{"id":73030,"date":"2024-08-09T10:54:50","date_gmt":"2024-08-09T09:54:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lse.ac.uk\/granthaminstitute\/?post_type=faqs&p=73030"},"modified":"2024-08-13T10:12:00","modified_gmt":"2024-08-13T09:12:00","slug":"what-is-climate-change-litigation","status":"publish","type":"faqs","link":"https:\/\/www.lse.ac.uk\/granthaminstitute\/explainers\/what-is-climate-change-litigation\/","title":{"rendered":"What is climate change litigation?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Different ways climate change litigation is defined<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

There are many ways to define climate change litigation, which is often referred to as simply ‘climate litigation’, but one point all definitions have in common is that cases must relate to climate change in some way. How direct and substantial this connection is generally indicates whether climate litigation is being defined along broader<\/path><\/svg><\/a> or narrower<\/path><\/svg><\/a> terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One way to visualise these definitional parameters is through Peel and Osofsky’s (2020)<\/path><\/svg><\/a> diagram of concentric circles (Figure 1 below). At the centre sits the narrowest definition: litigation that features climate change as a central issue in the case. An example of this is a case<\/path><\/svg><\/a> recently heard before the European Court of Human Rights, where applicants challenged the adequacy of Switzerland’s national climate policy response. Under the broadest interpretation in this conception is litigation that may hold implications for mitigating or adapting to climate change but that is not ‘framed’ along such terms (the outer circle). Examples include challenges to excessive gas flaring<\/path><\/svg><\/a> or industrial air pollution,<\/path><\/svg><\/a> where reducing emissions generated by the challenged activity is not a motivating factor for bringing the case but would be positive for the climate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 1. Visualising the definitional parameters of climate litigation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Source<\/em>: Peel and Osofsky (2020)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Broader definitions have been criticised for creating ambiguity regarding which cases fall within scope. As climate change has economy-wide impacts, and many human activities influence climate change, a very broad approach could include almost any case in the world<\/path><\/svg><\/a>. Extracting any meaningful insights from such a large and heterogenous body of cases would be very challenging. On the other hand, narrower definitions may create regional imbalances in the corpus of climate cases. Cases filed in high-income countries of the Global North often tend to feature more explicit<\/path><\/svg><\/a> climate change arguments than those filed<\/path><\/svg><\/a> in emerging markets and developing economies in the Global South. Reframing definitional parameters<\/path><\/svg><\/a> around a typology<\/path><\/svg><\/a> of adaptation-related climate risks (such as droughts and flooding) could more accurately capture how litigation in some jurisdictions in the Global South is responding to the threats posed by climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is there a definition that is commonly used?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A widely used definition stems from the approach adopted by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, which uses two criteria to identify cases for its Climate Change Litigation Databases<\/path><\/svg><\/a>: i) a case should have been brought before a judicial body (although certain examples of administrative matters or investigation requests are included); and ii) climate change law, policy or science must be a material issue of law or fact in the case. Cases in which climate change remains a peripheral matter and where climate-relevant laws and policies are not meaningfully addressed in the case argumentation are not included in Sabin’s databases. This definition is often adopted by academic researchers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regional climate litigation databases also exist and many of these tend to adopt a broader definition of cases. (These databases include the University of Melbourne’s Australian and Pacific Climate Change Litigation database<\/path><\/svg><\/a>; the Climate Litigation Platform in Brazil<\/a> (JUMA<\/path><\/svg><\/a>) database<\/path><\/svg><\/a>; and AIDA’s<\/path><\/svg><\/a> Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean database<\/path><\/svg><\/a>.)  <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evolution of climate litigation over time<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

One of the first climate litigation cases was filed in the United States in 1986<\/path><\/svg><\/a>, contesting a federal agency’s decision not to evaluate the impact of its fuel economy standards on global warming. Over time, the litigation landscape has evolved, as a confluence of factors has created fertile ground for legal challenges to be brought against an expanding array of public and private actors. Some academics refer to three waves of litigation<\/path><\/svg><\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n