fbpx
Wikipedia

Climate change litigation

May 10, 2023

Climate change litigation, also known as climate litigation, is an emerging body of environmental law using legal practice to set case law precedent to further climate change mitigation efforts from public institutions, such as governments and companies. In the face of slow politics of climate change delaying climate change mitigation, activists and lawyers have increased efforts to use national and international judiciary systems to advance the effort. Climate litigation typically engages in one of five types of legal claims:[2] Constitutional law (focused on breaches of constitutional rights by the state),[3] administrative law (challenging the merits of administrative decision making), private law (challenging corporations or other organizations for negligence, nuisance, etc., fraud or consumer protection (challenging companies for misrepresenting information about climate impacts), or human rights (claiming that failure to act on climate change fails to protect human rights).[4]

In 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands confirmed that the government must cut carbon dioxide emissions, as climate change threatens human health.[1]

Since the early 2000s, the legal frameworks for combating climate change have increasingly been available through legislation, and an increasing body of court cases have developed an international body of law connecting climate action to legal challenges, related to constitutional law, administrative law, private law, consumer protection law or human rights.[2] Many of the successful cases and approaches have focused on advancing the needs of climate justice and the youth climate movement.[5] Since 2015, there has been a trend in the use of human rights arguments in climate lawsuits.[6]

High-profile climate litigation cases brought against states include Leghari v. Pakistan,[7] Juliana v. United States (both 2015), Urgenda v. The Netherlands (2019), and Neubauer v. Germany (2021).[8][9][10][11], while Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell (2021) is the highest-profile case against a corporation to date.[12] Investor-owned coal, oil, and gas corporations could be legally and morally liable for climate-related human rights violations, even though political decisions could prevent them from engaging in such violations.[13][14] Litigations are often carried out via collective pooling of effort and resources such as via organizations like Greenpeace, such as Greenpeace Poland which sued a coal utility[15] and Greenpeace Germany which sued a car manufacturer.[16]

There is a growing trend of activist cases successfully being won in global courts.[17][18][19] The 2017 UN Litigation Report identified 884 cases in 24 countries, including 654 cases in the United States and 230 cases in all other countries combined. As of July 1, 2020, the number of cases has almost doubled to at least 1,550 climate change cases filed in 38 countries (39 including the courts of the European Union), with approximately 1,200 cases filed in the US and over 350 filed in all other countries combined.[20] The number of litigation cases is expected to continue rising in the 2020s.[21]

Types of action

Climate litigation typically engages in one of five types of legal claims:[2]

  • Constitutional law - focused on breaches of constitutional rights by the state.
  • Administrative law - challenging the merits of administrative decision making within existing on-the-books laws, such as in granting permissions for high-emissions projects.
  • Private law - challenging corporations or other organizations for negligence, nuisance, trespass, public trust and unjust enrichment.
  • Fraud or consumer protection - typically challenging companies for misrepresenting information about climate impacts.
  • Human rights - claiming that failure to act on climate change or to protect related natural resources, such as the atmosphere or the rainforest, fails to protect human rights[4]

By type of action

Between governments and companies

In the United States, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace together with the cities of Boulder, Arcata and Oakland won against the Export-Import Bank of the United States and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (state-owned enterprises of the United States government), which were accused of financing fossil-fuel projects detrimental to a stable climate, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (case filed in 2002 and settled in 2009).[22][23][24][25]

In 2016, a government body of the Philippines (the Commission on Human Rights) launched an official investigation concerning climate change against 47 of the world's largest carbon producers.[26][27] It found that in 2019 fossil fuel companies have a legal obligation to act against climate change and may be held responsible for damages.[28]

In 2017, San Francisco, Oakland and other California coastal communities sued multiple fossil-fuel companies for rising sea levels.[19]

In 2018, the city of New York announced that it is taking five fossil fuel firms (BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Shell) to federal court due to their contribution to climate change (from which the city is already suffering).[29]

In 2020, Charleston, South Carolina, followed a similar strategy.[30]

By country and region

Australia

As of February 2020, Australia had the second most number of cases pending in the world, with almost 200 cases.[2] Cases in Australia include Torres Strait Islanders v. Australia (2019),[31][32] in which the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that the Australian government had violated the Islanders' human rights by failure to act on climate change, Youth Verdict v. Waratah Coal (2020),[33] and Sharma v. Minister for the Environment (2020),[34] in which eight young people unsuccessfully argued for an injunction against the expansion of a Whitehaven coal mine.

Belgium

In June 2021, after a six year long legal battle, the Court of First Instance ruled that the climate targets of the government of Belgium are too low and therefore "breached the right to life (article 2) and the right to respect for private and family life (article 8)" of the European Convention on Human Rights.[35]

France

See also: Grande-Synthe climate case

Germany

In 2021, Germany's supreme constitutional court ruled in Neubauer v. Germany that the government's climate protection measures are insufficient to protect future generations and that the government had until the end of 2022 to improve its Climate Protection Act.[36]

Republic of Ireland

Main article: Climate Case Ireland

In July 2020, Friends of the Irish Environment won a landmark case against the Irish government for failing to take sufficient action to address the climate and ecological crisis.[37] The Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that the Irish government's 2017 National Mitigation Plan was inadequate, specifying that it did not provide enough detail on how it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[38]

Netherlands

 
Scholarly article on climate litigation in the Netherlands, especially the Urgenda case
Main article: State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation

The Netherlands had committed to reducing its carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels by 49% by 2030 with various intermediate targets. However, the Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency determined that the country would be missing its goals for 2020.[39]

In 2012, the Dutch lawyer Roger Cox gave the idea of judicial intervention to force action against climate change.[40][41] In 2013, the Urgenda Foundation, with 900 co-plaintiffs, has filed a lawsuit against the Government of the Netherlands "for not taking sufficient measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause dangerous climate change".[40]

In 2015, the District Court of The Hague ruled that the government of the Netherlands must do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect its citizens from climate change (Urgenda climate case).[40][42][43] It was described as a "precedent-setting judgment"[42] and as the "world’s first climate liability suit".[43]

According to James Thornton, chief executive of Client Earth, "Most remarkably, it is based in essence on established science and the ancient principle of a government's duty of care. That reasoning is applicable in any legal system and will certainly be used by courts in other countries."[42][44] In 2018, a court of appeal in The Hague has upheld the precedent-setting judgment that forces the Dutch government to step up its efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions in the Netherlands.[45]

In December 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld the ruling on appeal. Thus, affirming that the government must cut carbon dioxide emissions by 25% from 1990 levels by the end of 2020, on the basis that climate change poses a risk to human health.[1][39]

In Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell, decided in May 2021, the district court of The Hague ordered Royal Dutch Shell to cut its global carbon emissions by 45% by the end of 2030 compared to 2019 levels,[46] and affirmed the responsibility of the company for scope 3 emissions, e.g., emissions from suppliers and customers of its products.[47]

Turkey

In 2022 several environmental organizations filed over 30 lawsuits requesting the president shutdown many large coal-fired power stations and over 600 mines.[48] In addition to climate change arguments the plaintiffs allege that cancer cases are increased and the COVID-19 pandemic was worsened by their air pollution.[49] They argue that as the constitution says that the country cannot be divided this also means that it is unconstitutional to damage the country, and also that because of their social cost they violate the presidents duty to maintain national security.[48] The constitution also says (article 56) that "Everyone has the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment. It is the duty of the State and citizens to improve the natural environment, to protect the environmental health and to prevent environmental pollution." Turkey has ratified the Paris Agreement and says that greenhouse gas emissions will be net zero by 2053, but the government has no plan to phase out coal power.

