Litigation experiences

=Databases= Climate Change Litigation Databases of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law 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.

=Cases=

This page shows some cases 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. In addition, other cases that have been brought to court can be found on the LINGO page: Legal Action for the Climate.

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 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. The importance of this demand is because Lliuya argues that RWE has contributed to the emission of greenhouse gases that have contributed to the glaciers being thawed. He 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 existing ones, in order to prevent the risk of flooding in the surrounding area. Currently, the case is active, and it could set an important precedent for holding companies accountable when they are responsible for significant amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.
 * 2) City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c. 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. 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 recognized the importance of the problem and 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.
 * 3) Kivalina vs. 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 according to them, the claim raised a political issue and plaintiffs lacked standing. The plaintiffs made a series of appeals and requested a review by the United States Supreme Court, but it was denied.
 * 4) Carbon Majors December 9, 2019, on the sidelines of COP 25 in Madrid, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHR), represented by Commissioner Roberto Cadiz, announced that the 47 investor-owned corporations, including Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Repsol, Sasol, and Total, could be found legally and morally liable for human rights harms to Filipinos resulting from climate change. In its groundbreaking investigation, the CHR also found the relevant criminal intent may exist to hold companies accountable under civil and criminal laws, in light of certain circumstances involving obstruction, willful obfuscation, and climate denial.

Cases against government

 * 1) Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands The sentence passed in this case was historic because 900 citizens sued the Dutch government for considering that their human rights were violated, while the government did not take adequate measures to reduce CO2 emissions and not seek to mitigate the changing climate. For this reason, the Dutch Supreme Court ordered the government to reduce greenhouse gases.
 * 2) 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.
 * 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 Greenpeace Nordic and Nature and Youth are appealing the judgement in their case against the Norwegian Government for Arctic oil drilling. In the People vs. Arctic oil climate lawsuit, the Norwegian State was sued for violating the Norwegian Constitution’s environmental Article § 112 for opening up a vast new area for oil and gas drilling in the Norwegian Arctic. The lawsuit challenges the awarding of 10 drilling licenses in 2016, arguing that continued production of fossil fuels contradicts Norway’s commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement and violates the Norwegian constitution’s guarantee to the right to a healthy and sustainable environment. The organizations won a partial victory in January when the Oslo district Court recognized the citizens and future generations' constitutional right to a healthy environment. Still, the Court failed to invalidate the Arctic oil licenses as a breach of these rights. This part of the ruling has been strongly criticized by legal academics. In the appeal, Greenpeace and Nature and Youth claim that the judgement is based on an improper assessment of the evidence and incorrect interpretation and application of the law. The plaintiffs appealed the decision on February 24, 2020. The Norwegian Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on April 20.

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 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 of the action, 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. Therefore, it was important that there was great public attention. That was why they started a solidarity campaign called “WeDontShutUp” back in February.
 * 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

 * Also see 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.