ESG / CSR
Industries
Ecology
Greenly solutions
The impacts of climate change are becoming both undeniable and unavoidable. Extreme weather events - from scorching heat waves to catastrophic floods - are occurring with increased frequency and intensity, laying bare the vulnerabilities of our societies and ecosystems.
As the devastating effects of climate change become more severe, so too does the urgency for meaningful action. Yet, across the globe, governmental and corporate responses remain frustratingly inadequate, prompting a rise in what's known as climate lawsuits. These legal actions demand accountability and change from those who have the power to make a difference but are failing to do so.
👉 In this article, we’ll explore the reason behind the rise in climate lawsuits, shedding light on why affected communities are increasingly turning to the courts to safeguard their futures and ensure that their rights to a stable climate and healthy environment are upheld.
The world is witnessing unprecedented shifts in its climate systems, leading to extreme weather events. In recent years, we have seen how rising global temperatures exacerbate natural disasters - intensifying hurricanes, prolonging droughts, and sparking wildfires. These climate crises not only disrupt ecosystems but also threaten human lives and livelihoods, particularly in communities that are least equipped to cope.
As the planet continues to warm, the effects of climate change are pushing populations to their limits. The most vulnerable among us - often living in fragile environments or those that are lacking in resources - are often the hardest hit. These ongoing climate crises highlight that the time for action to combat climate change is now. Yet, despite a clear scientific consensus on this urgency and growing public demand for climate policies, the response from many global leaders and corporations remains underwhelming.
This gap between what is needed and actual policy response has led to an increased sense of urgency among affected communities and activists. No longer willing or able to wait for change, these groups are leveraging the legal system as a tool for enforcing accountability. Climate lawsuits are becoming a new and important tool in the fight against climate change, with the potential to compel governments and corporations to honor their environmental commitments and protect the rights of their citizens to a safe and stable climate.
Climate lawsuits are legal challenges brought by individuals, groups, or organisations against governments or corporations over failures to take adequate action on climate change. These lawsuits are rooted in the belief that these entities have a duty to protect the environment and by extension, the public, from the adverse effects of climate change. They leverage existing environmental laws, public trust doctrines, and, increasingly, human rights frameworks to argue their cases.
Climate lawsuits seek to hold entities accountable for contributing to global warming through emissions of greenhouse gases, failure to enforce environmental regulations, or misleading the public about the impacts of climate change. Plaintiffs in these cases range from activist groups and local communities to entire cities and states. Defendants are typically fossil fuel companies, large polluters, and governmental bodies. The legal claims often revolve around negligence or violations of constitutional or human rights, arguing that inadequate climate action infringes on the rights to health, a clean environment, and, in some cases, life itself.
👉 Climate lawsuits can be a crucial tool for initiating change, compelling governments and corporations to prioritise and accelerate their climate actions in line with scientific recommendations and international agreements.
Climate lawsuits are built on a mix of environmental law, human rights claims, and in some jurisdictions, specific climate change legislation. These legal actions seek not only to mitigate the effects of climate change but also to hold responsible parties accountable for their roles in contributing to global warming. Here we explore the legal grounds that underpin these lawsuits.
Many climate lawsuits hinge on traditional environmental law principles, such as the duty to prevent harm to the environment and the public. In several cases, these principles are interpreted through the lens of negligence, where plaintiffs argue that governments or corporations have failed to act with reasonable care to prevent environmental harm. The lawsuits often challenge the adequacy of national climate policies or corporate practices against the backdrop of environmental statutes and international agreements like the Paris Agreement.
One foundational aspect of climate lawsuits is the ‘public trust doctrine’, which states that certain natural resources should be preserved for public use, and the government has a duty to protect these resources for the public's benefit. In the context of climate litigation, this doctrine is invoked to argue that the atmosphere is a public trust resource. Plaintiffs claim that the government has an obligation to protect the atmosphere from excessive CO2 emissions, which are a primary contributor to global warming and climate change.
A rapidly growing area of climate litigation involves human rights claims. Plaintiffs argue that failure to address climate change violates their fundamental human rights, such as the right to life, health, and a private and family life. These arguments have gained traction as international bodies and national courts increasingly recognise the right to a healthy environment as fundamental. The recent landmark ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which recognised environmental protection as integral to human rights, exemplifies this trend and provides a robust framework for future cases.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recently issued a groundbreaking judgment affirming that inadequate government action on climate change can violate human rights - the first time that an international court has done so. This decision marks a significant shift in how legal systems view the intersection of environmental policy and human rights, setting a precedent for future climate lawsuits across Europe and potentially influencing other courts around the world.
