Just lately, there appears to be a rise in litigation activity regarding climate change and who is responsible. This is occurring both at the international level and locally, and also at the corporate level and for governments.
Internationally there have been a couple of recent high-profile cases. The most recent and perhaps game changing case is the United Nations General Assembly’s consensus adoption on March 29, 2023, of a resolution seeking an International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on climate change.
It has come as a result of a resolution put forward by Vanuatu requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on states’ legal obligation for climate action and the consequences of causing harm. Vanuatu experienced two severe category 4 cyclones this month (March 1st and 3rd and cyclones Kevin and Judy).
The resolution also asks the court for guidance on questions of accountability for “states that have caused significant harm to the climate,” including with respect to small island states, and to peoples and individuals adversely affected by climate change. New Zealand is among a group of 18 states who have supported the application. The group includes mostly smaller states but also Germany. Going forward to the next stage the resolution had considerable support from 132 UN member states.
Although the ICJ’s advisory opinions are nonbinding, they can carry moral and legal authority and can ultimately become part of customary international law, which is legally binding on states.
Supporters of the initiative hope that the ICJ’s advisory opinion will direct countries to strengthen their domestic climate policies by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and catalyse more ambitious cooperation on climate change among states to protect the rights of at-risk populations in the countries most affected by the climate crisis. The issue around legality is likely the central part of the resolution as while the Paris Agreement is legally binding the treaty itself has been described as having “few legal teeth”. It does not impose penalties, such as fees or embargos, for parties that violate its terms, and there is no international court or governing body ready to enforce compliance.
Whether the ICJ can ratchet up this area remains to be seen, but the UN organisations largely rely on goodwill from member nations to comply. At the moment the IMF (a non-UN organisation) seems to be instrumental in creating the most change through funding development loans in less developed countries.
In the last couple of years one data site shows over 2,000 different litigations regarding climate issues, the majority against oil companies. A fairly typical example is a claim by ClientEarth against Shell Oil.
The lawsuit alleges Shell’s 11 directors have breached their legal duties under the Companies Act by failing to adopt and implement an energy transition strategy that aligns with the Paris Agreement. This one is going through the UK law courts.
A quick scan of cases that involve agriculture appear to largely be against companies and government policies which either result in increased tree clearing for agriculture or agricultural runoff ending up in wetlands and the like.
Closer to home there have been at least 26 cases brought before the courts in the last 20 years. The most notable has been the case by Mike Smith ("climate activist"). Smith claimed that the “Polluting 7” are breaching well-established common law principles by contributing to climate change. Ultimately, Smith wanted the court to grant an injunction forcing the companies to reduce their polluting activities. The “Polluting 7” made up of; coalminer BT Mining, oil importer Channel Infrastructure, farming company Dairy Holdings, dairy giant Fonterra (which burns coal to dry milk), energy company Genesis (which burns coal and gas to create electricity), NZ Steel (which also burns coal) and petrol and diesel retailer Z Energy.
Said to represent about a third of New Zealand emissions, Smith’s legal team argued the seven companies have an obligation to Smith under common law protections against public nuisance and negligence. The companies’ actions are causing harm to Smith, his property and his community, he claims. It appears that a ruling upon whether the case can go to a full hearing is awaiting a decision.
Given the damage to both life and property caused by the latest series of climate events perhaps the scales have tilted somewhat in favour of Smith although the law is decided on legal matters.
The other case that had been in the news (2022) is that of the “Lawyers for Climate Action NZ” (LCANZI). The lawyers who were questioning the information provided by the Climate Change Commission failed to convince Justice Mallon that they had given erroneous information in its recommendations to Parliament.
Whether the UN’s decision to seek clarity around responsibilities on climate change will make any difference to litigation outcomes, both here and abroad, time will tell. However, given the increasing damage and regularity of storms and climate extremes no doubt we will be hearing of more cases coming before the various law courts.
10 Comments
A bit of a long bow Guy. Certainly climate activists are trying the legal angle but I imagine enforceable international law will probably need a move closer to a One World Government , a move likely to receive quite a bit of push back?
Then again the Vanuata resolution seems to be a case of wishful thinking. I watched the "excitement" last night as our tv Pacific correspondent reported on the progress of this UN debate, (supported by NZ) reinforced by clips on the damage caused by the two cyclones, caused we were told by the failure of wealthy nations to curtail their practices causing global warming.
In her next breath, with no apparent awareness of the irony, she reported on the need to re-establish tourism as a major contributor to Vanuata's economy. Seriously? Surely flying in wealthy tourists is surely one of the most polluting activities. The viability of Pacific Island economies are a very vexed question & I don't think relying on bigger nations to fund their current aspirations is a practical answer to real problem
I do wonder what steps climate activist Mike Chainsaw takes to reduce his own consumption and that of his whaanow. Drink less milk, drive less miles, walk to work and school etc etc etc ??.
Talk is cheap, and I'm seeing too much cheap talk by school kids, concerned about the climate who tell farmers they are the problem. Yet they ride around in mummy's suv, or when they reach 16 mummy gives them a car of their own to go and park on the streets around school. Then there is Izzy Cook, who is in the next league of faker.
The most powerful levers to make climate shifts are held on behalf of community by elected representatives.
We're all climate hypocrites to some degree. If climate activists could pull the levers for a more climate positive future they would, but until they become accessible they must help to create political mandate for our representatives to make changes on our behalf.
Witch hunting individuals is diverting the responsibility from those who are most contributing to the problems, and those who are most able to effect change.
How Climate Miscalculations Have Misdirected Policy, Sir Christopher Monckton
That's got to be one of the most impactful conference presentations I've seen in a while. Given the amount of capital that's being hastily invested in GHG reductions. The IPCC have their math wrong. Astonishing!
capital = petrol, copper, rare earths etc. We only have a finite supply. You of all people would agree that wasting those resources is a tragedy for mankind. A good number of scientists including myself are looking at the data and concluding that carbon dioxide, methane and other GHGs are having practically zero harmful effect on our environment in terms of warming. This is a profoundly urgent situation. We’ve got to uncover the truth otherwise we'll waste what little we have left on mitigating an imaginary problem.
"Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau."
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.