The people vs climate inaction

Citizens are suing governments and corporations across the world over failures to prevent climate change. From a filing in honour of a South Korean foetus nicknamed Woodpecker to elderly women climbers in Switzerland, there have been a wave of people and non-profit groups taking to the courts over climate impacts and inaction by governments and corporations.

There are currently more than 2,100 legal cases relating to failures to prevent climate change, according to databases run by Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. And 230 new cases were filed in 2023, according to an LSE study on global trends in climate change litigation.

Just 5% of cases have been brought at international courts, but these have significant potential to influence domestic proceedings. There are several crucial challenges to governments’ climate ambitions and the implementation of their plans. Cases addressing green washing – making unfounded claims about tackling climate change – are rapidly growing and overwhelmingly successful, with 70% finding in favour of the claimant. And there are around 30 global 'polluter pays’ cases, holding companies accountable for climate-related harm. Here are some of the world’s most pivotal climate lawsuits.

The UK

In Britain, cutting emissions is enshrined in law through the Climate Change Act. It requires the government to achieve net zero by 2050 and set a clear path to get there. If policies are insufficient or unclear, the government can be taken to court. This has happened twice, most recently in May this year, when the High Court ordered the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero to redraft its emissions reduction plan.

The legal challenge was brought by environmental groups Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and The Good Law Project, which won a similar case against the government in 2022. To be on target, Britain must reduce emissions by 78% by 2035 compared to 1990 levels and show it has a clear strategy to achieve this.

A landmark judgment found the future impact of burning the coal, oil or gas that will be extracted must be considered when approving new fossil fuel projects. The case was initiated by campaigner Sarah Finch, who challenged Surrey council’s decision to extend an oil drilling well on the Weald. The ruling does not mean public bodies will be barred from approving new fossil fuel projects but that the case against will be stronger. It will boost a lawsuit challenging a new coalmine in Cumbria, which had been delayed pending the Weald outcome.

A marine conservation group, Oceana UK, has initiated legal action against the Conservative Government over plans to issue new North Sea drilling licenses it says are unlawful. The group said Secretary of State for Energy and Security, Claire Coutinho, in issuing 82 new licenses, ignored advice from experts on the impact on marine protected areas (MPAs), which are home to Scotland’s most threatened species and habitats. More than 2,000 oil spills have occurred in the North Sea since 2011, according to investigative website The Ferret, including 215 in MPAs.

The US

Last August, a Montana judge ruled in favour of 16 young people who argued their state had violated their constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment” by promoting fossil fuels. It is the first ever constitutional climate case to go to trial in US history. Another youth-led climate lawsuit brought by Hawaii plaintiffs is expected in June.

The ruling is likely to inspire a growing American movement seeking environmental amendments to state constitutions, Sarah Everhart, a law professor at Widener University, Pennsylvania said. A climate provision in a state’s bill of rights will enable people to easily challenge inaction, she added. Fifteen other states have active campaigns to codify green amendments, including New Mexico, New Jersey and Florida.

Corporations

But it’s not just governments that are facing lawsuits for inaction, corporations are being challenged over practises that cause climate change and physical harm.

America’s oil and gas multinational Exxon Mobil has been locked in legal wranglings with shareholder groups seeking to influence the company to reduce emissions. Exxon Mobil already faced dozens of lawsuits in states and localities claiming it lied about its role in climate change. But in the shareholders’ case, Exxon brought its own lawsuit against the investors – Arjuna Capital and the Netherlands-based climate group Follow This - to prevent them from pushing climate risk as a legitimate business concern. A Texas court dismissed the case as Arjuna Capital had already vowed not to put climate science on the agenda at company meetings.

A father has begun a legal action against oil giant BP for the burning off of gas at an oil field in Iraq – a process known as flaring – which he says caused his son’s leukaemia and death. The case is believed to be the first time an individual has sued an oil firm over flaring. A BBC investigation found the village Hussein Julood lived in with his son Ali, within the oil field, had high levels of cancer-causing pollutants from flaring.

