Tiffanie Chan and Joana Setzer highlight the growing intersection of science and law in climate litigation. As more cases emerge against companies responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, understanding this connection is crucial.
Over the last five years, the number of climate lawsuits has surged, especially targeting major greenhouse gas emitters. This uptick aligns with the rise in policies and regulations pushing companies toward net-zero emissions.
Initially, lawsuits focused on past actions, aiming for compensation for historical emissions. However, newer cases seek to hold companies accountable for their future practices, insisting they follow science-based paths to reduce emissions.
Many of these cases also address “climate-washing,” where companies exaggerate their environmental efforts. Some backward-looking cases tackle efforts that downplayed climate change, ultimately delaying meaningful action. Forward-looking cases counter misleading claims about net-zero targets, aiming for more honest corporate communications.
Despite some successes, forward-looking lawsuits face hurdles. The significant court case, Milieudefensie v. Shell, sought to establish a clear standard for emissions but was overturned due to a lack of scientific consensus on acceptable reduction pathways. A Swiss court recently allowed the Asmania v. Holcim case to proceed, where Indonesian plaintiffs demand significant emission cuts and compensation.
As legal battles unfold, the need for interdisciplinary research becomes clearer. By linking science, law, and policy, we can better define responsible corporate actions that align with climate goals.
Experts argue that simply applying scientific models to legal standards won’t suffice. Courts need to interpret these models to reflect societal values of harm and responsibility. Effective climate action hinges on dialogue between scientific findings and legal requirements.
Moves to incorporate social sciences into climate litigation are essential. Areas like environmental economics can offer insights into corporate accountability and transition strategies. Without this, there’s a risk that courts might miss critical context needed for ruling on climate-related obligations.
In conclusion, interdisciplinary collaboration is key to tackling climate litigation challenges. As we aim to align corporate actions with climate commitments, forging stronger ties between scientists, legal experts, and policymakers will guide more effective solutions.