Government lawyers initially asked for the case to be dismissed by saying that the president does not have the authority to shut down power plants, but the plaintiffs argued that since the constitution had been changed from a parliamentary to a presidential system he does have that authority.[50]

United Kingdom

In December 2020, three British citizens, Marina Tricks, Adetola Onamade, Jerry Amokwandoh, and the climate litigation charity, Plan B, announced that they were taking legal action against the UK government for failing to take sufficient action to address the climate and ecological crisis.[51][52] The plaintiffs announced that they will allege that the government's ongoing funding of fossil fuels both in the UK and other countries constitute a violation of their rights to life and to family life, as well as violating the Paris Agreement and the UK Climate Change Act of 2008.[53]

In 2022, it was claimed in McGaughey and Davies v Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd that the directors of the UK's largest pension fund, USS Ltd had breached their duty to act for proper purposes under the Companies Act 2006 section 171, by failing to have a plan to divest fossil fuels from the fund's portfolio. The claim did not succeed in the High Court,[54] and the claimants appealed to the Court of Appeal, being granted permission for a June 2023 hearing.[55] The case alleges that the right to life must be used to interpret duties in company law, and that because fossil fuels must cease to exist, any investments using them pose a "risk of significant financial detriment".[56]

In February 2023, ClientEarth filed a derivative action claim against Shell's board of directors for putting the company at risk by not transitioning away from fossil fuels quickly enough.[57] ClientEarth said the lawsuit marked 'the first time ever that a company’s board has been challenged on its failure to properly prepare for the energy transition.'[57]

United States

 
Xiuhtezcatl Martinez was a plaintiff in Juliana v. United States and in the Martinez v. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission case.

As of February 2020, the U.S. had the most pending cases with over 1000 in the court system. Examples include Connecticut v. ExxonMobil Corp. and Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. In the United States climate change litigation addresses existing principal laws to make their claim, most of them focusing on private and administrative law. The most popular principal laws to use are NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act), with 322 cases filed under its jurisdiction, the Clean Air Act, with 215 cases filed under its jurisdiction, the Endangered Species Act, with 163 cases filed under its jurisdiction. As more efforts continue on the front of climate change, as of August 2022, the federal government continues to approve agreements and class actions in terms of additional climate change initiatives. In addition, since 2015, there are about two dozen liability and fraud cases brought against some of the world's largest oil companies by various states for their role in denying climate policy leading to increased risks and costs borne to state governments. These states include New Jersey, District of Columbia, Delaware, Connecticut, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Like Minnesota and the District of Columbia before it, New Jersey has also included the industry’s top US trade group, the American Petroleum Institute in addition to ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, Chevron, BP and ConocoPhillips.[58][59][60]

Supreme Court Allows Cities and States to sue Big Oil

On 24 April, 2023, "The U.S. Supreme Court...declined to hear a jurisdictional question from oil companies fighting a multimillion-dollar lawsuit brought by the city of Baltimore over climate change. The Supreme Court’s denial is a victory for Baltimore and for other state and local governments that have repeatedly asked to keep their climate change lawsuits in state courts, where both sides agree the governments stand a better chance of winning large damages than in federal court."[61][62]

Actions Using the Endangered Species Act

In the Endangered Species Act (ESA) case, Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, the Supreme Court stated that the ESA mandates federal agencies to insure their actions do not jeopardize any species that are listed as endangered in the ESA.[63] As climate change is a large threat to endangered species, climate activists have been able to use the ESA to target those accelerating climate change.[citation needed] Climate change litigation cases that use the ESA primarily focus on articles 7 and 9 of the statue. Article 7 states that all actions carried out by federal agencies must be unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence or result in the destruction of endangered species. Article 9 focuses not just on federal agencies but everybody, banning the taking of any endangered species by any party, be it federal, state, or private.[63] By proving that actions taken by those who are contributing to climate change jeopardize animals listed on the ESA, climate activists are able to use the ESA to stop actions contributing to climate change.[citation needed]

The first step for climate change activists is to make sure that species threatened by climate change are listed on the ESA by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Oftentimes this alone can be a lengthy process. In December 2005 the Center for Biological Diversity joined with two other US NGOs (Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council) to petition that the Arctic Polar Bear be listed on the ESA. The FWS under the Bush administration stretched the process out for years, missing many key deadlines and listing the species as "threatened" instead of endangered while the science was clearly in favor of an endangered listing. Facing mass public pressure and scientific consensus the FWS officially listed the species as endangered in May 2008.[63]

Actions Using the National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) recognizes that actions taken by the US government can have significant environmental impact and requires that all federal agencies consider these environmental implications when doing "major federal actions". This can be done either through an environmental assessment (EA) or a more thorough environmental impact statement (EIS), how thorough the analyzation has to be depends on the nature of the proposed action.[64][65] NEPA does not require climate change or greenhouse gases be mentioned in all EAs and EISs, but many climate change activists will sue under NEPA claiming that the impacts related to climate change are relevant enough that they should be included.[citation needed]

Actions Using the Clear Air Act

The Clean Air Act (CAA) regulates air pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources. The Act was passed in the 1970s before there was widespread knowledge about greenhouse gases (GHGs) but in 2007 the Supreme Court decided the EPA did have to regulate GHGs under the CAA due to the famous Massachusetts vs. The EPA case.[18] As a result of this, climate change activists are able to use the CAA as a means to combat GHG emissions in order to fight the acceleration of climate change.[citation needed]

In 2009 the state of California was able to use the CAA to create stronger vehicle emission standards than the national standard, which quickly led to the Obama administration adopting these stricter emission standards on a national level. These standards were called the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards and included regulations of GHGs.[18]

Massachusetts v. EPA

Main article: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

One of the first landmark climate change litigation cases was Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2007. The suit was brought by several American states against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the EPA declined to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions as part of their duty under the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 2003. The EPA had argued that their authority under the Clean Air Act were to regulate "air pollutants", which they claimed carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases did not fall under, so could not apply regulations. States, like Massachusetts, argued that these emissions could lead to climate change-related damages to their states, such as through rising ocean levels, and thus these emissions should be seen as harmful under the CAA and within the EPA's ability to regulate. While EPA initially won at the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, on a 5–4 decision, agreed with the states that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases had been shown to be harmful, and required the EPA to regulate them.

Juliana v. United States

Main article: Juliana v. United States

In 2015, a number of American youth, represented by Our Children's Trust, filed a lawsuit against the United States government in 2015, contending that their future lives would be harmed due to the government's inactivity towards mitigating climate change. While similar suits had been filed and dismissed by the courts for numerous reasons, Juliana v. United States gained traction when a District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the case had merit to continue, and that "a climate system capable of sustaining human life" was a fundamental right under the United States Constitution.[66] The United States government has since attempted to dismiss the case through various challenges to Aiken's findings, but it remains pending in court actions.