In the Netherlands in 2021, a court ruled that Shell must cut its carbon emissions by 45% compared to 2019 levels. It is the first time a company has been legally obliged to align its policies with the Paris Accords, according to Friends of the Earth, adding that groups all over the world can use this climate litigation as a basis to sue big polluters in their own countries.

After its success with Shell, Dutch NGO Milieudefensie, who brought the case, threatened 29 multinationals with legal action if they do not publish ambitious climate plans.

The Shell verdict inspired a similar case against Italian oil company Eni brought by Greenpeace and an Italian NGO, requiring a 45% reduction in emissions by 2030. The case is pending. And an Indonesian island facing rising sea levels has begun legal action against Swiss cement producer Holcim, demanding both a reduction in carbon emissions of 69% by 2040 compared to 2019 levels and compensation for climate change-related damage.

Switzerland

In a landmark case, a group of elderly women climbers, the KlimaSeniorinnen, challenged the Swiss government at the European Court of Human Rights. They said their human rights are violated by Switzerland’s failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and they're particularly vulnerable to the health impacts of heating because of their age. For the first time ever an international court agreed, delivering a verdict in favour of the group’s 2,500 members.

Switzerland is now legally obliged to act faster on climate change. The ruling is binding and could trickle down to influence law in Europe’s 46 countries, including the UK. It means government action on climate change has become a human rights issue. Switzerland plans to halve emissions by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050, but the Climate Action Tracker has deemed its policies insufficient to achieve this.

The majority of the world’s leading climate scientists expect temperatures to sail past 2.5C of warming this century. It’s a future of famines, conflicts and mass migrations, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms, they said. Heatwaves are already estimated to kill tens of thousands of Europeans each summer. In 2022, more than 61,000 died from stifling summer heat, according to a study published in Nature magazine.

The Netherlands

The seminal legal case was in the Netherlands, where an environmental group – the Urgenda Foundation – along with 900 citizens, sued the government over a failure to prevent climate change. A six-year fight for justice culminated in the nation’s Supreme Court upholding a ruling that the government must do more to cut carbon emissions.

Emissions must be slashed by at least 25% of 1990 levels by the end of 2020, the court ruled. And the Netherlands acted, raising its climate ambitions and explicitly listing Urgenda measures in its national budget for 2022.

The Dutch case inspired dozens of similar lawsuits to be filed at national courts across the world, including in Germany, Belgium, Nepal and Colombia. And globally, more than 50% of environmental litigation has had rulings favourable to climate action, according to the LSE's latest annual report.

South Korea

In Asia’s first such climate litigation, South Korea’s Constitutional Court began hearing how the government was in violation of citizens’ human rights by failing to address climate change. The plaintiffs include children, infants and a foetus (at the time of filing) nicknamed Woodpecker, whose futures will be negatively impacted by climate inaction.

The case – Woodpecker et al v. South Korea – involves 250 plaintiffs and is expected to trigger similar movements across Asia. Plaintiffs argue the target of reducing emissions by 40% by 2030 will lead to disastrous climate change. South Korea is expected to argue it is doing everything it can, while protecting one of the world’s most fossil fuel-dependant economies. But last year, it revised down its emissions reductions target for industry.

The impact of litigation

When fossil fuel companies are sued over their practises, it makes a dent in the business, lowering share prices, according to a study by the LSE. Litigation filings or unfavourable court decisions reduce a firm’s value by an average of -0.41%.

But the largest stock market responses were among Carbon Majors – the biggest emitters operating in energy, utilities and materials – reducing corporation values by 0.57% after a case filing and 1.5% after an unfavourable ruling. As Shell is worth £179 billion, a reduction in corporate value of 1.5% is equal to a loss of over £2 billion.

The wave of litigation is setting precedents for climate action across the world, forcing governments to rethink their policies and sparking discomfort in boardrooms. But this approach is in its infancy, impacts have not yet been fully realised and groups are likely to have to be persistent to see real world change.