Climate Change Litigation And Criminal Liability
Climate Change Litigation and Criminal Liability: Overview
Climate Change Litigation refers to the legal actions taken to hold governments, corporations, or individuals accountable for their contribution to climate change or for failing to take necessary measures to mitigate its effects. These lawsuits are often framed under environmental laws, human rights laws, or tort laws.
Criminal Liability in the context of climate change arises when actions or omissions leading to environmental harm constitute criminal offenses, such as negligence, violation of environmental regulations, or even crimes against humanity if severe enough.
Climate change litigation and criminal liability intersect when prosecutors or plaintiffs seek to hold polluters or negligent parties criminally responsible for the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions or environmental degradation.
Detailed Explanation of Key Cases
1. Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands (2015)
Jurisdiction: Netherlands
Type: Climate Change Litigation (Human Rights-based)
Summary:
The Urgenda Foundation, representing 900 Dutch citizens, sued the Dutch government for insufficient climate action. The court ruled that the government had a duty of care to protect its citizens from the dangerous impacts of climate change and ordered the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels.
Significance:
This landmark case was the first successful climate lawsuit holding a government legally responsible for its climate policies, based on human rights obligations. It set a precedent for using tort and human rights law to compel stronger climate action.
2. Juliana v. United States (2015)
Jurisdiction: United States
Type: Climate Change Litigation (Public Trust Doctrine and Constitutional Rights)
Summary:
A group of 21 young plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, claiming that the government's affirmative actions in promoting fossil fuel use violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property by contributing to climate change.
Outcome:
While the case was initially allowed to proceed, the courts ultimately dismissed it on procedural grounds (lack of standing). However, it sparked widespread attention and remains a key example of constitutional claims linked to climate change.
Significance:
This case brought the idea that governments have a fiduciary duty to protect natural resources for future generations into mainstream legal discourse.
3. R (Friends of the Earth) v. Secretary of State for Transport (2020) – Heathrow Airport Expansion Case
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Type: Environmental Law and Climate Litigation
Summary:
Friends of the Earth challenged the UK government's decision to approve the expansion of Heathrow Airport, arguing it was incompatible with the UK's climate commitments under the Paris Agreement.
Outcome:
The UK Court of Appeal initially sided with the government, but the case highlighted the conflict between economic development projects and climate obligations.
Significance:
This litigation illustrated the increasing use of climate law to challenge infrastructure projects with high carbon footprints.
4. Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (2015)
Jurisdiction: Pakistan
Type: Climate Change Litigation (Public Interest Litigation)
Summary:
Farmer and activist Tariq Mahmood Leghari sued the Pakistani government for failing to implement its own climate policies as outlined in the National Climate Change Policy.
Outcome:
The Lahore High Court ruled that the government must take immediate steps to implement the policy and appointed a Climate Change Commission to oversee progress.
Significance:
This case was a landmark in a developing country context, showing courts could compel governments to enforce climate policy.
5. People v. ExxonMobil (New York, 2019)
Jurisdiction: United States (New York)
Type: Criminal/Consumer Protection Litigation
Summary:
New York’s Attorney General sued ExxonMobil alleging the company defrauded investors by downplaying the risks climate change posed to its business.
Outcome:
ExxonMobil was accused of misleading shareholders and the public about climate change-related risks, which could amount to criminal fraud.
Significance:
This case is important because it targets corporate criminal liability related to climate misinformation and greenwashing.
6. The People’s Climate Case (Sweden, 2020)
Jurisdiction: Sweden / European Court of Human Rights (ongoing)
Type: Human Rights-Based Climate Litigation
Summary:
Swedish youth activists filed a case against the government for failing to meet emissions reduction targets, claiming violations of human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Significance:
If successful, this could extend human rights obligations to effective climate policy implementation at an international level.
Criminal Liability Aspect
While many climate cases focus on civil liability or constitutional/human rights claims, criminal liability is emerging in some areas:
Environmental Crime: Violations of pollution standards or illegal emissions can lead to criminal charges.
Fraud and Misrepresentation: As in ExxonMobil’s case, criminal charges can arise from knowingly misleading the public or investors about climate risks.
International Law: There are discussions around categorizing severe climate damage or deliberate environmental destruction as crimes against humanity, potentially prosecutable in international courts.
Summary
Climate change litigation primarily uses environmental law, human rights law, and tort law to compel government and corporate action.
Criminal liability in climate change is less developed but is growing, especially around issues of fraud, pollution violations, and emerging concepts of environmental crimes.
Cases like Urgenda and Leghari set important legal precedents compelling governments to act.
Corporate cases such as ExxonMobil highlight the push toward holding companies criminally accountable for climate misinformation.
Youth and civil society increasingly use courts to demand climate justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments