Litigation experiences

=Databases=

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.


 * 1) 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


 * 1) The Climate Change Laws of the World (CCLW) created and maintained by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, The database covers climate and climate-related laws, as well as laws and policies promoting low carbon transitions, which reflects the relevance of climate policy in areas including energy, transport, land use, and climate resilience. The same form  features climate litigation cases from over 30 countries. These cases raise issues of law or fact regarding the science of climate change and/or climate change mitigation and adaptation policies or efforts before an administrative, judicial or other investigatory body. The dataset does not include the United States.

'''The Climate Change Laws of the World databases

LINGO's website offers research, extraction and climate infographics, and links to policy proposals as well as a list of current and past litigation related to fossil fuels and climate damage.
 * 1) "Leave It In The Ground, or LINGO is an international non-profit organization founded in 2011 dedicated to creating a "Post Carbon Society."

Legal Action for the Climate.


 * 1) The Sierra Club is a grassroots environmental organization in the United States, with 3.8 million members. Their site contains a robust Environmental Law Program that uses strategic legal campaigns to fight climate change, protect clean air, water and wilderness, and to promote justice for communities threatened by pollution.  The site also offers news, press releases and case updates.

https://www.sierraclub.org/environmental-law


 * 1)  WildEarth Guardians is an organization dedicated to protecting and restoring wildlife, and the health of the American West.  They have tackled some of the most difficult and pressing conservation challenges over the past three decades and bring people, science and the law together for earth jurisprudence.  Their website offers articles on landmark victories, current research and claims making their way through the judicial system, social media toolkits and op-eds.

https://wildearthguardians.org/about-us/


 * 1) Center for Biological Diversity is a non-profit organization comprised of attorneys, scientists and others with a mission: saving life on earth.  "We do so through science, law and creative media", with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate.  Their "Climate Law Institute" offers cutting-edge legal strategies, bringing precedent-setting litigation using existing environmental laws. See their site for a collection of recent legal milestones, current climate campaigns, publications and other resources.

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/

=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. Filed Year: 2015 At Issue: Liability of greenhouse gas emitter for harms arising in different jurisdiction from warming effects of climate change Jurisdiction: Germany-Essen-Higher Regional Court Status: On Appeal. http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/lliuya-v-rwe-ag/

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. Filed: 2017 At Issue: Public nuisance actions brought by City of Oakland and City of San Francisco against fossil fuel companies.Supremacy Clause. Jurisdiction: 9th Cir. Status: Pending. http://climatecasechart.com/case/people-state-california-v-bp-plc-oakland/?cn-reloaded=1

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. Filing Date: 2013 At issue: U.S. tribes filed human rights complaint with UN, alleging U.S. government has failed to address climate-caused displacement. Jurisdiction: United Nations Special Rapporteurs Status: Pending http://climatecasechart.com/case/native-village-of-kivalina-v-exxonmobil-corp/ In Re Greenpeace Southeast Asia and Others v Carbon Majors Like many other island nations, the Philippines faces some of the most devastating impacts from tropical storms. In fact, the Global Climate Risk Index has consistently placed the Philippines among the ten countries most affected by climate risks for the past two decades. In 2013, the Philippines was ravaged by one of the most powerful tropical cyclones ever recorded. Typhoon Haiyan, known locally as Super Typhoon Yolanda, claimed thousands of lives and affected millions of others who have yet to recover. Entire families were lost and thousands of communities faced destruction like they had never experienced before. Climate change made this tropical storm stronger and more devastating, and Filipinos sought to find a way to seek justice and hold those responsible for the climate crisis to account. In 2015, a group of typhoon survivors, other individuals and local groups sought to trigger the world’s first-ever national investigation into the responsibility of major multinational corporations for human rights impacts resulting from climate change. They petitioned the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines to conduct the investigation. They also got the support of Greenpeace Southeast Asia and 13 other non-governmental groups, who joined the petition. On 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. The Commission held inquiry hearings in London, Manila, New York, and near Amsterdam and is expected to issue its findings by the end of 2020.

The Commission is expected to issue its findings in 2020. Based on oral communications by Commissioner Cadiz of the CHR at COP25 and on national tv on their resolution in December 2019, the Petitioners believe they have secured a victory based on the following findings: the Commission found that climate change constitutes an emergency situation that demands urgent action. The Commission further concluded that the Carbon Major companies played a clear role in anthropogenic climate change and its attendant impacts. The Commission has proven that the idea that climate-related human rights violations are adjudicable under human rights law and can be addressed by national human rights bodies, other international mechanisms, and most importantly in domestic courts. The investigation has already successfully framed climate change as a human rights issue, internationalized human rights harm caused by climate impacts, and created what may be the largest repository of evidence on corporate responsibility for climate change to date. 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. This is the first time ever that a human rights body has said that fossil fuel corporations, including Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Repsol, Sasol, and Total, can be found legally and morally liable for harms linked to climate change. If successful, the investigation will result in the world’s first legal finding of corporate responsibility for climate change and will likely trigger other investigations and judicial actions in the Philippines and elsewhere. Filed Year: 2015. At issue: Investigation into allegations that the largest emitters have violated human rights of Fillipinos by causing climate change and ocean acidification. Jurisdiction: Philippines - Commission on Human Rights. Status: Investigation Concluded. Final Resolution pending. http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/in-re-greenpeace-southeast-asia-et-al/

Cases against government
KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland Climate change makes heatwaves longer, harsher and more frequent. Heatwaves are also one of the most evident examples of extreme weather disasters that have a direct impact on health. This is particularly true among senior women, who face a vulnerable situation in a warming climate. Studies of heatwaves in Europe show senior women are more likely to get sick or die of dehydration, heatstroke, as well as cardiac and circulatory problems during these events. That is the reason why a group of senior women in Switzerland founded the association KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, or Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland, in 2016. Together, they fight for ambitious climate action by challenging the Swiss government's inadequate climate policies and mitigation measures in court. GP Switzerland supports the senior women in their quest to hold the Swiss government accountable for climate inaction. In November 2016, Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland and four individuals filed a legal request to the Swiss government, claiming the government was failing to fulfil its duty to protect them as required by the national Constitution and by the European Convention on Human Rights. The authorities denied the plaintiffs any standing, refusing to respond on the subject of the complaint. So the plaintiffs filed it to the Swiss Federal Administrative Court. The court dismissed the case in December 2018. The ruling states that women over 75 years of age are not more strongly impacted by the effects of climate change than other population groups. This decision fails to consider the overwhelming scientific evidence about the higher degree of health concerns that senior women face in a warming planet. The increasing problems experienced in winter tourism areas, in water management and by urban populations affected by heat, all mentioned in the ruling, cannot be equated with the fact that senior women need to be hospitalized, and are even dying, due to climate change-induced heat waves. Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland continues to seek a proper legal examination of the allegations of current and ongoing violations of senior women's rights to life and health. They have appealed the case to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, which dismissed their case in May 2020 on the basis that senior women over 75 years are not yet affected by the climate crisis. Filed Year': 2016. At Issue: Seeking declaratory judgment and injunction to compel the Swiss government to reduce GHG emissions. Jurisdiction: Switzerland Status: Ongoing. Link to Case Here:http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/union-of-swiss-senior-women-for-climate-protection-v-swiss-federal-parliament/

Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands A Dutch environmental group, the Urgenda Foundation, along with 900 Dutch citizens sued the Dutch government for violating their human rights. Plaintiffs asserted that the government did not take adequate measures to reduce CO2 emissions and did not seek to mitigate the changing climate. 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. The court did not specify how the government should meet the reduction mandate, but offered several suggestions, including emissions trading or tax measures. This is the first decision by any court in the world ordering states to limit greenhouse gas emissions for reasons other than statutory mandates.Filed Year: 2015. At Issue: Seeking declaratory judgment and injunction to compel the Dutch government to reduce GHG emissions. Jurisdiction: Netherlands- The Hague- Court of Appeals. Status: Decided. Link to Case Here:http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/urgenda-foundation-v-kingdom-of-the-netherlands/Link to Judgment here: http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/non-us-case-documents/2020/20200113_2015-HAZA-C0900456689_judgment.pdf

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. Filed Year: 2018 At Issue: Farmer challenged government for failure to carry out core provisions of 2012 law. Jurisdiction: Pakistan- Punjab- Lahore High Court. Status: Granted. Link to Case: http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ashgar-leghari-v-federation-of-pakistan/ Link to Decision: http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/non-us-case-documents/2015/20150404_2015-W.P.-No.-25501201_decision.pdf

Juliana v United States Distinctive because the case was filed by 21 youth, 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. Filed Year: 2015 At Issue: Action by young plaintiffs asserting that the federal government violated their constitutional rights by causing dangerous carbon dioxide concentrations. Jurisdiction: 9th Cir. Status: Pending Link to Case: http://climatecasechart.com/case/juliana-v-united-states/


 * 1) People vs the Arctic Oil 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.

Freedom to protest activist cases

 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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.
 * 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, 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.
 * 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 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=
 * 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.