Litigation experiences

Below is a list of climate change resources. Sites include climate change case databases, synopses of past and current cases, specific legal issues, judicial decision, research resources and other tools for litigation support.

=Databases= The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University has developed techniques to fight climate change, train students and lawyers in their use, and provides up-to-date resources on key topics in climate change law and regulation. They have procured two databases related to climate change litigation, one for cases brought within the United States and one for international cases. The databases may be searched by key word, sorted by case name, year filed, jurisdiction, by principal law and by category, along with how many other cases have been filed within that subcategory. The US Climate Litigation Chart currently has 1201 cases with links to over 6,000 case documents. Climate Change Litigation Databases

The Climate Change Laws of the World (CCLW) database, created and maintained by Grantham Research Institute at LSE and the Sabin Center covers climate and climate-related laws, as well as laws and policies promoting low carbon transitions in areas including energy, transport, land use, and climate resilience. It also features climate litigation cases from over 30 countries brought before an administrative, judicial or other investigatory body. The dataset does not include the United States.

=Current and Past Litigation= This page provides examples of recent litigation efforts that have been brought to court in defense of the environment. These cases can be placed into three categories: Compensation claims, Cases against governments and Activist cases. Below, cases that fall underneath each category are shown with a short summary. Follow the linked material attached to each case for a more in-depth breakdown.

Claims against corporations
LLiuya v RWE AG 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 flood path 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. Lliuya argues that RWE has contributed to the emission of greenhouse gases that have in turn contributed to the thawing of the two glaciers. He requests compensation of £ 14,250. LLiuya seeks to use the compensation to address the potential flooding in two ways: 1) to install an early warning system designed to alert of sudden melting of the glacier that drains into the Palchoa Lagoon and 2) to build new, as well as make improvements to existing dams in an effort to prevent future flooding risk to the surrounding area. Currently, the case is active, and it could set an important precedent for holding companies accountable for their actions that contribute to significant greenhouse gas emissions.

City of Oakland v BP City of Oakland and City of San Francisco filed a suit in California Superior Court against five oil and gas companies for financing the San Francisco Climate Adaptation Program, alleging that carbon emissions from their fossil fuel production had created an illegal public nuisance. The Court held that the claim was outside of their scope of jurisdiction. However, the court did recognize the science behind the explanation of the impact of fossil fuels on climate change. It likewise highlighted the need for measures to be taken on a larger scale to resolve the conflict. Currently, appeals are being made for this case.

Kivalina v Exxon The Arctic village of Kivalina filed a case seeking redress of 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 because the claim raised a political issue and plaintiffs lacked standing. Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of a Ninth Circuit’s decision finding that its lawsuit seeking damages under state common law was displaced by the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court denied the writ without comment.

In Re Greenpeace Southeast Asia and Others v Carbon Majors Greenpeace Southeast Asia and numerous other organizations and individuals filed a petition asking the Commission to investigate a general issue—“the human rights implications of climate change and ocean acidification and the resulting rights violations in the Philippines”—and a more specific one—“whether the investor-owned Carbon Majors have breached their responsibilities to respect the rights of the Filipino people.” The core factual allegation of the petition draws on research identifying particular entities’ quantum of responsibility for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions since 1751. The original petition names 50 of those entities, all publicly traded corporations, as respondents. It identifies multiple sources of human rights, but draws most heavily on the UN Human Rights Commission’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Cases against government
KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland In 2016, a group of senior women, filed suit against the Swiss Government, alleging that the government had failed to uphold obligations under the Swiss Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by not steering Switzerland onto an emissions reduction trajectory consistent with the goal of keeping global temperatures below 2ºC above pre-industrial levels/ Specifically, petitioners alleged the government had violated articles 10 (right to life), 73 (sustainability principle), and 74 (precautionary principle) of the Swiss Constitution and by articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The women’s petition noted that their demographic group is especially vulnerable to the heat waves expected to result from climate change. It asked that the legislature and the federal agencies responsible for transportation, environmental protection, and energy be required to develop a regulatory approach to several sectors that would achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions of at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and at least 50% below 1990 levels by 2050. It criticized both the targets currently under discussion in the legislature (20% by 2020 and 30% by 2030) and the measures by which the Government would pursue those targets.

Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands A Dutch environmental group, the Urgenda Foundation, and 900 Dutch citizens sued the Dutch government to require it to do more to prevent global climate change. The court in the Hague ordered the Dutch state to limit GHG emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, finding the government’s existing pledge to reduce emissions by 17% insufficient to meet the state’s fair contribution toward the UN goal of keeping global temperature increases within two degrees Celsius of pre-industrial conditions. The court concluded that the state has a duty to take climate change mitigation measures due to the “severity of the consequences of climate change and the great risk of climate change occurring.” In reaching this conclusion, the court cited (without directly applying) Article 21 of the Dutch Constitution; EU emissions reduction targets; principles under the European Convention on Human Rights; the “no harm” principle of international law; the doctrine of hazardous negligence; the principle of fairness, the precautionary principle, and the sustainability principle embodied in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; and the principle of a high protection level, the precautionary principle, and the prevention principle embodied in the European climate policy. The court did not specify how the government should meet the reduction mandate, but offered several suggestions, including emissions trading or tax measures.'''

Leghari v Federation of Pakistan An appellate court in Pakistan granted the claims of Ashgar Leghari, a Pakistani farmer, who had sued the national government for failure to carry out the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 and the Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (2014-2030). On September 4, 2015, the court, citing domestic and international legal principles, determined that "the delay and lethargy of the State in implementing the Framework offend the fundamental rights of the citizens." As a remedy, the court 1) directed several government ministries to each nominate "a climate change focal person" to help ensure the implementation of the Framework, and to present a list of action points by December 31, 2015; and 2) created a Climate Change Commission composed of representatives of key ministries, NGOs, and technical experts to monitor the government's progress. On September 14 the court issued a supplemental decision naming 21 individuals to the commission and vesting it with various powers.

Juliana v United States Distinctive because the case was filed by 21 youth plaintiffs, along with an organization called Earth Guardian. They demand that the United States government act affirmatively to promote climate change. They allege that the government's current actions violate the constitutional rights of the younger generation to life, liberty, and property, and it has not succeeded in protecting essential public trust resources (the case is currently in force). Plaintiffs argued that the judiciary’s duty to safeguard fundamental rights, particularly those of children without voting power. Notable: US District Judge Ann Aiken- Exercising my reasoned judgment, I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society. 3/24/2020: Appellants filed opposition to petition for hearing en banc.

Greenpeace Nordic Ass’n v. Ministry of Petroleum and Energy A coalition of environmental groups sought a declaratory judgment from the Oslo District Court that Norway’s Ministry of Petroleum and Energy violated the Norwegian constitution by issuing a block of oil and gas licenses for deep-sea extraction from sites in the Barents Sea.

Freedom to protest activist cases
UK coal activists Climate activists are preparing to close coal mines in the United Kingdom for three days. 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.

Valve turners Five climate activists shut down pipeline valves that transport tar sands to the United States, aiming to demonstrate in court the need to take these actions. The effects of climate change have not been considered real and are not being considered by governments for the implementation of policies.

Weisweiler coal plant disruption On November 15th, 2017 activists used technical equipment to block the coal-fired power plant Weisweiler. They almost forced a complete shutdown of the power plant. As a result, the power plant emitted over 27,000 tons less CO2 into the atmosphere. The action was called “WeShutDown.” The identified activists are now facing both civil proceedings (for damages amounting to more than two million euros) and criminal proceedings. The activists will make political use of the trial and will seize the opportunity to accuse RWE of destroying the livelihoods of millions of people worldwide. Public attention was critical, so they started a solidarity campaign called “WeDontShutUp” in February.

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 the lawyers is interesting, as 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 that the crisis caused by climate change is real.

=Other resources=
 * Global trends in climate change litigation: 2019 snapshot (Setzer and Byrnes, 2019)
 * Fossil Fuels on Trial: Where the Major Climate Change Lawsuits Stand Today (Inside Climate News, 2020).
 * Climate Liability News is a not-for-profit news site dedicated to reporting on the issues at the intersection of climate change impacts and law.