Climate Litigation Accelerator

In a bold, unanimous decision, Hawai’i’s highest court issued a landmark decision rejecting a power purchase agreement between the Hawai’i Electric Light Company and an energy company, Hu Honua Bio Energy LLC.

The majority opinion emphasized the constitutional duty on the state of Hawaii to protect the right to a clean and healthy environment. The concurring opinion of Justice Wilson went even further, finding that the right to a clean and healthy environment is subsumed in the due process right to “life, liberty, and property” as well as in “the public trust doctrine,” which requires the conservation and protection of natural resources “for the benefit of present and future generations.” 

A coastal municipality in France particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change successfully challenged the federal government’s inaction on climate change. The Conseil d’Etat ordered the federal government to take all necessary actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, on the basis of its domestic and international climate obligations. Since the judgment was issued, the Conseil d’Etat has ordered the federal government to pay two penalty payments in light of its failure to take adequate steps to implement the decision.

23-year-old Mark McVeigh sued his superannuation fund, REST, alleging it breached its disclosure obligations and fiduciary duties related to the climate-related financial risks of its investments. After the first day of the three-day trial, the parties settled the case, and REST publicly agreed to a range of new climate-friendly investment commitments. Although the case settled out of court, it was a ground-breaking case, testing the climate-related financial risk and fiduciary duties of retail pension funds in Australia for the first time.  

In October 2021, the Federal Court of Australia declined to dismiss a novel class action lawsuit brought by a 23-year-old law student alleging that the Australian government misled or deceived sovereign bond investors by failing to disclose the risks of climate change.

The plaintiff’s claim against the Australian government is the first of its kind internationally. If Ms. O’Donnell (the plaintiff) wins, it could have a major impact globally on the way that governments disclose financial risks and on directors and officers across the financial sector.

In the face of devastating deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, an NGO seeks the recognition of a fundamental right to a stable climate. In IEA v. Brazil, the plaintiff NGO seeks not only an order requiring the federal government to comply with national climate law, but also the recognition of a new fundamental right to a stable climate for present and future generations. If successful, it will be a significant and exciting development in rights-based climate litigation.

Climate litigation often focuses on the Global North. But one of the earliest, most prominent rights-based climate cases was brought in the Global South, in Pakistan, where the Lahore High Court found that the government breached its human rights obligations under the Pakistani Constitution by failing to implement a climate framework law and take sufficiently urgent action on climate change.

Like many Global South countries, Pakistan is not a major contributor to climate change but is particularly vulnerable to its impacts, already suffering the consequences of extreme weather events and food and water shortages. The Court made history by accepting the argument that the government’s failures to adequately implement its climate change policies violated Mr. Leghari’s fundamental rights and taking active steps to compel the government to implement its climate change policies.

In a landmark decision brought by a First Nations-led group of young people, the Land Court of Queensland has recommended that a major proposed coal mine should not go ahead because of its contribution to climate change, its environmental impacts, and the unjustifiable limitations on human rights that it would pose.

In a landmark case, Indigenous islanders claimed, in front of the UN Human Rights Committee, that the Australian government was responsible for rights violations stemming from climate impacts suffered by the Torres Strait Islands communities. The Committee, in a major victory for rights-based climate litigation, agreed: the Australian government, by failing to take steps to protect the Island communities from the current and predicted impacts of climate change, violated its obligations under international human rights law.

In order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, exploration for new fossil fuel reserves must stop. In spite of this, fossil fuel companies like Shell continue to make plans to develop new oil and gas reserves. This includes Shell’s plans to conduct seismic surveys for oil and gas reserves off the coast of South Africa. In response, a coalition of NGOs and communities asked the High Court of South Africa to issue a temporary order restraining Shell from proceeding with these surveys until the Court can assess the validity of the project. The High Court sided with the plaintiffs, blocking the seismic surveys until the case is ultimately resolved.