This compares to the EU27 average 7.9 tons CO2. Emissions grew with 16.4% between 1990 and 2007. However, compared between 2002 and 2012, the emission per capita had decreased with 6.1%, to 10.4 ton CO2. Additionally, the IEA showed that for a longer time period, from 1990 to 2012, there was a reduction in emissions of 8%, while GDP grew by around 50% in this same period. Emissions per capita in the OECD countries exceeded the Netherlands only in Czech Republic 11.8, Finland 12.2, Canada 17.4, Australia 18.8, the United States 19.1 and Luxembourg 22.4. Energy Agreement for Sustainable Growth On 6 September 2013 representatives from the Dutch government, environmentalists and the energy sector, in total 47 different parties, signed the Energy Agreement. This agreement contains plans for investing in energy conservation and renewable energy generation. It is projected to deliver tens of thousands of new jobs, improve industry competitiveness and increase exports. Additionally, the stakeholders agreed that 16% of the energy would be generated by renewable energy sources in 2023. Five coal-fired plants, which were built in the eighties, would be closed in 2016 and 2017. The other remaining five coal-fired plants would remain open and are used for co-firing of biomass, a 4 billion euro measure, which would contribute 1.2% of the total production of renewable energy. This agreement was seen as a major breakthrough in the debate about climate change in the Netherlands, because it not only provided a clear set of policies for sustainable growth, but was also supported by the main stakeholders. Resistance Energy Agreement However, not everybody supported the Energy Agreement. The foundation Urgenda, an environmental organisation, did not sign the agreement. According to Urgenda, the agreement is a weak compromise without any sense of urgency; therefore, they sued the Dutch government on 20 November 2013. They accused the Dutch state of acting unlawfully by not contributing its proportional share to preventing global warming. The hearing of the case took place on 14 April 2015. Then, on 24 June 2015, the verdict came; Urgenda won the case. The Dutch government was required to take more effective climate action in reducing the Netherlands’ considerable share in global emissions. This was the first time that a judge had legally required a State to take precautions against climate change. Although many politicians asked for action instead of delaying the transition to a more sustainable society, the government