We write a lot about the tactics and techniques of big organizations. After all, they have the money to spend on the fundraising advances that we report.

But far too often we neglect results. Especially the results of the small, innovative groups.

Enter a tiny Dutch enviro group that shook the world of climate change last week with a most remarkable development.

While the major global environmental movements spent hundreds and hundreds of millions on the complex topic of climate change, this one tiny group with the spot-on name of ‘Urgenda‘ rattled, and perhaps, changed the world.

[In 2014 Urgenda had a budget of about $2.3 million. Contrast this with Greenpeace International at approximately $100 million, Environmental Defense Fund at approximately $130 million and WWF at approximately $225 million. These other groups of course work on a multitude of issues, but all claim climate change as a major issue.]

Using the simple approach of filing a tort claim arguing that a nation’s government has the duty to protect its citizens against known danger, Urgenda convinced a Dutch judge to order the Dutch government to cut carbon emissions by 25 percent over the next five years.

The government had set as a goal cutting emissions by 15%.

You can see (and hear, assuming you understand Dutch) the details here on Urgenda’s website which appears in English.

No court in the world has ever directly ordered a government to cut carbon emissions, and this groundbreaking decision could have implications far beyond the Netherlands.

From the beginning, Urgenda put all its legal documents online, translated them into English and encouraged groups from other countries to use its work.

What Urgenda has done is given people across the globe a clear-cut path to demand of their governments that they not do what their special interest contributors wish them to do. Rather they take the action that is necessary according to science.

Urgenda’s success is spreading. A group in Belgium has already filed a similar suit. Norway has one in the works. Our guess is this has the potential to be a ‘sea change’ for environmentalists.

In the U.S., the Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit like this one. But other major countries like India have legal systems more likely to rule in favor of the environmentalists. And if this does catch on, it could become an entirely new front for addressing climate change.

Sometimes size matters. Perhaps clear, focused and innovative thinking best comes from smaller organizations.

What do you think?

Roger