Kara Sears
Climate change litigation is becoming increasingly prevalent worldwide, with developing countries and communities taking on new roles in shaping systems of governance and infrastructure. Notable cases include the City of Cornelius v. Department of Land Conservation & Development, which addressed transportation and land use, and Better Path Coalition Planning Group v. City of Harrisburg, which challenged requirements for the use of public spaces and utility poles. Alabama and 18 other states filed a motion against five states pursuing climate change lawsuits against energy companies, while a trade association representing US oil and gas workers challenged the Biden administration's pause on liquefied natural gas exports. In Youth Climate Case Japan for Tomorrow, plaintiffs sought protection from severe impacts and demanded a shift to renewable energy. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and ClientEarth are actively involved in tracking and driving climate litigation, with a focus on accountability and transformative change.
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Climate litigation trends
Climate litigation is becoming more prevalent worldwide, with an increasing number of cases brought in developing countries. This trend is driven by evolving systems of governance and infrastructure in these countries, alongside the emergence of new laws and policies that address climate change in novel ways. Notably, three key trends in climate litigation have emerged:
Firstly, litigation is being brought against governments to hold them accountable for their actions or inaction on climate change. This includes an increasing number of human rights-related claims, such as the case of Youth Climate Case Japan for Tomorrow, where plaintiffs sought protection from the severe impacts of climate change and demanded a shift to renewable energy sources.
Secondly, litigation is targeting corporate actors, including banks and companies outside the traditional oil and gas sector. For example, a trade association representing US oil and gas workers challenged the Biden administration's decision to pause LNG exports, while a coalition of plaintiffs successfully challenged Washington State's Energy Code, arguing it exceeded federal requirements.
The third trend involves litigation based on 'greenwashing', where companies are accused of misleading the public with false environmental claims. Fossil fuel companies, such as Aramco and Exxon, have faced legal challenges over their climate science disinformation campaigns and deceptive marketing practices. Additionally, energy company Enea faced legal action from shareholders over its plans for a coal plant in Poland, highlighting the growing awareness of climate risk among investors.
Other notable cases include a lawsuit against FEMA for failing to define terms like "resilient" and "resiliency" in the context of climate change resilience and recovery. The US Fish and Wildlife Service also faced litigation for unreasonably delaying the consideration of climate change factors in its consultations under the Endangered Species Act. These cases demonstrate the diverse range of institutions being held accountable through climate litigation.
In summary, climate litigation trends reflect a growing global movement to hold governments and corporate entities accountable for their actions or inaction on climate change, as well as to address misleading environmental claims. As scientific evidence strengthens the link between human activity and climate change, it is expected that litigation will continue to play a significant role in tackling the climate emergency.
Case Law: Understanding the Legal System
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Energy company lawsuits
Energy companies are increasingly facing lawsuits from investors, shareholders, and members of the public. These lawsuits often allege that the energy company has misled the public or its investors about the environmental impact of its business activities, a practice known as "greenwashing". For example, in April 2025, ClientEarth analysed some of the world's biggest fossil fuel companies, including Aramco, Exxon, Shell, and Chevron, and found that some of these companies were engaging in greenwashing. ClientEarth has also brought successful legal cases against energy company Enea over Ostroleka C, a planned coal plant in Poland, arguing that funding the plant was an indefensible financial risk. As a result, funding for the project has been suspended.
In addition to lawsuits alleging greenwashing, energy companies are also facing lawsuits from governments and regulatory bodies. For example, in June 2024, a trade association representing workers in the US oil and gas industry filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration's decision to pause new approvals of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports to non-free trade agreement countries. The plaintiffs asserted that the decision violated the Natural Gas Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, separation of powers, and the foreign Commerce Clause.
Energy companies are also facing lawsuits from local communities and individuals. For example, in November 2017, a coalition of individuals and non-profits brought a preventive action against two thermoelectric power stations, Matheu II (APR Energy) and Matheu III (Araucaria), located in the Argentinian city of Pilar. The petition sought to block the plants on environmental grounds, including that their construction began without the required environmental assessment and that the plants were inconsistent with international climate agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement because they would use fossil fuels.
In some cases, energy companies have been sued by their own shareholders or investors. For example, in 2019, lawyers lodged a complaint alleging that BP's global advertising campaigns misled the public by focusing on BP's low-carbon energy products, when more than 96% of its annual spend is on oil and gas. As a result, BP withdrew its advertisements and its CEO, Bernard Looney, announced that they would not be replaced under the company's new policy, which promises an end to "corporate reputation advertising".
As public awareness of climate change and its impacts grows, energy companies can expect to face increasing scrutiny and legal challenges from a variety of stakeholders, including governments, investors, and the public.
UK and ECHR Case Law: Bound Together?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Fossil fuel industry liability
The fossil fuel industry has long been associated with a significant environmental impact, with companies in the oil and gas sector contributing 80 to 90 percent of carbon emissions. Despite this knowledge, major fossil fuel companies have historically fought against mandatory corporate climate disclosures and worked to block climate action.
In recent years, there has been a growing trend of climate litigation against the fossil fuel industry. For example, in April 2024, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit against fossil fuel companies and the American Petroleum Institute, alleging that they had engaged in a disinformation campaign despite knowing the catastrophic consequences of their actions. This case is not isolated, as states like California have also taken legal action against oil companies on grounds of deception.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and nearly 200 other groups have advocated against granting immunity to the fossil fuel industry, urging Congress to block any liability waivers. They argue that the industry has knowingly caused enormous damages and should be held accountable through litigation and legislation.
