Jordan Smith
Introduction
Climate litigation — any lawsuit involving the environment — has become an important method of protecting climate justice. Climate change cases have doubled since 2017, with more countries and communities holding private companies and the government accountable for their harmful climate actions. A large majority of climate change lawsuits are brought forward, with the plaintiffs seeking corporate liability and responsibility for the environmental harm they are inducing. The suits also force corporations to fund the massive costs required to counteract their actions against the environment for climate mitigation and adaptation efforts.
A majority of these lawsuits have been brought forth by adolescents, given that the younger generation has played a significant role in environmental advocacy, with over 46 million youth worldwide going on a climate strike in 2019. There have been two primary litigation categories in this climate battle: consumer protection and fraud claims, as well as constitutional and environmental rights claims.
One powerful way of fighting the causes of climate change has been through the legal system. In particular, many cases attempt to protect the environment through constitutional rights. This area of law explores the rights of both human beings and the environment, which can be leveraged to advance environmental justice. The integration of environmental protection into constitutional frameworks allows individuals to hold governments and corporations accountable for environmental harm.
Environmental rights are increasingly recognized as fundamental human rights. The right to a healthy environment is imperative for all living things and the planet. Many of the plaintiffs in these cases argue that the damage these oil and gas companies are causing to the environment is harming their way of life. Adverse climate change effects such as worsened air quality, droughts and floods, and other extreme weather events impact humans’ way of being with health effects.
More than three-fourths of countries have environmental rights in their constitutions, with more countries amending their own to include more explicit rights. Colombian youth, for example, sued their country to recognize the Amazon rainforest as a “subject of rights” and won, obliging the government to protect it. In contrast, the U.S. federal constitution does not guarantee environmental rights, but several states have incorporated these rights on their own.
Litigation on the basis of environmental and constitutional rights has seen some success, with courts mandating governments to take action to combat climate change and its effects. However, some challenges remain. It is difficult to prove the causation between government actions and environmental harm, and there are limitations in environmental protection law.
Cases
The following are some notable cases of combating environmental apathy or harm that focus on the right to a clean environment and the duty of the state to protect its citizens from climate change impacts:
KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland
In 2016, over 2,000 Swiss women, all 64 or older, filed a suit against multiple environmental bodies of the Swiss government, claiming that they had violated their right to a healthy life. This past April, they won this landmark suit against the Swiss government. The plaintiffs were primarily composed of senior women due to the fact that women older than 55 were particularly vulnerable to heat-related illnesses.
The European Court of Human Rights stated that the Swiss government violated people’s constitutional rights through their lack of preparation for climate change impacts in the country. Although Switzerland, in 2017, vowed to cut emissions by 50% by 2030, they failed to set up a plan or take any action to do so, thus putting the lives of Swiss people at risk due to the effects that climate change has on the health and quality of life of individuals.
The inadequate mitigation targets and implementation techniques that the Swiss government set infringed on human rights. This case paves the way for other European countries to face the risk of being held accountable for their climate promises.
Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc.
A Dutch environmental group called Friends of Earth, Milieudefensie in Dutch, sued oil and gas company Shell, alleging that it violated the human rights of Dutch citizens. Other NGOs joined the suit such as Greenpeace along with 17,000 Dutch individuals. The plaintiffs allege that Shell failed to comply with the standards set in the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 and seek to force the company to have its CO2 emission dropped by 45% by 2030. Shell’s lack of action and negligence in reducing emissions endangers the Dutch people. The plaintiffs argue that Shell has “a duty” to protect citizens and the environment, and do their part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Shell is currently appealing the case, arguing that forcing the company to cut its emissions drastically is “unfair” and “goes too far.” The plaintiffs are confident in this appeal, though, with the lead lawyer stating that “the scientific basis on which we've founded our claims against shell has only solidified,” meaning that new data and information only further prove that climate effects have worsened.
This case has sparked the emergence of further climate cases, as the plaintiffs even wrote a 70-page instruction manual called “How We Defeated Shell.” Human rights treaties do not apply to companies such as Shell, yet the right to life of humans has been impacted due to climate change. The district of The Hague rendered the verdict that Shell has acted against its “unofficial” duty of care to Dutch citizens and ordered the company to reach the target of cutting emissions by 2030. Critics may say that one company cannot solve climate change alone, yet the court further recognized that Shell must do its part to reduce CO2 emissions.
