therefore be brought into discussion. It is crucial to determine where the right ends and when the obligation begins. Another aspect of this discussion concerns the protection of property rights and the extent to which they can be restricted in order to serve the general interest of environmental restoration, protection, and improved quality of life. As environmental issues continue to escalate, state intervention will also increase accordingly. But how far? And for how long? Perhaps until, in the pursuit of collective well-being, humanity succeeds in halting this decline.