Litigation experiences

=Overview documents=
 * 1) Climate Justice: The international momentum towards climate litigation The Paris agreement is addressed in the document. It shows a list of disputes that develop throughout the world against climate change. It develops cases that have been taken to court, emphasizing the objectives, the impact they have on the legislation, and pointing out what benefits they contribute to the construction of the legal framework on the subject.
 * 2) The status of climate change litigation In the document you can find a record of the litigation that has been developed in the world and highlights the experience of some of them. It shows the importance of litigation in the international arena.
 * 3) El aporte del derecho procesal constitucional al litigio estratégico sobre el cambio climático: comentarios a los casos urgenda y juliana (in Spanish) Academic document which explains the experience of two strategic litigations against climate change (Urgenda and Juliana), indicating the arguments, and showing the applicable national and international legal frameworks for this type of litigation.
 * 4) Climate Change Litigation Cases This document addresses the study of cases that have been brought to court, citing arguments that were used in the trial.
 * 5) Holding Corporations Accountable for Damaging the Climate The document develops the progress in the field of protection of human rights violated as consequences of climate change in various countries (India, Ecuador, Colombia, Mexico, Kenya and Nigeria), noting that these advances have been achieved by legal actions that have been taken to court.
 * 6) Climate Litigation Strategies This document narrates the development of some trials against climate change, emphasizing the arguments considered in the trial.

=Databases= This website provides two databases of climate change litigation, one for U.S. climate change litigation and one for non-U.S. cases. You can browse the database by jurisdiction, by principal law and by category.
 * 1) Climate Change Litigation Databases of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law

=Cases=

Compensation claims

 * 1) RWE case Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya filed a letter of complaint against RWE, a German energy company over the impact of its activities on climate change. The plaintiff alleges that his home in Huaraz, on the floodpath of Palcacocha Lake, is “acutely threatened” by the potential collapse of two glaciers into the lake that would cause significant flooding as a consequence of global warming. The importance of this demand is because the Peruvian argues that RWE has contributed to the emission of greenhouse gases that have contributed to the glaciers being thawed, and requests compensation of £ 14,250 to invest in the installation of a system of early warning for a sudden melting of the glacier, that drains the Palcocha lagoon and to build new dams or improve concerns, in order to prevent the risk of flooding in the surrounding area. Currently the case is active, and it is extremely important to know how the court will solve the problem, since it could set a precedent to hold companies that have contributed to a greater emission of greenhouse gases responsible.
 * 2) Subnational lawsuits in the US City of Oakland and City of San Francisco filed suit in California Superior Court against five oil and gas companies parq financing the San Francisco climate adaptation program alleging that carbon emissions from their fossil fuel production had created a illegal public nuisance. Although the resolution of the court was not favorable because it placed the claims of the cities outside the adequate scope of the courts. The court recognizes the importance of the problem, and the science behind the explanation of the impact of fossil fuels on climate change, likewise highlights the need for measures to be taken on a larger scale to resolve the conflict. Currently, appeals are being made for this case.
 * 3) Kivalina vs. Exxon Kivalina filed a case seeking financial harm from some of the largest producers and emitters of greenhouse gases in the United States (ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Peabody, etc.) for their contribution to climate change. A United States District Court dismissed the federal nuisance claim, for lack of jurisdiction over the matter, for the claim raised a political issue and because the plaintiffs lacked standing, which is why the plaintiffs made a series of appeals and They requested the review by the United States Supreme Court, but it was denied.

Cases against government

 * 1) Urgenda case Important because the government was ordered to increase its greenhouse gas mitigation targets.
 * 2) Pakistan case Important because of the far-reaching verdict of the judge, which ordered the government to create a task force on climate, bringing together different government institutions.
 * 3) Juliana vs. US government Important because it is a demand made by 21 young people who demand that the United States government act affirmatively that promote climate change, and that the actions violate the constitutional rights of the younger generation to life, liberty and property, and it has not succeeded protect essential public trust resources (the case is currently in force).
 * 4) Norwegian youth against oil exploration license Important because new exploration is demonstrably incompatible with the Paris Agreement anywhere in the world.

Activist cases

 * 1) UK coal activists Climate activists are preparing to close coal mines in the United Kingdom for three days, this because they are dissatisfied with the expansion plans because the burning of fossil fuels accelerates the climate emergency. This type of action pursues the interest of demanding that the government implement policies that are consistent with the problems that are experienced as a consequence of climate change.
 * 2) Valve turners Five climate activists shut down pipeline valves that transport tar sands to the United States. From Activism, they are seeking to demonstrate in court the need to take these actions, because the effects of climate change are not real and are not being considered by governments for the implementation of policies.
 * 3) Weisweiler coal plant disruption
 * 4) Lobster Boat Blockade Ken Ward and Jay O'Hara were prosecuted in October 2013 on four charges related to their May 2013 coal blockade at Brayton Point: disturbing the peace, conspiracy, failure to act to prevent a collision, and the negligent operation of a motor boat. The defense used by his lawyers is interesting, since they wanted to demonstrate that the blocking of the ship was necessary, due to the threat it represents for climate change. This defense of necessity had to unravel three important elements, First: that the accused faced a clear and imminent danger, not debatable or speculative; Second: that the accused reasonably expected that his actions would be effective in directly reducing or eliminating the danger; and Third, that there was no legal alternative that would have been effective in reducing or eliminating the hazard. The origin of this action was to demonstrate the crisis that is being experienced by climate change is real.

Others

 * 1) Philippines HR Commission Carbon Major complaint