Additionally, the fossil fuel industry has been accused of deliberately misleading the public about global warming and the consequences of their products. Internal documents and reports have revealed that companies have engaged in deceptive practices, with some even launching campaigns to confuse the public and target specific demographics to protect their interests.
The industry's efforts to obtain liability waivers and their deceptive tactics have been met with resistance from various groups, including UCS, which has exposed their strategies and urged legislative action to hold them accountable for their actions.
Case Law: Money as Property?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Government climate accountability
Climate change litigation is an increasingly powerful tool to drive transformative change and hold governments and companies accountable for their climate-damaging practices. Governments, in particular, are facing an increasing number of lawsuits, including human rights-related claims.
In the US, the federal government holds primary responsibility for climate change, though it cannot directly compel states to enact and enforce federal regulatory programs. Notable federal statutes affecting the environment include the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which governs the cleanup of sites contaminated by hazardous substances, and the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of their proposed actions. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the main government agency in this field.
The Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting federal statutes and reviewing actions by the EPA and other agencies. For example, in U.S. v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (1985), the Court ruled that an agency must prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement if there is major federal action that will significantly affect the human environment. In Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (2009), the Court held that the Army Corps of Engineers, rather than the EPA, had the authority to grant permits for discharging processed wastewater into an Alaska lake.
In addition to federal cases, there are also numerous climate litigation cases at the state level. For example, in Texas and Kentucky, federal courts ruled that the Federal Highway Administration exceeded its authority by requiring states to set declining carbon dioxide emissions targets for the highway system. In California, the California Restaurant Association (CRA) challenged the City of Berkeley's ban on natural gas infrastructure in new construction, but the case was dismissed after the city repealed the law.
Outside the US, there are also notable climate litigation cases against governments. In Belgium, a citizen took the multinational TotalEnergies to court, marking the first time a Belgian citizen has taken a multinational to court over a climate dispute. In Japan, the Youth Climate Case Japan for Tomorrow was filed, claiming that the defendants' reduction targets were inadequate and that they must shift to renewable energy to meet the 1.5°C objective.
Case Reporters: Primary or Secondary Law?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Climate change and the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the United States has played a significant role in shaping the legal and regulatory landscape surrounding climate change and energy policy. Over the years, the Court has heard a number of landmark cases that have had a profound impact on how the country addresses the challenges posed by climate change.
One of the most important cases is Massachusetts v. EPA, decided in 2007. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. This decision was a pivotal moment in the fight against climate change, as it paved the way for the EPA to take a more active role in reducing emissions and addressing the impacts of a warming planet. The Court's ruling recognized that greenhouse gases are a form of air pollution and that the EPA has a responsibility to address them under the existing provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Another significant case is AEP v. Connecticut, decided in 2011. In this instance, the Supreme Court considered whether federal common law claims could be brought against carbon dioxide emitters for their contributions to climate change. The Court held that such claims were displaced by the Clean Air Act and that it is primarily the role of the EPA and Congress to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, not the judiciary. This decision highlighted the complex interplay between different branches of government and their respective roles in addressing climate change.
The Supreme Court has also weighed in on the debate over the social cost of carbon, a metric used to quantify the economic damages associated with greenhouse gas emissions. In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, decided in 2014, the Court provided guidance on how to calculate the social cost of carbon and how this metric should be applied in the context of regulatory impact analysis. This decision has had important implications for how agencies assess the costs and benefits of regulations related to climate change.
Another important case is West Virginia v. EPA, decided in 2022. This case concerned the EPA's Clean Power Plan, which set carbon emission guidelines for existing power plants. The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had exceeded its authority by imposing carbon dioxide emission performance standards that would require coal-fired power plants to shift their generation profiles or shift generation to natural gas or renewable sources. This decision limited the EPA's ability to regulate existing power plants' emissions, highlighting the ongoing legal challenges in implementing ambitious climate change mitigation measures.
These cases illustrate the critical role the Supreme Court plays in interpreting and shaping energy and climate law. The Court's decisions have far-reaching implications for how the nation addresses climate change, from regulating greenhouse gas emissions to determining the appropriate forum for climate litigation. As the country continues to grapple with the challenges posed by a changing climate, the Supreme Court's rulings will undoubtedly continue to shape the legal landscape and influence policy decisions.
Female Personhood: A Legal Battle
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Notable cases include:
- Vermont Trial Court denying fossil fuel defendants' motions to dismiss the State of Vermont's action, alleging that the defendants violated the Vermont Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) by misrepresenting and concealing fossil fuel products' contributions to climate change.
- Pennsylvania County filing a lawsuit against fossil fuel companies and the American Petroleum Institute, alleging that they engaged in a "disinformation campaign to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change."
- A trade association representing workers in the U.S. oil and gas industry challenging the Biden administration's decision to pause new approvals of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.
International agreements like the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol play a significant role in shaping energy climate law. For example, in Argentina, a coalition of individuals and nonprofits brought a preventive action against two thermoelectric power stations, citing inconsistency with these international agreements due to their planned use of fossil fuels.
Courts review environmental impact statements (EIS) to ensure they address the environmental effects of projects. While the EIS doesn't need to cover separate projects, agencies must prepare a supplemental EIS if there is major federal action remaining and new information that significantly affects the human environment.