European Court of Human Rights

In September 2019, a group of six children and young adults from Portugal filed a lawsuit at the European Court of Human Rights. Supported by the British NGO Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), they argue that tougher climate action is needed to safeguard their future physical and mental well-being. The court asked 33 European governments to explain by February 2021 whether their failure to tackle global heating violates Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[67][68]

United Nations

On 29 March, 2023, the United Nations adopted a resolution calling for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to "strengthen countries’ obligations to curb warming and protect communities from climate disaster."[69] The ICJ is expected to issue a decision clarifying legal requirements on states to respond to the climate crisis and articulating consequences that countries should face for failure to meet those requirements.[70]

Others

After the landmark ruling of the Netherlands in 2015, groups in other countries tried the same judicial approach.[17][71][19] For instance, groups went to court in order to protect people from climate change in Brazil,[72] Belgium,[42] India,[73] New Zealand,[74] Norway,[75] South Africa,[74] Switzerland[76] and the United States.[17][26][19]

In Pakistan in 2015 Lahore High Court ruled in Asghar Leghari vs. Federation of Pakistan that the government was violating the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 and the Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (2014-2030) by failing to meet goals set by the policies. In response, a Climate Change Commission was required to be formed in order to help Pakistan meet its climate goals.[77] The case is considered significant in the history of human rights-based climate litigation.[6]

In 2017, Saul Luciano Lliuya sued RWE to protect his hometown of Huaraz from a swollen glacier lake at risk of overflowing.[78]

In 2018, ten families from European countries, Kenya and Fiji filed a suit against the European Union for the threats against their homes caused by the EU greenhouse emissions.[79]

A group of children in Colombia sued the government to protect the Amazon rainforest from deforestation due to the deforestation's contribution to climate change. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the Colombian rainforest was an "entity subject of rights" requiring protection and restoration.[80]

In 2020, an administrative court case in France, required the Macron administration to review their policies to address climate change to make sure they were significant enough to meet Paris Agreement commitments.[81][82][83]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Isabella Kaminski (20 December 2019). "Dutch supreme court upholds landmark ruling demanding climate action". The Guardian. from the original on 20 December 2019. Retrieved 20 December 2019.
  2. ^ a b c d King; Mallett, Wood Mallesons-Daisy; Nagra, Sati (27 February 2020). "Climate change litigation - what is it and what to expect? | Lexology". www.lexology.com. Retrieved 2020-09-20.
  3. ^ Pasquale Viola (29 March 2022). Climate Constitutionalism Momentum: Adaptive Legal Systems. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-03-097336-0.
  4. ^ a b Orangias, Joseph (1 December 2021). "Towards global public trust doctrines: an analysis of the transnationalisation of state stewardship duties". Transnational Legal Theory. 12 (4): 550–586. doi:10.1080/20414005.2021.2006030. S2CID 244864136.
  5. ^ "Greenpeace Germany sues Volkswagen over carbon emissions targets". Retrieved 11 November 2021.
  6. ^ a b Peel, Jacqueline; Osofsky, Hari M. (March 2018). "A Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation?". Transnational Environmental Law. 7 (1): 37–67. doi:10.1017/S2047102517000292. S2CID 158786536.
  7. ^ "Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan". Climate Case Chart. Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law.
  8. ^ Beauregard, Charles; Carlson, D'Arcy; Robinson, Stacy-ann; Cobb, Charles; Patton, Mykela (28 May 2021). "Climate justice and rights-based litigation in a post-Paris world". Climate Policy. 21 (5): 652–665. doi:10.1080/14693062.2020.1867047. ISSN 1469-3062. S2CID 233731449.
  9. ^ Marris, Emma (3 November 2018). "US Supreme Court allows historic kids' climate lawsuit to go forward". Nature. 563 (7730): 163–164. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07214-2. PMID 30401851. S2CID 53234042. Retrieved 7 November 2021.
  10. ^ Viglione, Giuliana (28 February 2020). "Climate lawsuits are breaking new legal ground to protect the planet". Nature. 579 (7798): 184–185. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00175-5. PMID 32157222. S2CID 212654628. Retrieved 7 November 2021.
  11. ^ "Constitutional complaints against the Federal Climate Change Act partially successful". www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de. Bundesverfassungsgericht.
  12. ^ "Shell: Netherlands court orders oil giant to cut emissions". BBC News. 26 May 2021.
  13. ^ "Science Hub for Climate Litigation | Union of Concerned Scientists". www.ucsusa.org. Retrieved 7 November 2021.
  14. ^ "As South Africa clings to coal, a struggle for the right to breathe". Grist. 12 December 2020. Retrieved 7 November 2021.
  15. ^ "Greenpeace threatens to sue coal utility in Poland". Climate Home News. 29 November 2018. Retrieved 7 November 2021.
  16. ^ "Greenpeace Germany sues Volkswagen over carbon emissions targets". Reuters. 2021-11-09. Retrieved 2022-08-22.
  17. ^ a b c "The Climate Justice movement across the globe" 6 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Greenpeace, 19 August 2015 (page visited on 6 November 2016).
  18. ^ a b c US EPA, OP (2013-02-22). "Summary of the Clean Air Act". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 2021-11-23.
  19. ^ a b c d Center for Public Integrity, "Venue of last resort: the climate lawsuits threatening the future of big oil " 17 December 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian, 17 December 2017 (page visited on 17 December 2017).
  20. ^ "Global Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review" (PDF). UN environment programme. (PDF) from the original on 2021-01-26.
  21. ^ Kaminski, Isabella (4 January 2023). "Why 2023 will be a watershed year for climate litigation". The Guardian.
  22. ^ Douglas Starr, "The carbon accountant. Richard Heede pins much of the responsibility for climate change on just 90 companies. Others say that's a cop-out" 11 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Science, volume 353, issue 6302, 26 August 2016, pages 858-861.
  23. ^ Litigation related to climate change 4 November 2018 at the Wayback Machine, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (page visited on 30 November 2016).
  24. ^ Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, in the case of Friends of the earth, Greenpeace, Inc. and City of Boulder Colorado versus Peter Watson (Overseas Private Investment Corporation) and Phillip Lerrill (Export-Import Bank of the United States), No. C 02-4106 JSW 1 December 2016 at the Wayback Machine, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2005 (page visited on 30 November 2016).
  25. ^ Carlarne, Cinnamon Piñon (2010). Climate Change Law and Policy: EU and US Approaches. Oxford University Press. pp. 99–101. ISBN 9780199553419.
  26. ^ a b John Vidal, "World's largest carbon producers face landmark human rights case" 6 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian, 27 July 2016 (page visited on 6 November 2016).
  27. ^ Petition Requesting for Investigation of the Responsibility of the Carbon Majors for Human Rights Violations or Threats of Violations Resulting from the Impacts of Climate Change 15 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, 2016 (page visited on 30 November 2016).
  28. ^ Kaminski, Isabella (2019-12-09). "Fossil fuel firms 'could be sued' for climate change". The Independent. Retrieved 2020-12-28.
  29. ^ Oliver Milman, "New York City plans to divest $5bn from fossil fuels and sue oil companies" 17 January 2018 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian, 10 January 2018 (page visited on 12 January 2018).
  30. ^ "Charleston, SC Becomes First City in U.S. South to Sue Big Oil for Climate Costs". EcoWatch. 2020-09-11. Retrieved 2020-09-22.
  31. ^ "Daniel Billy and others v Australia (Torres Strait Islanders Petition)". Climate Case Chart. Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law.
  32. ^ Marjanac, Sophie; Jones, Sam Hunter (2022). "Staying within Atmospheric and Judicial Limits: Core Principles for Assessing Whether State Action on Climate Change Complies with Human Rights". Litigating the Climate Emergency: How Human Rights, Courts, and Legal Mobilization Can Bolster Climate Action: 157–176. doi:10.1017/9781009106214.010.
  33. ^ "Youth Verdict v. Waratah Coal". Climate Case Chart. Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law.
  34. ^ "Sharma and others v. Minister for the Environment". Climate Case Chart. Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law.
  35. ^ Germanos, Andrea (19 June 2021). "Belgium Court Deems Inadequate Climate Policy a Human Rights Violation". Ecowatch. Retrieved 28 June 2021.
  36. ^ Connolly, Kate (2021-04-29). "'Historic' German ruling says climate goals not tough enough". The Guardian. from the original on 2021-04-29. Retrieved 2021-05-01.
  37. ^ "Climate change: 'Huge' implications to Irish climate case across Europe". BBC News. 2020-08-01. Retrieved 2021-01-08.
  38. ^ Frost, Rosie (2020-07-31). "Irish citizens win case to force government action on climate change". living. Retrieved 2021-01-08.
  39. ^ a b Akkermans, Joost; Proper, Ellen (20 December 2019). "Dutch Supreme Court orders 25% cut in CO2 starting next year". Bloomberg Businessweek. from the original on 20 December 2019. Retrieved 20 December 2019.
  40. ^ a b c Urgenda climate case 21 December 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Urgenda Foundation (page visited on 6 November 2016).
  41. ^ Roger Cox, "It is time for the judiciary to step in and avert climate catastrophe" 6 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian, 14 November 2012 (page visited on 6 November 2016).
  42. ^ a b c d Quirin Schiermeier, "Landmark court ruling tells Dutch government to do more on climate change" 4 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Nature, 24 June 2015 (page visited on 5 November 2016).
  43. ^ a b Arthur Neslen, "Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling" 23 December 2019 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian, 24 June 2015 (page visited on 5 November 2016).
  44. ^ It is also supported by the Oslo Principles on Global Climate Change Obligations 5 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine. See Julia Powles and Tessa Khan, "Climate change: at last a breakthrough to our catastrophic political impasse?" 6 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian, 30 March 2015 (page visited on 6 November 2016).
  45. ^ Schiermeier, Quirin (2018-10-10). "Dutch court rules that government must help stop climate change". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07007-7. S2CID 158314143. from the original on 1 April 2019. Retrieved 1 April 2019.
  46. ^ Boffey, Daniel (26 May 2021). "Court orders Royal Dutch Shell to cut carbon emissions by 45% by 2030". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 May 2021.
  47. ^ Peel, Jacqueline; Neville, Ben; Markey-Towler, Rebekkah (31 May 2021). "Four seismic climate wins show Big Oil, Gas and Coal are running out of places to hide". The Conversation. Retrieved 29 June 2021.
  48. ^ a b "Ekoloji Örgütleri, 37 Termik Santralın Kapatılması İçin Cumhurbaşkanı'na Dava Açtı". K2 Haber (in Turkish). 2022-03-17. Retrieved 2022-05-10.
  49. ^ "34 termik santral ve 606 madene karşı açılan dava için Guinness başvurusu". Cumhuriyet (in Turkish). Retrieved 2022-05-10.
  50. ^ "37 termik santrali kapatma davası görüldü: Avukatları 'Cumhurbaşkanının yetkisi yok' dedi". Yeşil Gazete (in Turkish). 2022-03-17. Retrieved 2022-05-10.
  51. ^ "New Youth Climate Lawsuit Launched Against UK Government on Five Year Anniversary of Paris Agreement". DeSmog. 12 December 2020. Retrieved 2021-01-08.
  52. ^ "Young People v UK Government: Safeguard our Lives and our Families!". Plan B. Retrieved 2021-04-14.
  53. ^ "'A quantum leap for climate action': UK pledges to end support for overseas oil and gas projects". www.businessgreen.com. 2020-12-11. Retrieved 2021-01-08.
  54. ^ [2022] EWHC 1233 (Ch) and B Mercer, 'Lecturers’ USS lawsuit frustrated by centuries-old precedent' (24 May 2022) Pensions Expert
  55. ^ T Williams, 'Commit to restoring ‘£7,000’ pension losses now, say USS members' Times Higher Ed
  56. ^ E McGaughey, ‘Holding USS Directors Accountable, and the Start of the End for Foss v Harbottle?’ (18 July 2022) Oxford Business Law Blog
  57. ^ a b "We're taking Shell's Board of Directors to court". ClientEarth. 9 February 2023.
  58. ^ "August 2022 Updates to the Climate Case Charts | Sabin Center for Climate Change Law". Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law.
  59. ^ "U.S. Climate Change Litigation". Climate Change Litigation. Retrieved 2021-11-18.
  60. ^ "New Jersey latest state to sue oil companies over climate misinformation". the Guardian. 2022-10-18. Retrieved 2023-01-28.
  61. ^ O'Neil, Madeleine (24 April 2023). "Supreme Court denies appeal from Big Oil, sending Baltimore climate change suit to state court". Maryland - The Daily Record. Retrieved 25 April 2023.
  62. ^ Fried, Kate; Herrmann, Christian; Sandoval, Emily (24 April 2023). "Supreme Court Rejects Big Oil's Bid to Review Landmark Climate Case". City of Boulder - News. Retrieved 25 April 2023.
  63. ^ a b c Burns, William C. G.; Osofsky, Hari M., eds. (2009). Adjudicating Climate Change: State, National, and International Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511596766. ISBN 978-0-521-87970-5.
  64. ^ "A Citizens Guide to NEPA" (PDF). Council on Environmental Quality Executive Office of the President: 1–28. January 2021.
  65. ^ "NEPA - Introduction to Incorporating Climate Change | Climate Change Resource Center". www.fs.usda.gov. Retrieved 2021-11-23.
  66. ^ Sutter, John (9 March 2016). "Climate kids take on the feds". CNN. from the original on 23 December 2019. Retrieved 23 October 2018.
  67. ^ Jonathan Watts (30 November 2020). "European states ordered to respond to youth activists' climate lawsuit". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 November 2020..
  68. ^ "An emergency like no other", Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), 30 November 2020 (page visited on 30 November 2020).
  69. ^ O'Malley, Isabella; Beltaji, Dana (29 March 2023). "UN seeks court opinion on climate in win for island states". AP News. Retrieved 17 April 2023.
  70. ^ The Guardian, 29 Mar. 2023 "United Nations Adopts Landmark Resolution on Climate Justice, Resolution Hailed as ‘Win for Climate Justice of Epic Proportions’ Should Make It Easier to Hold Countries Accountable for Failures"
  71. ^ Jonathan Watts, "'We should be on the offensive' – James Hansen calls for wave of climate lawsuits" 17 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian, 17 November 2017 (page visited on 17 November 2017).
  72. ^ "First climate case reaches Brazil's Supreme Court". Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment. Retrieved 2021-08-31.
  73. ^ Reuters, "Nine-year-old sues Indian government over climate change inaction" 9 April 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian, 7 April 2017 (page visited on 9 April 2017).
  74. ^ a b Tessa Khan, "How climate change battles are increasingly being fought, and won, in court" 9 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian, 8 March 2017 (page visited on 9 March 2017).
  75. ^ Tone Sutterud and Elisabeth Ulven, "Norway sued over Arctic oil exploration plans" 17 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian, 14 November 2017 (page visited on 17 November 2017).
  76. ^ Ainées pour la protection du climat 6 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine, 2016 (page visited on 5 November 2016).
  77. ^ Gill, Anam (2015-11-13). "Farmer sues Pakistan's government to demand action on climate change". Reuters. Retrieved 2021-04-21.
  78. ^ France-Presse, Agence (14 November 2017). "Peruvian farmer sues German energy giant for contributing to climate change". from the original on 16 August 2019. Retrieved 4 July 2019 – via www.theguardian.com.
  79. ^ "Families from 8 countries sue EU over climate change". France 24. AFP. 24 May 2018. from the original on 29 May 2018. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
  80. ^ "In historic ruling, Colombian Court protects youth suing the national government for failing to curb deforestation". Dejusticia. 2018-04-05. Retrieved 2020-07-29.
  81. ^ "Court gives France three-month deadline to justify its actions on climate change". www.thelocal.fr. 2020-11-19. from the original on 2020-11-19. Retrieved 2020-11-22.
  82. ^ "Une avancée historique pour la justice climatique !". L'Affaire du Siècle. 2020-11-19. Retrieved 2020-11-22.
  83. ^ "France's top court gives government three months to honour climate commitments". RFI. 2020-11-19. Retrieved 2020-11-22.

