In recent years, individuals and communities have taken their governments and companies to court, accusing them of climate inaction. They are achieving success.
This is an article in the fourth issue of New Economics Magazine.You can read the full question here.
The world is heading towards a catastrophic climate crisis. The facts are clear: the past ten years have been The hottest in history, Extreme weather events are causing serious damage all around the world. If we do not take in-depth and immediate climate action, we are expected to exceed 1.5C on a global scale The next twenty years,until 3C By the end of this century.
No ‘A “safe” level of global heating. A 3C warm world will become a hostile environment for all life, changing the world as we know it. The best chance to prevent the most serious impact of climate collapse is to keep global warming below 1.5C, according to Climate Science. Countries pledged to achieve this goal when they signed the International Paris Agreement at the 2015 United Nations Climate Summit. Since then, science has become more determined.
The actions that need to be taken are also clear: we must halve global greenhouse gas emissions within this decade to keep global warming below 1.5C, according to the world Leading climate scientist. Developed countries must take the lead in adopting deep emission reductions-which means reaching net negative emissions By 2030. In this case, there are No place Look for new fossil fuels for us to extract.
However, the government and companies are still far from meeting this challenge.Countries’ current climate commitments are “Severely inadequate“According to the United Nations Environment Programme, to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. In order to have a chance to stay below 1.5C, their ambitions need to be increased fivefold – and faster. Before Cop26, the United Nations Climate Agency issued an announcement. Serious evaluation: Countries’ current commitments will lead to global greenhouse gas emissions Increase A 16% reduction by 2030 (compared to 2010 levels)-far less than the required emission reduction by half.The International Energy Agency responded to this warning, reporting that “There is a clear difference between the current commitment and the net-zero target: By 2050, global emissions will only be reduced by 40%-a far cry from the net-zero target.
Facing science, the exploration and development of fossil fuels continue to develop rapidly: the governments of Norway, the United Kingdom and Australia continue approve (or consider Approved) new oil and gas exploration and Coal mine. Carbon Major – The world’s largest fossil fuel company – continues to drive expansion New fossil fuel reserves, Especially in the global south.
In the face of this condemned behavior by governments and fossil fuel companies, communities around the world are demanding accountability.In recent years, with Global school student strike And non-violence Direct action, Attention has turned to the court.From Dutch, arrive South Korea, Colombia, with South AfricaPeople hope that the court will be used as a last resort to force high-emission countries and companies to take urgent action and, in some cases, to compensate for the damage they have caused.
Climate litigation refers to various litigation in courts or tribunals centered on the climate crisis. The characteristic of climate litigation is its diversity. The plaintiff can be an individual, a group, a non-governmental organization, a shareholder, a company, or a local government.They may seek to force governments or companies to take greater climate action – or Restrain it (Large fossil fuel companies have tried this approach in recent high-profile cases).
The latest data shows that climate-related cases have been filed in 40 countries, and the total number has more than doubled since 2015. Match. Young people, elderly people, indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations, local governments and communities facing climate-related risks have raised some cases calling for greater climate action by governments and fossil fuel companies.These cases address the full range of climate ‘Misconduct’.This includes: government Weak mitigation efforts (Especially in the north of the world); their failure Stop deforestation; Their Support the fossil fuel industry; And the decision they approved New oil exploration, Coal mine with Airport expansion. When targeting companies, the case also challenges their Weak mitigation efforts, And extensive Bleaching, In some cases, seek compensation In recognition of their great contribution to climate change.
“…People hope that the court will be used as a last resort to force high-emission countries and companies to take urgent action and, in some cases, to compensate for the damage they have caused.”
The common denominator in all such cases is the desire to hold strong participants accountable based on clear scientific evidence and existing legal obligations.These case paintings inspiration From other moments when marginalized groups get justice in court-from the struggle with the big tobacco companies, to the land rights of the indigenous people, and the ongoing struggle for equality.In the climate crisis, litigation provides an opportunity for the government Responsible for their legal commitments (The first United Nations climate treaty dating back at least thirty years ago, by 196 countries and the European Union) and Review Governments and companies oppose scientific climate promises in objective forums.
Many climate cases are inspired by successful, world-firsts Litigation against the Dutch governmentIn 2015, a Dutch court supported the challenge of the Dutch sustainable development organization Urgenda Foundation and asked the Dutch government to raise its climate targets, resulting in almost all coal-fired power generation and 3 billion euros in low-carbon investmentThis is the first time a court in the world has ordered a government (or company) to reduce emissions, which has led to actual emissions reductions.
Since then, especially in the past year, the court has made a series of breakthrough positive rulings in cases against the government and companies.The court is in Ireland, France, Germany, Belgium with Australia It has been recognized that the government has the legal responsibility to take actions to mitigate the climate crisis, and in some cases, additional mitigation actions are required. In June 2021, the Dutch court issued a Landmark decision Against Royal Dutch Shell, order The company plans to reduce the emissions of its global activities by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019-the first decision of its kind in the world.
Among other things, climate litigation is an important tool for challenging the dangerous inaction of governments and companies. But there are disadvantages: it can be slow, expensive, and demanding for individual plaintiffs.become Effective In terms of motivating systematic action, climate litigation also needs to be part of a wide-ranging social movement and a sound advocacy strategy.
However, given the unforgivable inaction of developed countries and large carbon emitters on climate collapse, national courts can play a key role in reviewing their climate-related behavior and determining whether it meets the standards set by law.These decisions show that climate litigation can force high-emission countries and companies Increase mitigation efforts, Has a global ripple effect.
Lucy Maxwell is an international human rights lawyer and senior legal assistant for the Climate Litigation Network of the Urgenda Foundation project.
picture: Andreas Habic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