The ECHR's ruling centered on a case brought by a group of senior women in Switzerland, who argued that their government's insufficient climate policies exposed them to increased health risks during heatwaves, thus violating their rights to family life and privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights. While Swiss courts rejected the claim the ECHR sided with the plaintiff, stating that governments have a legal obligation to adopt and pursue more aggressive climate policies to protect their citizens from the life-threatening impacts of climate change.
The ruling in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland is groundbreaking as it explicitly links climate action to the protection of fundamental human rights, reinforcing the notion that governments have a duty not only to mitigate the environmental impacts of climate change but also to shield their citizens from its harmful effects.
The ECHR's decision provides a clear legal framework that can be leveraged by activists and communities across other EU countries:
While the ECHR's decision is a significant victory for climate justice, it also highlights several challenges and considerations for future cases.
The ECHR's ruling is a watershed moment in the legal fight against climate change. It not only expands the legal tools available for addressing climate inaction but also reinforces the critical role of the courts in safeguarding human rights in the face of global environmental challenges. As this area of law continues to evolve, it will shape the landscape of climate policy and human rights protection for years to come.
Climate lawsuits have become a significant force in shaping public policy and corporate behavior toward sustainability. These legal challenges leverage the judicial system to enforce environmental protection and influence change at governmental and corporate levels.
Climate lawsuits often target entities that fail to adhere to environmental regulations or contribute significantly to pollution. Landmark cases like the lawsuit against Royal Dutch Shell in the Netherlands, which resulted in a court ordering Shell to cut its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels, illustrate the direct impact of legal action. This case set a precedent and has encouraged other groups to pursue similar lawsuits, potentially leading to more stringent regulatory measures on corporate emissions globally.
In addition to enforcing immediate changes, these lawsuits help to shape public policy by highlighting areas where current legislation may be lacking. They also put pressure on governments to tighten environmental regulations and enforce existing laws more rigorously to avoid future litigation.
As these lawsuits gain visibility, they serve as a powerful tool for environmental advocacy groups to influence public opinion and policy. They highlight the urgency of the climate crisis and the need for action, pushing for more robust environmental policies and practices.
The table below will compare and contrast these climate lawsuits:
| Case Name | Year | Key Issue | Outcome | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asghar Leghari vs. Federation of Pakistan | 2015 | The Pakistani government's failure to implement its National Climate Change Policy and Framework. | The court mandated the formation of a Climate Change Commission to ensure adherence to climate goals. | Set a precedent for judicial activism in environmental governance within Pakistan. |
| Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others | 2018 | Government negligence in preventing Amazon deforestation, threatening youth rights to a healthy environment. | Supreme Court recognised the Amazon as a ‘subject of rights’ and ordered government action plans to combat deforestation. | Pioneered the concept of granting rights to natural entities and emphasised protecting ecosystems. |
| Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands | 2019 | The Dutch government’s insufficient efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. | Supreme Court ruled the government had a legal duty to protect citizens by aggressively reducing emissions. | Set a global precedent for judicial enforcement of climate action and inspired similar lawsuits worldwide. |
| Neubauer v Germany | 2021 | German Climate Change Act’s inadequate measures to protect future generations. | Constitutional Court mandated the government to establish clearer, more ambitious climate targets post-2030. | Highlighted intergenerational equity and emphasised constitutional obligations in climate policies. |
It is more than likely that there could be a spike in climate lawsuits as Trump is currently set to rollback on several environmental policies previously implemented by the Biden administration.
Here are some of the reasons why climate lawsuits may be on the rise in 2025 when Trump returns to office:
👉As Trump returns to office, there will be a less proactive approach to climate change – and a return to a reactive approach could result in a rise in climate lawsuits.
Overall, Trump’s decision to withdraw from international environmental policies in addition to the emission reduction efforts created by the Biden administration could cause a wide variety of issues which could indirectly impact other people’s properties and business – which could mean climate lawsuits will become more common than they already are
At Greenly we can help you to assess your company’s carbon footprint, and then give you the tools you need to cut down on emissions. Why not request a free demo with one of our experts - no obligation or commitment required.
If reading this article has inspired you to consider your company’s own carbon footprint, Greenly can help. Learn more about Greenly’s carbon management platform here.
How do Democrats view global warming, what kind of climate change policies do they create, and how do they draft new climate legislation and environmental regulations with climate change and other key factors in mind?
How do Republicans view global warming, what kind of policies do Republicans implement to fight climate change, and how do they approach the creation and passing of legislation with the concept of climate change in mind?
In this article, we’ll explain what kerosene is, why it’s bad for the planet, and what we could use instead of kerosene.
In this article, we'll discuss the Principles for Responsible Investment and how these six principles can benefit both ESG factors and your finances.