External links

May 10, 2023
climate, change, litigation, also, known, climate, litigation, emerging, body, environmental, using, legal, practice, case, precedent, further, climate, change, mitigation, efforts, from, public, institutions, such, governments, companies, face, slow, politics. Climate change litigation also known as climate litigation is an emerging body of environmental law using legal practice to set case law precedent to further climate change mitigation efforts from public institutions such as governments and companies In the face of slow politics of climate change delaying climate change mitigation activists and lawyers have increased efforts to use national and international judiciary systems to advance the effort Climate litigation typically engages in one of five types of legal claims 2 Constitutional law focused on breaches of constitutional rights by the state 3 administrative law challenging the merits of administrative decision making private law challenging corporations or other organizations for negligence nuisance etc fraud or consumer protection challenging companies for misrepresenting information about climate impacts or human rights claiming that failure to act on climate change fails to protect human rights 4 In 2019 the Supreme Court of the Netherlands confirmed that the government must cut carbon dioxide emissions as climate change threatens human health 1 Since the early 2000s the legal frameworks for combating climate change have increasingly been available through legislation and an increasing body of court cases have developed an international body of law connecting climate action to legal challenges related to constitutional law administrative law private law consumer protection law or human rights 2 Many of the successful cases and approaches have focused on advancing the needs of climate justice and the youth climate movement 5 Since 2015 there has been a trend in the use of human rights arguments in climate lawsuits 6 High profile climate litigation cases brought against states include Leghari v Pakistan 7 Juliana v United States both 2015 Urgenda v The Netherlands 2019 and Neubauer v Germany 2021 8 9 10 11 while Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell 2021 is the highest profile case against a corporation to date 12 Investor owned coal oil and gas corporations could be legally and morally liable for climate related human rights violations even though political decisions could prevent them from engaging in such violations 13 14 Litigations are often carried out via collective pooling of effort and resources such as via organizations like Greenpeace such as Greenpeace Poland which sued a coal utility 15 and Greenpeace Germany which sued a car manufacturer 16 There is a growing trend of activist cases successfully being won in global courts 17 18 19 The 2017 UN Litigation Report identified 884 cases in 24 countries including 654 cases in the United States and 230 cases in all other countries combined As of July 1 2020 the number of cases has almost doubled to at least 1 550 climate change cases filed in 38 countries 39 including the courts of the European Union with approximately 1 200 cases filed in the US and over 350 filed in all other countries combined 20 The number of litigation cases is expected to continue rising in the 2020s 21 Contents 1 Types of action 2 By type of action 2 1 Between governments and companies 3 By country and region 3 1 Australia 3 2 Belgium 3 3 France 3 4 Germany 3 5 Republic of Ireland 3 6 Netherlands 3 7 Turkey 3 8 United Kingdom 3 9 United States 3 9 1 Supreme Court Allows Cities and States to sue Big Oil 3 9 2 Actions Using the Endangered Species Act 3 9 3 Actions Using the National Environmental Policy Act 3 9 4 Actions Using the Clear Air Act 3 9 5 Massachusetts v EPA 3 9 6 Juliana v United States 3 10 European Court of Human Rights 3 11 United Nations 3 12 Others 4 See also 5 References 6 External linksTypes of action EditClimate litigation typically engages in one of five types of legal claims 2 Constitutional law focused on breaches of constitutional rights by the state Administrative law challenging the merits of administrative decision making within existing on the books laws such as in granting permissions for high emissions projects Private law challenging corporations or other organizations for negligence nuisance trespass public trust and unjust enrichment Fraud or consumer protection typically challenging companies for misrepresenting information about climate impacts Human rights claiming that failure to act on climate change or to protect related natural resources such as the atmosphere or the rainforest fails to protect human rights 4 By type of action EditBetween governments and companies Edit In the United States Friends of the Earth Greenpeace together with the cities of Boulder Arcata and Oakland won against the Export Import Bank of the United States and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation state owned enterprises of the United States government which were accused of financing fossil fuel projects detrimental to a stable climate in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act case filed in 2002 and settled in 2009 22 23 24 25 In 2016 a government body of the Philippines the Commission on Human Rights launched an official investigation concerning climate change against 47 of the world s largest carbon producers 26 27 It found that in 2019 fossil fuel companies have a legal obligation to act against climate change and may be held responsible for damages 28 In 2017 San Francisco Oakland and other California coastal communities sued multiple fossil fuel companies for rising sea levels 19 In 2018 the city of New York announced that it is taking five fossil fuel firms BP ExxonMobil Chevron ConocoPhillips and Shell to federal court due to their contribution to climate change from which the city is already suffering 29 In 2020 Charleston South Carolina followed a similar strategy 30 By country and region EditAustralia Edit As of February 2020 Australia had the second most number of cases pending in the world with almost 200 cases 2 Cases in Australia include Torres Strait Islanders v Australia 2019 31 32 in which the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that the Australian government had violated the Islanders human rights by failure to act on climate change Youth Verdict v Waratah Coal 2020 33 and Sharma v Minister for the Environment 2020 34 in which eight young people unsuccessfully argued for an injunction against the expansion of a Whitehaven coal mine Belgium Edit In June 2021 after a six year long legal battle the Court of First Instance ruled that the climate targets of the government of Belgium are too low and therefore breached the right to life article 2 and the right to respect for private and family life article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights 35 France Edit See also Grande Synthe climate case Germany Edit In 2021 Germany s supreme constitutional court ruled in Neubauer v Germany that the government s climate protection measures are insufficient to protect future generations and that the government had until the end of 2022 to improve its Climate Protection Act 36 Republic of Ireland Edit Main article Climate Case Ireland In July 2020 Friends of the Irish Environment won a landmark case against the Irish government for failing to take sufficient action to address the climate and ecological crisis 37 The Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that the Irish government s 2017 National Mitigation Plan was inadequate specifying that it did not provide enough detail on how it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 38 Netherlands Edit Scholarly article on climate litigation in the Netherlands especially the Urgenda case Main article State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation The Netherlands had committed to reducing its carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels by 49 by 2030 with various intermediate targets However the Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency determined that the country would be missing its goals for 2020 39 In 2012 the Dutch lawyer Roger Cox gave the idea of judicial intervention to force action against climate change 40 41 In 2013 the Urgenda Foundation with 900 co plaintiffs has filed a lawsuit against the Government of the Netherlands for not taking sufficient measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause dangerous climate change 40 In 2015 the District Court of The Hague ruled that the government of the Netherlands must do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect its citizens from climate change Urgenda climate case 40 42 43 It was described as a precedent setting judgment 42 and as the world s first climate liability suit 43 According to James Thornton chief executive of Client Earth Most remarkably it is based in essence on established science and the ancient principle of a government s duty of care That reasoning is applicable in any legal system and will certainly be used by courts in other countries 42 44 In 2018 a court of appeal in The Hague has upheld the precedent setting judgment that forces the Dutch government to step up its efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions in the Netherlands 45 In December 2019 the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld the ruling on appeal Thus affirming that the government must cut carbon dioxide emissions by 25 from 1990 levels by the end of 2020 on the basis that climate change poses a risk to human health 1 39 In Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell decided in May 2021 the district court of The Hague ordered Royal Dutch Shell to cut its global carbon emissions by 45 by the end of 2030 compared to 2019 levels 46 and affirmed the responsibility of the company for scope 3 emissions e g emissions from suppliers and customers of its products 47 Turkey Edit In 2022 several environmental organizations filed over 30 lawsuits requesting the president shutdown many large coal fired power stations and over 600 mines 48 In addition to climate change arguments the plaintiffs allege that cancer cases are increased and the COVID 19 pandemic was worsened by their air pollution 49 They argue that as the constitution says that the country cannot be divided this also means that it is unconstitutional to damage the country and also that because of their social cost they violate the presidents duty to maintain national security 48 The constitution also says article 56 that Everyone has the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment It is the duty of the State and citizens to improve the natural environment to protect the environmental health and to prevent environmental pollution Turkey has ratified the Paris Agreement and says that greenhouse gas emissions will be net zero by 2053 but the government has no plan to phase out coal power Government lawyers initially asked for the case to be dismissed by saying that the president does not have the authority to shut down power plants but the plaintiffs argued that since the constitution had been changed from a parliamentary to a presidential system he does have that authority 50 United Kingdom Edit In December 2020 three British citizens Marina Tricks Adetola Onamade Jerry Amokwandoh and the climate litigation charity Plan B announced that they were taking legal action against the UK government for failing to take sufficient action to address the climate and ecological crisis 51 52 The plaintiffs announced that they will allege that the government s ongoing funding of fossil fuels both in the UK and other countries constitute a violation of their rights to life and to family life as well as violating the Paris Agreement and the UK Climate Change Act of 2008 53 In 2022 it was claimed in McGaughey and Davies v Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd that the directors of the UK s largest pension fund USS Ltd had breached their duty to act for proper purposes under the Companies Act 2006 section 171 by failing to have a plan to divest fossil fuels from the fund s portfolio The claim did not succeed in the High Court 54 and the claimants appealed to the Court of Appeal being granted permission for a June 2023 hearing 55 The case alleges that the right to life must be used to interpret duties in company law and that because fossil fuels must cease to exist any investments using them pose a risk of significant financial detriment 56 In February 2023 ClientEarth filed a derivative action claim against Shell s board of directors for putting the company at risk by not transitioning away from fossil fuels quickly enough 57 ClientEarth said the lawsuit marked the first time ever that a company s board has been challenged on its failure to properly prepare for the energy transition 57 United States Edit Xiuhtezcatl Martinez was a plaintiff in Juliana v United States and in the Martinez v Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission case As of February 2020 the U S had the most pending cases with over 1000 in the court system Examples include Connecticut v ExxonMobil Corp and Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency In the United States climate change litigation addresses existing principal laws to make their claim most of them focusing on private and administrative law The most popular principal laws to use are NEPA the National Environmental Policy Act with 322 cases filed under its jurisdiction the Clean Air Act with 215 cases filed under its jurisdiction the Endangered Species Act with 163 cases filed under its jurisdiction As more efforts continue on the front of climate change as of August 2022 the federal government continues to approve agreements and class actions in terms of additional climate change initiatives In addition since 2015 there are about two dozen liability and fraud cases brought against some of the world s largest oil companies by various states for their role in denying climate policy leading to increased risks and costs borne to state governments These states include New Jersey District of Columbia Delaware Connecticut Minnesota Rhode Island Massachusetts and Vermont Like Minnesota and the District of Columbia before it New Jersey has also included the industry s top US trade group the American Petroleum Institute in addition to ExxonMobil Shell Oil Chevron BP and ConocoPhillips 58 59 60 Supreme Court Allows Cities and States to sue Big Oil Edit On 24 April 2023 The U S Supreme Court declined to hear a jurisdictional question from oil companies fighting a multimillion dollar lawsuit brought by the city of Baltimore over climate change The Supreme Court s denial is a victory for Baltimore and for other state and local governments that have repeatedly asked to keep their climate change lawsuits in state courts where both sides agree the governments stand a better chance of winning large damages than in federal court 61 62 Actions Using the Endangered Species Act Edit In the Endangered Species Act ESA case Tennessee Valley Authority v Hill the Supreme Court stated that the ESA mandates federal agencies to insure their actions do not jeopardize any species that are listed as endangered in the ESA 63 As climate change is a large threat to endangered species climate activists have been able to use the ESA to target those accelerating climate change citation needed Climate change litigation cases that use the ESA primarily focus on articles 7 and 9 of the statue Article 7 states that all actions carried out by federal agencies must be unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence or result in the destruction of endangered species Article 9 focuses not just on federal agencies but everybody banning the taking of any endangered species by any party be it federal state or private 63 By proving that actions taken by those who are contributing to climate change jeopardize animals listed on the ESA climate activists are able to use the ESA to stop actions contributing to climate change citation needed The first step for climate change activists is to make sure that species threatened by climate change are listed on the ESA by the Fish and Wildlife Service FWS Oftentimes this alone can be a lengthy process In December 2005 the Center for Biological Diversity joined with two other US NGOs Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council to petition that the Arctic Polar Bear be listed on the ESA The FWS under the Bush administration stretched the process out for years missing many key deadlines and listing the species as threatened instead of endangered while the science was clearly in favor of an endangered listing Facing mass public pressure and scientific consensus the FWS officially listed the species as endangered in May 2008 63 Actions Using the National Environmental Policy Act Edit The National Environmental Policy Act NEPA recognizes that actions taken by the US government can have significant environmental impact and requires that all federal agencies consider these environmental implications when doing major federal actions This can be done either through an environmental assessment EA or a more thorough environmental impact statement EIS how thorough the analyzation has to be depends on the nature of the proposed action 64 65 NEPA does not require climate change or greenhouse gases be mentioned in all EAs and EISs but many climate change activists will sue under NEPA claiming that the impacts related to climate change are relevant enough that they should be included citation needed Actions Using the Clear Air Act Edit The Clean Air Act CAA regulates air pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources The Act was passed in the 1970s before there was widespread knowledge about greenhouse gases GHGs but in 2007 the Supreme Court decided the EPA did have to regulate GHGs under the CAA due to the famous Massachusetts vs The EPA case 18 As a result of this climate change activists are able to use the CAA as a means to combat GHG emissions in order to fight the acceleration of climate change citation needed In 2009 the state of California was able to use the CAA to create stronger vehicle emission standards than the national standard which quickly led to the Obama administration adopting these stricter emission standards on a national level These standards were called the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency CAFE standards and included regulations of GHGs 18 Massachusetts v EPA Edit Main article Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency This section does not cite any sources Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources Unsourced material may be challenged and removed November 2021 Learn how and when to remove this template message One of the first landmark climate change litigation cases was Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2007 The suit was brought by several American states against the Environmental Protection Agency EPA after the EPA declined to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions as part of their duty under the Clean Air Act CAA in 2003 The EPA had argued that their authority under the Clean Air Act were to regulate air pollutants which they claimed carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases did not fall under so could not apply regulations States like Massachusetts argued that these emissions could lead to climate change related damages to their states such as through rising ocean levels and thus these emissions should be seen as harmful under the CAA and within the EPA s ability to regulate While EPA initially won at the Court of Appeals the Supreme Court on a 5 4 decision agreed with the states that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases had been shown to be harmful and required the EPA to regulate them Juliana v United States Edit Main article Juliana v United States In 2015 a number of American youth represented by Our Children s Trust filed a lawsuit against the United States government in 2015 contending that their future lives would be harmed due to the government s inactivity towards mitigating climate change While similar suits had been filed and dismissed by the courts for numerous reasons Juliana v United States gained traction when a District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the case had merit to continue and that a climate system capable of sustaining human life was a fundamental right under the United States Constitution 66 The United States government has since attempted to dismiss the case through various challenges to Aiken s findings but it remains pending in court actions European Court of Human Rights Edit In September 2019 a group of six children and young adults from Portugal filed a lawsuit at the European Court of Human Rights Supported by the British NGO Global Legal Action Network GLAN they argue that tougher climate action is needed to safeguard their future physical and mental well being The court asked 33 European governments to explain by February 2021 whether their failure to tackle global heating violates Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights 67 68 United Nations Edit On 29 March 2023 the United Nations adopted a resolution calling for the International Court of Justice ICJ to strengthen countries obligations to curb warming and protect communities from climate disaster 69 The ICJ is expected to issue a decision clarifying legal requirements on states to respond to the climate crisis and articulating consequences that countries should face for failure to meet those requirements 70 Others Edit After the landmark ruling of the Netherlands in 2015 groups in other countries tried the same judicial approach 17 71 19 For instance groups went to court in order to protect people from climate change in Brazil 72 Belgium 42 India 73 New Zealand 74 Norway 75 South Africa 74 Switzerland 76 and the United States 17 26 19 In Pakistan in 2015 Lahore High Court ruled in Asghar Leghari vs Federation of Pakistan that the government was violating the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 and the Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy 2014 2030 by failing to meet goals set by the policies In response a Climate Change Commission was required to be formed in order to help Pakistan meet its climate goals 77 The case is considered significant in the history of human rights based climate litigation 6 In 2017 Saul Luciano Lliuya sued RWE to protect his hometown of Huaraz from a swollen glacier lake at risk of overflowing 78 In 2018 ten families from European countries Kenya and Fiji filed a suit against the European Union for the threats against their homes caused by the EU greenhouse emissions 79 A group of children in Colombia sued the government to protect the Amazon rainforest from deforestation due to the deforestation s contribution to climate change In 2018 the Supreme Court ruled that the Colombian rainforest was an entity subject of rights requiring protection and restoration 80 In 2020 an administrative court case in France required the Macron administration to review their policies to address climate change to make sure they were significant enough to meet Paris Agreement commitments 81 82 83 See also EditClimate Justice Environmental law Human rights and climate change Oslo Principles on Global Obligations to Reduce Climate ChangeReferences Edit a b Isabella Kaminski 20 December 2019 Dutch supreme court upholds landmark ruling demanding climate action The Guardian Archived from the original on 20 December 2019 Retrieved 20 December 2019 a b c d King Mallett Wood Mallesons Daisy Nagra Sati 27 February 2020 Climate change litigation what is it and what to expect Lexology www lexology com Retrieved 2020 09 20 Pasquale Viola 29 March 2022 Climate Constitutionalism Momentum Adaptive Legal Systems Springer Nature ISBN 978 3 03 097336 0 a b Orangias Joseph 1 December 2021 Towards global public trust doctrines an analysis of the transnationalisation of state stewardship duties Transnational Legal Theory 12 4 550 586 doi 10 1080 20414005 2021 2006030 S2CID 244864136 Greenpeace Germany sues Volkswagen over carbon emissions targets Retrieved 11 November 2021 a b Peel Jacqueline Osofsky Hari M March 2018 A Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation Transnational Environmental Law 7 1 37 67 doi 10 1017 S2047102517000292 S2CID 158786536 Leghari v Federation of Pakistan Climate Case Chart Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law Beauregard Charles Carlson D Arcy Robinson Stacy ann Cobb Charles Patton Mykela 28 May 2021 Climate justice and rights based litigation in a post Paris world Climate Policy 21 5 652 665 doi 10 1080 14693062 2020 1867047 ISSN 1469 3062 S2CID 233731449 Marris Emma 3 November 2018 US Supreme Court allows historic kids climate lawsuit to go forward Nature 563 7730 163 164 doi 10 1038 d41586 018 07214 2 PMID 30401851 S2CID 53234042 Retrieved 7 November 2021 Viglione Giuliana 28 February 2020 Climate lawsuits are breaking new legal ground to protect the planet Nature 579 7798 184 185 doi 10 1038 d41586 020 00175 5 PMID 32157222 S2CID 212654628 Retrieved 7 November 2021 Constitutional complaints against the Federal Climate Change Act partially successful www bundesverfassungsgericht de Bundesverfassungsgericht Shell Netherlands court orders oil giant to cut emissions BBC News 26 May 2021 Science Hub for Climate Litigation Union of Concerned Scientists www ucsusa org Retrieved 7 November 2021 As South Africa clings to coal a struggle for the right to breathe Grist 12 December 2020 Retrieved 7 November 2021 Greenpeace threatens to sue coal utility in Poland Climate Home News 29 November 2018 Retrieved 7 November 2021 Greenpeace Germany sues Volkswagen over carbon emissions targets Reuters 2021 11 09 Retrieved 2022 08 22 a b c The Climate Justice movement across the globe Archived 6 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine Greenpeace 19 August 2015 page visited on 6 November 2016 a b c US EPA OP 2013 02 22 Summary of the Clean Air Act www epa gov Retrieved 2021 11 23 a b c d Center for Public Integrity Venue of last resort the climate lawsuits threatening the future of big oil Archived 17 December 2017 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian 17 December 2017 page visited on 17 December 2017 Global Climate Litigation Report 2020 Status Review PDF UN environment programme Archived PDF from the original on 2021 01 26 Kaminski Isabella 4 January 2023 Why 2023 will be a watershed year for climate litigation The Guardian Douglas Starr The carbon accountant Richard Heede pins much of the responsibility for climate change on just 90 companies Others say that s a cop out Archived 11 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine Science volume 353 issue 6302 26 August 2016 pages 858 861 Litigation related to climate change Archived 4 November 2018 at the Wayback Machine IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change page visited on 30 November 2016 Order Denying Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment in the case of Friends of the earth Greenpeace Inc and City of Boulder Colorado versus Peter Watson Overseas Private Investment Corporation and Phillip Lerrill Export Import Bank of the United States No C 02 4106 JSW Archived 1 December 2016 at the Wayback Machine United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2005 page visited on 30 November 2016 Carlarne Cinnamon Pinon 2010 Climate Change Law and Policy EU and US Approaches Oxford University Press pp 99 101 ISBN 9780199553419 a b John Vidal World s largest carbon producers face landmark human rights case Archived 6 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian 27 July 2016 page visited on 6 November 2016 Petition Requesting