Juliana v. United States
In 2015, 21 adolescents filed a lawsuit against the Department of Energy, challenging its decision to construct a liquified natural gas terminal in Oregon. They argued that the federal government violated their Fifth and Ninth Amendment rights by exacerbating dangerous levels of CO2 emissions. They seek to hold the government accountable for climate change and restrain the Department of Energy from practices that unconstitutionally utilize national energy.
This case, which has spanned nine years and three administrations, was initially dismissed in 2020, with the court claiming that the remedies the plaintiffs wished for were too broad. In 2024, after appealing to the courts, it was decided again that it was beyond the power of courts to supervise and implement the remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions and reduce atmospheric CO2, that this plan would most likely not relieve them of their claimed injuries.
Despite the setbacks and the likelihood that the young plaintiffs will not be given a rehearing, this case remains the longest-running climate suit in the US, and it has inspired other lawsuits based on constitutional and environmental rights claims.
Held v. State
In 2020, 16 climate activists aged five to 22 sued the state of Montana, claiming that the state’s policies for evaluating fossil fuel permits, which excluded considerations of greenhouse gas emissions, are unconstitutional. This case was brought against the state by the law firm “Our Children’s Trust,” which has represented several other environmental lawsuits created by young people. They stated that the increased temperatures, droughts, and wildfires in the West harmed the mental and physical health of Montana’s residents.
This climate change also negatively impacts the lifestyles of indigenous Montanans. One plaintiff, Sariel Sandoval, who is a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai tribes, as well as a part of the Navajo, described the impacts on her tribe’s snow ceremony during the trial. Another, Claire Vlases, described Sandoval’s moving testimony in an interview with the Times: “She told a story about how her tribe has a big ceremony when the first snow falls. It was tied with expert testimony showing that snow might not fall in that area in the coming years. If snow doesn’t fall, they can’t have their ceremony. It takes away an entire aspect of their culture.”
In August 2023, the youth activists won, making this a landmark case. District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled that Montanans have a basic constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment and that climate is a vital part of this system. Montana is one of the only states to guarantee this in its constitution. As a result, the activists seek that the state guarantees these constitutional rights, tracks its greenhouse gas emissions, and develops a remedial plan.
Navahine F. v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation
In June 2024, Hawaii settled a lawsuit with 13 adolescents who alleged that the state threatened their livelihoods by exacerbating climate change. They argue that Hawaii’s high-emission transportation systems damage the climate and violate the state constitution, which protects the right to a clean and healthy environment. The profits generated from this system are at the expense of Hawaii’s islands as states like Hawaii will have to spend more than $400 billion to build seawalls, among other expenses, to protect their communities from sea-level rise.
The successful settlement requires the state to decarbonize its transportation system by 2045. This plan includes expanding charging infrastructure for public electric vehicles, creating a youth council to advise the transportation department, and enhancing public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks.
This case further serves as a landmark case with a spokesperson from “Our Children’s Trust,” a law firm focused on the environmental rights of young people, stating that they will utilize the Montana and Hawaii cases as examples for other climate lawsuits around the nation. The young plaintiffs are proud to be “paving the way for our grandchildren’s grandchildren to have lives here as Hawaiians.”
Conclusion
These cases are being fought in unique ways, but the result is the same: hold polluters accountable and make them pay. Though it is difficult to win these lawsuits, these cases have demonstrated the power of utilizing the law and courts to bring justice to the environment and our communities. It can be determined that environmental rights are increasingly becoming recognized as fundamental human rights. More and more individuals and organizations are beginning to hold corporations and governments accountable for their actions against the environment. A clean and healthy environment is essential to sustaining all life. Cases such as Juliana v. United States and Held v. State demonstrate the courage and dedication of young generations to fight for their futures. Even instances such as Navahine F. v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation, resulting in a settlement, demonstrate that successes that may seem small are still positive steps that people can take to make a change. Therefore, the lawsuits highlight how powerful climate litigation can be in securing environmental protection.
Commentaires