Prioritize...
After completing this section, you should be able to:
- Define climate litigation, explain it's intended purpose, and give an example of what climate litigation looks like.
Read...
Remember how we opened this lesson. Understanding and addressing climate change is about more than science—it’s about justice. At its core, climate justice means recognizing responsibility for climate damages and taking action to rectify these injustices. So, who’s responsible? And how can we ensure that those affected by climate change get the support they need? Let’s dive into the different perspectives on responsibility, the mechanisms for compensation, and the path forward.
We talked earlier in this lecture about how the planet is somewhat split between the “haves” and the “have-nots”—that is, from a geographic or country perspective. However, the responsibility doesn’t just rest with nations. Corporations—especially fossil fuel giants like ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP—played a massive role. These companies not only extracted and sold fossil fuels for profit, but they also knew about the risks of climate change as early as the 1970s. Internal documents reveal they understood how their activities would heat the planet, but they chose to mislead the public and delay action to protect their bottom lines.
Mechanisms for Accountability: Climate Litigation
One of the most powerful tools for holding historical emitters accountable is climate litigation. Climate litigation refers to the use of legal systems and processes to address issues related to climate change, often focusing on holding governments, corporations, and other entities accountable for their contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts. It encompasses a broad range of legal actions, from lawsuits seeking compensation for damages caused by climate-related disasters to cases demanding stronger climate policies or the enforcement of existing environmental regulations. Plaintiffs in climate litigation might include affected individuals, communities, advocacy groups, or even governments, while defendants often include major polluters like fossil fuel companies or policymakers accused of inaction. By leveraging the law, climate litigation aims to achieve justice for those disproportionately affected by climate change, enforce accountability, and catalyze systemic changes in how societies address the climate crisis.
Over the past decade, we’ve seen a surge in lawsuits targeting governments, corporations, and even financial institutions for their roles in contributing to or enabling climate change. Check out the explosion in the graph above! These legal actions aim to achieve several key goals:
- Establishing Responsibility: Proving that specific entities bear significant responsibility for climate impacts.
- Securing Compensation: Providing financial resources to communities hit hardest by climate disasters.
- Driving Policy Change: Pressuring governments and corporations to adopt more sustainable practices.
The infographic below is useful to digest. I'll let you sit with it for a little while since I can't cover everything on it. There are several takeaways from it:
- The number of cases has gone up over time (as we saw above)
- The U.S. is the "leader" in filed cases, with Europe coming in second and Australia leading the pack of non-US, non-EU countries.
- The number of jurisdictions is increasing, indicating that not only is the number of cases going up but the number of locations pursuing climate litigation is as well.
Case Study
Massachusetts v. EPA (2007): A Milestone in Climate Litigation
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that established the federal government’s responsibility to address greenhouse gas emissions. The case came about when Massachusetts, joined by other states and cities, sued the EPA for failing to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Massachusetts argued that the EPA was legally obligated to regulate "any air pollutant" that endangers public health or welfare. The EPA countered by claiming it lacked authority to regulate greenhouse gases and cited scientific uncertainty as a reason for inaction. So, who is right?
At the time -- in a 5–4 decision -- the Court ruled in favor of Massachusetts, holding that the EPA had both the authority and the obligation under the CAA to regulate greenhouse gases if they posed a risk to public health. The decision marked the first time the Supreme Court recognized greenhouse gases as pollutants, setting a crucial precedent for climate-related litigation.
The outcome reinforced the idea that laws like the Clean Air Act could be used to address environmental challenges. The ruling also highlighted the importance of "standing" in climate lawsuits, with the Court acknowledging Massachusetts' claim that rising sea levels directly threatened its coastal land. “Standing” is a key part of climate litigation!
However, things are far from settled. A later Supreme Court case in 2022, West Virginia v. EPA, actually found that the EPA had overstepped its authority under the "major questions doctrine" by attempting to regulate emissions and promote alternate energy sources in the Clean Power Plan. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 codified the findings in Massachusetts v. EPA, reaffirming that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases fall under the EPA’s authority to regulate as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.