Provides an overview of climate litigation developments from 2023 to mid-2024. It highlights key trends, emerging themes, and the growing role of litigation as a tool for climate accountability.

Key Findings

• Volume and Geographic Spread: At least 230 new climate cases were filed in 2023, totaling 2,666 cases globally. While the United States remains the leader in climate litigation (1,745 cases), countries like the UK, Australia, Brazil, and Germany also saw significant activity. Cases were filed for the first time in Panama and Portugal, reflecting a broader geographic spread.
• Types of Cases:
  • Climate-washing: These cases target misleading corporate claims about environmental sustainability. In 2023, 47 such cases were filed, and over 70% of completed cases were decided in favor of claimants.
  • Polluter Pays: Over 30 cases sought to hold companies accountable for climate-related harm due to their greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Transition Risk: A new category focusing on corporate directors and officers’ management of climate risks emerged, with cases like Enea’s shareholders suing former directors over coal investments.
  • Human Rights-Based Litigation: Nearly half of international cases involved human rights courts or bodies, emphasizing the link between climate impacts and human rights violations.
• Strategic Litigation: Many cases aim to influence broader climate policy and governance. This includes challenges to corporate frameworks or government policies that fail to align with climate goals.
• Non-Aligned Cases: About 50 cases in 2023 opposed or questioned climate action implementation. These include ESG backlash lawsuits and “just transition” claims addressing the distributional impacts of policies on affected communities.

Trends and Implications

• The growth rate of new cases is stabilizing, indicating a consolidation of strategic efforts in impactful areas. However, this stabilization may be temporary as legal strategies evolve.
• International courts are playing an increasing role. For instance, the European Court of Human Rights issued significant rulings that may set precedents for future claims.
• The Global South is witnessing a rise in litigation, with over 200 cases now documented in these regions.

Future Directions

Anticipates growth in post-disaster recovery disputes, ecocide claims under criminal law, and synergies between climate litigation and broader environmental issues like plastic pollution. It underscores that litigation risks for corporations and governments remain high as claimants adopt more sophisticated legal strategies.

Overview

Part I. The global landscape of climate case

Analyzes global climate litigation trends and metrics, tracking the worldwide increase in climate-related cases. The analysis examines their geographical distribution, focusing on jurisdictions with the highest case concentrations and providing special attention to cases from the Global South. The Global South has generated over 200 climate cases, representing about 8% of global cases. Notable legal milestones include landmark judgments establishing new climate-related rights—such as the Supreme Court of India’s ruling that recognized a constitutional right to be free from climate change’s adverse effects.

Explores key players in climate litigation, with NGOs and individuals emerging as the primary initiators of recent cases. This pattern reflects a strategic approach to holding governments and corporations accountable for climate-related actions. The diverse legal arguments and strategies demonstrate global climate litigation’s dynamic and evolving nature.

Part II. Climate-aligned strategic case

Examines key litigation developments that align with climate action goals. Since 2015, cases have been classified by their strategic nature and legal approaches, showing how courts and legal frameworks advance climate initiatives—Categorizes cases as strategic, semi-strategic, or non-strategic. Strategic cases—those aimed at conveying specific messages or achieving broader societal change—are particularly significant. NGOs and individual campaigners collaborate with affected communities through a movement lawyering approach to lead the most strategic climate litigation.

Examines various climate-aligned strategic cases, including government framework challenges, corporate accountability suits, and litigation addressing climate adaptation failures. It also explores new cases targeting corporate “climate-washing” practices and those invoking the “polluter pays” principle. Demonstrates how climate-aligned litigation uses diverse strategies to achieve direct judicial outcomes, highlighting the judiciary’s growing role in addressing climate change and shaping public policy.

Part III. Developments in cases not aligned with climate goals

Examines a growing trend in litigation that seeks to obstruct or delay climate action. While many climate cases aim to hold governments and corporations accountable for inadequate climate measures, many work against climate goals.

Identifies several types of non-aligned cases:

1. ESG Backlash Cases: Challenges to integrating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in financial decision-making, particularly opposing the consideration of climate risks.
2. Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) Cases: Lawsuits targeting NGOs and activists are designed to discourage climate advocacy by imposing legal costs and burdens.
3. Just Transition Cases: Cases examining how climate policies affect vulnerable communities, raising human rights concerns about the fairness of implementation.
4. Green v. Green Cases: Conflicts between competing environmental priorities, such as when climate initiatives clash with biodiversity conservation goals.

Industry groups and other actors often use these non-aligned cases strategically to challenge climate action, part of a broader “backlash” litigation trend. Understanding these cases is crucial, as they can significantly influence the advancement of climate policies and actions.

Part IV. Impacts and future trends

Explores the various effects of climate litigation beyond the courtroom and discusses potential future developments. It highlights two main types of impacts: direct and indirect.

1. Direct Impacts: These arise from court rulings or changes in law resulting from climate litigation. Successful cases can lead to significant legal precedents, influencing government policies and corporate practices related to climate action.
2. Indirect Impacts: These occur outside the immediate legal outcomes and can influence public discourse, policy-making, and the behavior of various stakeholders, including governments, corporations, and civil society. The report notes that even unsuccessful litigation can have ripple effects, raising awareness and prompting discussions about climate issues.

Examines courts’ evolving role in climate governance, highlighting their growing influence in shaping climate policy and accountability. This transformation shows how the judiciary has become central to addressing climate change and enforcing environmental standards. Outlines emerging trends in climate litigation, including increased strategic cases using existing legal frameworks, growing collaboration among stakeholders, and litigation’s expanding role in advancing climate justice. It emphasizes climate litigation’s dynamic nature and its power to drive change while acknowledging the opposition from non-aligned cases that aim to obstruct climate action.