Of course. Here is a comprehensive overview of climate change litigation, covering its definition, key types, major cases, strategies, and future trends.

What is Climate Change Litigation?

Climate change litigation refers to the use of courts and judicial processes to address issues related to climate change. These cases can be brought against governments, corporations, or other entities to:

• Enforce climate policies.


• Seek compensation for climate-related damages.


• Challenge projects that contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.


• Hold entities accountable for misleading the public about climate risks.

It has become a powerful tool for activists, non-profits, communities, and even investors to push for more ambitious climate action and corporate responsibility.

---

Key Types and Aims of Climate Change Litigation

Litigation can be broadly categorized by the defendant and the primary goal.

1. Cases Against Governments

These cases often aim to force governments to enact stronger climate policies or to fulfill existing legal commitments.

• Human Rights-Based Claims: Arguing that government inaction on climate change violates fundamental human rights (e.g., the right to life, health, a healthy environment).


• **Landmark Case: Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands (2019).** The Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the government had a legal duty, based on human rights, to reduce emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020. This set a global precedent.


• "Climate Framework" Cases: Challenging the adequacy of a government's overall climate plan or policy framework.


• **Landmark Case: Neubauer et al. v. Germany (2021).** The German Constitutional Court ruled that parts of the Federal Climate Change Act were insufficient and violated the freedoms of young people by pushing the burden of emissions reductions into the future.


• Enforcing Existing Laws: Suing governments for failing to enforce their own environmental laws or for approving projects without properly considering their climate impacts.

2. Cases Against Corporations ("Carbon Majors")

These cases seek to hold fossil fuel companies and other major emitters legally responsible for their contribution to climate change.

• Tort Law and Public Nuisance: Claiming that corporate emissions are a form of damage or public nuisance, and seeking compensation for the costs of adaptation and damages.


• **Example: City of New York v. Chevron Corp. et al.** (Though initially dismissed, this strategy is evolving in many other jurisdictions).


• Consumer Protection and Fraud: Alleging that companies engaged in "greenwashing" (misleading the public about their environmental credentials) or deliberately misled investors and the public about the dangers of fossil fuels.


• Example: Various lawsuits against ExxonMobil alleging it knew about climate risks for decades but funded disinformation campaigns.


• Corporate and Fiduciary Duty: Arguing that company directors have a duty to manage climate-related financial risks and that failure to do so is a breach of their fiduciary responsibilities.

3. Cases Focused on Adaptation and Liability

These cases address the consequences of climate change that are already happening.

• Failure to Adapt: Suing governments or corporations for failing to protect people and property from foreseeable climate impacts (e.g., not building adequate sea walls, allowing construction in high-risk zones).


• Insurance Disputes: Litigation over whether insurance policies cover climate-related damages like floods and wildfires.

---

Major Strategies and Legal Arguments

Litigants use a variety of creative legal strategies:

• Public Trust Doctrine: The argument that the government holds essential natural resources (like a stable atmosphere) "in trust" for the public and must protect them.


• Constitutional Rights: Invoking constitutional rights to a healthy environment, life, and equality, which are increasingly being recognized in national constitutions.


• Corporate Due Diligence: Using new laws, particularly in Europe (like the French Loi de Vigilance), that require large companies to identify and prevent environmental risks in their global supply chains.


• International Law: Leveraging international agreements and principles, such as the "no-harm" rule (a state must not allow its territory to be used to cause damage to another state).

---

Global Trends and the "Global Stocktake"

Climate litigation is a truly global phenomenon, with cases filed in over 50 countries. Key trends include:

• Rapid Growth: The number of climate litigation cases has more than doubled since 2015.


• Global South Expansion: Cases are now being filed in the Global South, including Brazil, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan, often focusing on human rights, deforestation, and the rights of indigenous communities.


• Strategic Success: While not all cases win in court, many are "successful" by forcing settlement, changing the public and corporate discourse, or delaying carbon-intensive projects.


• Focus on "Greenwashing": There is a sharp rise in cases challenging corporate environmental claims as misleading.

A landmark 2023 report from the UN Environment Programme and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law confirmed that climate litigation is becoming a key force in shaping climate policy.

---

Notable Recent and Pending Cases

• Held v. Montana (2023): A landmark U.S. case where young plaintiffs successfully argued that Montana's fossil fuel-friendly policies violated their state constitutional right to a "clean and healthful environment." This was the first constitutional climate case to go to trial in the U.S. and sets a powerful precedent for other states.


• *Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell (2021): A Dutch court ordered Shell to reduce its global carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. This was the first time a court ordered a private company to reduce its emissions in line with the Paris Agreement.


• *Saúl Luciano Lliuya v. RWE AG: A Peruvian farmer is suing the German energy giant RWE, arguing that its emissions have contributed to the melting of a glacier above his hometown, creating a flood risk. He seeks compensation for a portion of the costs of protective measures. This case is ongoing and is closely watched as a test for attributing specific climate damages to individual corporate emitters.

Conclusion

Climate change litigation has evolved from a fringe legal strategy to a mainstream and potent driver of climate action. It is forcing a judicial reckoning on who is responsible for causing climate change and who must pay for the damages and the transition to a clean energy future. As the physical and financial impacts of climate change intensify, the volume and strategic importance of this litigation are only expected to grow.