for Investigation of the Responsibility of the Carbon Majors for Human Rights Violations or Threats of Violations Resulting from the Impacts of Climate Change Archived 15 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines 2016 page visited on 30 November 2016 Kaminski Isabella 2019 12 09 Fossil fuel firms could be sued for climate change The Independent Retrieved 2020 12 28 Oliver Milman New York City plans to divest 5bn from fossil fuels and sue oil companies Archived 17 January 2018 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian 10 January 2018 page visited on 12 January 2018 Charleston SC Becomes First City in U S South to Sue Big Oil for Climate Costs EcoWatch 2020 09 11 Retrieved 2020 09 22 Daniel Billy and others v Australia Torres Strait Islanders Petition Climate Case Chart Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law Marjanac Sophie Jones Sam Hunter 2022 Staying within Atmospheric and Judicial Limits Core Principles for Assessing Whether State Action on Climate Change Complies with Human Rights Litigating the Climate Emergency How Human Rights Courts and Legal Mobilization Can Bolster Climate Action 157 176 doi 10 1017 9781009106214 010 Youth Verdict v Waratah Coal Climate Case Chart Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law Sharma and others v Minister for the Environment Climate Case Chart Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law Germanos Andrea 19 June 2021 Belgium Court Deems Inadequate Climate Policy a Human Rights Violation Ecowatch Retrieved 28 June 2021 Connolly Kate 2021 04 29 Historic German ruling says climate goals not tough enough The Guardian Archived from the original on 2021 04 29 Retrieved 2021 05 01 Climate change Huge implications to Irish climate case across Europe BBC News 2020 08 01 Retrieved 2021 01 08 Frost Rosie 2020 07 31 Irish citizens win case to force government action on climate change living Retrieved 2021 01 08 a b Akkermans Joost Proper Ellen 20 December 2019 Dutch Supreme Court orders 25 cut in CO2 starting next year Bloomberg Businessweek Archived from the original on 20 December 2019 Retrieved 20 December 2019 a b c Urgenda climate case Archived 21 December 2016 at the Wayback Machine Urgenda Foundation page visited on 6 November 2016 Roger Cox It is time for the judiciary to step in and avert climate catastrophe Archived 6 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian 14 November 2012 page visited on 6 November 2016 a b c d Quirin Schiermeier Landmark court ruling tells Dutch government to do more on climate change Archived 4 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine Nature 24 June 2015 page visited on 5 November 2016 a b Arthur Neslen Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling Archived 23 December 2019 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian 24 June 2015 page visited on 5 November 2016 It is also supported by the Oslo Principles on Global Climate Change Obligations Archived 5 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine See Julia Powles and Tessa Khan Climate change at last a breakthrough to our catastrophic political impasse Archived 6 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian 30 March 2015 page visited on 6 November 2016 Schiermeier Quirin 2018 10 10 Dutch court rules that government must help stop climate change Nature doi 10 1038 d41586 018 07007 7 S2CID 158314143 Archived from the original on 1 April 2019 Retrieved 1 April 2019 Boffey Daniel 26 May 2021 Court orders Royal Dutch Shell to cut carbon emissions by 45 by 2030 The Guardian Retrieved 26 May 2021 Peel Jacqueline Neville Ben Markey Towler Rebekkah 31 May 2021 Four seismic climate wins show Big Oil Gas and Coal are running out of places to hide The Conversation Retrieved 29 June 2021 a b Ekoloji Orgutleri 37 Termik Santralin Kapatilmasi Icin Cumhurbaskani na Dava Acti K2 Haber in Turkish 2022 03 17 Retrieved 2022 05 10 34 termik santral ve 606 madene karsi acilan dava icin Guinness basvurusu Cumhuriyet in Turkish Retrieved 2022 05 10 37 termik santrali kapatma davasi goruldu Avukatlari Cumhurbaskaninin yetkisi yok dedi Yesil Gazete in Turkish 2022 03 17 Retrieved 2022 05 10 New Youth Climate Lawsuit Launched Against UK Government on Five Year Anniversary of Paris Agreement DeSmog 12 December 2020 Retrieved 2021 01 08 Young People v UK Government Safeguard our Lives and our Families Plan B Retrieved 2021 04 14 A quantum leap for climate action UK pledges to end support for overseas oil and gas projects www businessgreen com 2020 12 11 Retrieved 2021 01 08 2022 EWHC 1233 Ch and B Mercer Lecturers USS lawsuit frustrated by centuries old precedent 24 May 2022 Pensions Expert T Williams Commit to restoring 7 000 pension losses now say USS members Times Higher Ed E McGaughey Holding USS Directors Accountable and the Start of the End for Foss v Harbottle 18 July 2022 Oxford Business Law Blog a b We re taking Shell s Board of Directors to court ClientEarth 9 February 2023 August 2022 Updates to the Climate Case Charts Sabin Center for Climate Change Law Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law U S Climate Change Litigation Climate Change Litigation Retrieved 2021 11 18 New Jersey latest state to sue oil companies over climate misinformation the Guardian 2022 10 18 Retrieved 2023 01 28 O Neil Madeleine 24 April 2023 Supreme Court denies appeal from Big Oil sending Baltimore climate change suit to state court Maryland The Daily Record Retrieved 25 April 2023 Fried Kate Herrmann Christian Sandoval Emily 24 April 2023 Supreme Court Rejects Big Oil s Bid to Review Landmark Climate Case City of Boulder News Retrieved 25 April 2023 a b c Burns William C G Osofsky Hari M eds 2009 Adjudicating Climate Change State National and International Approaches Cambridge Cambridge University Press doi 10 1017 cbo9780511596766 ISBN 978 0 521 87970 5 A Citizens Guide to NEPA PDF Council on Environmental Quality Executive Office of the President 1 28 January 2021 NEPA Introduction to Incorporating Climate Change Climate Change Resource Center www fs usda gov Retrieved 2021 11 23 Sutter John 9 March 2016 Climate kids take on the feds CNN Archived from the original on 23 December 2019 Retrieved 23 October 2018 Jonathan Watts 30 November 2020 European states ordered to respond to youth activists climate lawsuit The Guardian Retrieved 30 November 2020 An emergency like no other Global Legal Action Network GLAN 30 November 2020 page visited on 30 November 2020 O Malley Isabella Beltaji Dana 29 March 2023 UN seeks court opinion on climate in win for island states AP News Retrieved 17 April 2023 The Guardian 29 Mar 2023 United Nations Adopts Landmark Resolution on Climate Justice Resolution Hailed as Win for Climate Justice of Epic Proportions Should Make It Easier to Hold Countries Accountable for Failures Jonathan Watts We should be on the offensive James Hansen calls for wave of climate lawsuits Archived 17 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian 17 November 2017 page visited on 17 November 2017 First climate case reaches Brazil s Supreme Court Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment Retrieved 2021 08 31 Reuters Nine year old sues Indian government over climate change inaction Archived 9 April 2017 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian 7 April 2017 page visited on 9 April 2017 a b Tessa Khan How climate change battles are increasingly being fought and won in court Archived 9 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian 8 March 2017 page visited on 9 March 2017 Tone Sutterud and Elisabeth Ulven Norway sued over Arctic oil exploration plans Archived 17 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian 14 November 2017 page visited on 17 November 2017 Ainees pour la protection du climat Archived 6 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine 2016 page visited on 5 November 2016 Gill Anam 2015 11 13 Farmer sues Pakistan s government to demand action on climate change Reuters Retrieved 2021 04 21 France Presse Agence 14 November 2017 Peruvian farmer sues German energy giant for contributing to climate change Archived from the original on 16 August 2019 Retrieved 4 July 2019 via www theguardian com Families from 8 countries sue EU over climate change France 24 AFP 24 May 2018 Archived from the original on 29 May 2018 Retrieved 28 May 2018 In historic ruling Colombian Court protects youth suing the national government for failing to curb deforestation Dejusticia 2018 04 05 Retrieved 2020 07 29 Court gives France three month deadline to justify its actions on climate change www thelocal fr 2020 11 19 Archived from the original on 2020 11 19 Retrieved 2020 11 22 Une avancee historique pour la justice climatique L Affaire du Siecle 2020 11 19 Retrieved 2020 11 22 France s top court gives government three months to honour climate commitments RFI 2020 11 19 Retrieved 2020 11 22 External links EditClimate Change Litigation Databases database by the Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School The UCS Science Hub for Climate Litigation one aggregation of litigation relevant resources Litigation Cases database by the LSE Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Climate change litigation amp oldid 1152356142, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.