The Potential for Environmental Litigation Against Governments in Addressing Climate Change

Litigation as a channel for climate policy solutions is arguably underrated. Recent developments have shown that legal actions, particularly those targeting governments, could play a significant role in addressing the challenges of climate change. This article explores the potential success of such lawsuits and their implications for environmental policy.

Global Trends in Climate Litigation

Just this week, multiple stories of climate lawsuits have emerged. The United Nations (UN) special adviser has urged citizens to “flood the courts” with legal cases demanding the right to a safe and clean environment. Individuals and groups are now pursuing not only major polluters but also negligent governments for liability and damages.

From Big Oil to Government Liability

The argument against deep-pocketed oil companies, such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Royal Dutch Shell, is clear. These companies should bear the bulk of the legal blame and responsibility. However, the special adviser suggests that legal tools could also be used to seek remedy from governments. This approach draws from legal precedents, such as the cases that held tobacco firms liable for health damage from smoking. These models predict a potential rise in class actions targeting major oil firms.

Landmark Cases: From Oregon to the Netherlands

The recent high-profile case in “Our Children’s Trust” in Oregon is a testament to the power of such legal actions. Teenagers there have sued the federal government, asserting that government policies have contributed to climate change and violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. Similarly, Portuguese schoolchildren are crowdfunding to sue 47 European countries, alleging a failure to tackle climate change and threatening their right to life.

The Dutch Pioneering Case

A few years ago, a group of Dutch citizens organized by the NGO Urgenda successfully sued their government for negligence in contributing to the breach of the 2C maximum target for global warming. Three judges ordered the government to cut its emissions by 25% by 2020, stating that their lower targets were unlawful given the threat posed by climate change. This case set a precedent that highlights the potential for legal actions to create binding requirements and mandates, something that politicians have often failed to achieve.

The Role of Courts in Creating Binding Requirements

While I am not a lawyer or a policy maker, I believe that legal avenues can be a big part of the solution. Courts have the power to create binding requirements and mandates that politicians have proven ineffective at creating. The Dutch example above demonstrates this clearly. By holding governments accountable, courts can catalyze concrete actions to address climate change, ensuring that future generations are not burdened with the consequences of inaction.

Conclusion

The potential for environmental litigation against governments in addressing climate change is substantial. Legal actions have already proven effective in holding major polluters accountable and compelling governments to take stronger action. As the urgency of the climate crisis continues to grow, we must explore all avenues, including the legal system, to ensure that the world takes the necessary steps to mitigate the impact of climate change.