Climate litigation has surged, holding governments and companies accountable for inadequate action and excessive emissions. Over a thousand climate cases have been brought annually in recent years. See two of the most significant cases.
• Landmark Climate Change Cases
Urgenda versus the Dutch Government
Urgenda sued the Dutch government in 2013 to force them to reduce CO2 emissions in the country. They demanded that the government reduce CO2 emissions by 25 per cent by 2020 compared to 1990 levels.
In 2015, Urgenda won the legal dispute with a ruling that is considered a historic milestone. The Dutch government appealed several times until finally, at the end of 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled in favour of Urgenda.
After seven years of litigation, these judges ruled that climate change is a threat to the population and that the state must protect its citizens to reduce CO2 emissions as soon as possible. The Urgenda process is an inspiration for many climate processes around the world.
Milieudefensie (Friend of the Earth Netherlands) et al. versus Royal Dutch Shell plc
On May 26, 2021, the Hague District Court ordered Shell to reduce its emissions by 45% by 2030, across all activities including both its own emissions and end-use emissions.
The lawsuit was filed by the environmental organisation Milieudefensie voor Veranderaars (Friends of the Earth Netherlands), alongside other major charities and thousands of co-plaintiffs.
The case is unique in that no compensation is being demanded from the company. Instead, for the first time in history, Shell is being asked to issue a policy change in line with the Paris Agreement.
This case builds on the landmark Urgenda decision which found that the Dutch government’s inadequate action on climate change violated a duty of care to its citizens. In the suit against Shell, plaintiffs extend this argument to private companies, arguing that given the Paris Agreement’s goals and the scientific evidence regarding the dangers of climate change, Shell has a duty of care to take action to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
The ruling is only legally binding in the Netherlands but it will lead to more cases worldwide and politicians and oil and gas companies will feel the pressure to change their course.
Most impactful climate cases from around the world
See details at : https://leap.unep.org/countries/ch/national-case-law
- Australia: Gloucester Resources Limited v. Minister for Planning
- Netherlands: Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands
- Germany: Neubauer et al. v. Germany
- Netherlands: Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc.
- USA: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
- Pakistan: Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan
- Kenya: Save Lamu et al. v. National Environmental Management Authority and Amu Power Co. Ltd.
- South Africa: EarthLife Africa Johannesburg v. Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others
- Argentina: Barrick Exploraciones Argentinas S.A. and others v. National Government
- Poland: ClientEarth v. Enea
