Climate litigation

Climate litigation uses courts and legal procedures to challenge governments or companies over duties, decisions, or harms connected to climate change.

Duty of care: A legal obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable harm to others. Some climate claims argue that governments or companies owe this duty to people exposed to climate risks.
Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands: A Dutch climate case in which courts ordered the state to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The 2019 Supreme Court judgment affirmed a concrete state duty to protect residents from climate risks.
Environmental law: The body of law governing human effects on the natural environment. Climate litigation adapts environmental statutes and principles to greenhouse-gas emissions and climate risks.
Climate policy: Government strategies and measures for reducing emissions and adapting to climate impacts. Policy sets climate goals; litigation asks whether particular decisions meet legal duties.
Causation in law: The legal test linking a defendant’s conduct to a claimant’s injury. Climate cases must connect emissions or policy choices to legally recognizable harm.
Juliana v. United States: A lawsuit by young plaintiffs alleging that U.S. government actions violated constitutional rights by worsening climate change. Its procedural history illustrates the difficulty of obtaining broad judicial relief for climate harms.
Public trust doctrine: A legal principle requiring governments to preserve certain natural resources for public use. Some early climate cases argued that governments must safeguard the atmosphere as a public trust resource.
Climate activism: Organized action seeking political or social change on climate issues. Activism applies public pressure, while litigation seeks remedies through legal institutions.
Standing (law): The legal requirement that a claimant have a sufficient connection to a dispute to bring a case. Climate plaintiffs often need to show that climate impacts affect them in a legally specific way.
Massachusetts v. EPA: A 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case holding that greenhouse gases could qualify as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. It enabled federal regulation and recognized a state’s standing based partly on climate-related coastal loss.

Linked from 8 pages