The number of climate lawsuits filed against companies around the world is rising swiftly, a report has found, and a majority of cases that have concluded have been successful.
About 230 climate-aligned lawsuits have been filed against corporations and trade associations since 2015, two-thirds of which have been initiated since 2020, according to the analysis published on Thursday by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
One of the most rapidly growing forms of litigation is over “climate-washing” — when companies are accused of misrepresenting their progress towards environmental targets — and the analysis found that 47 such cases were filed against companies and governments last year.
Photo: AP
As climate communications are increasingly scrutinized, there has been a rise in climate-washing litigation, often with positive outcomes for those bringing the cases. Of the 140 climate-washing cases reviewed between 2016 and last year, 77 have officially concluded, 54 of which ended with a ruling in favor of the claimant.
More than 30 cases in 2023 concerned the “polluter pays” principle, whereby companies are held accountable for climate damage caused by high greenhouse gas emissions. The authors also highlighted six “turning off the taps” cases, which challenge the flow of finance to areas which hinder climate goals.
The US accounted for the vast majority of litigation cases filed last year, with 129 cases. The UK was second, with 24 cases while 10 were filed in Brazil.
Photo: AP
Climate litigation cases were filed for the first time in Panama and Portugal last year. This means that 55 countries have now recorded climate cases, with a growing number of litigation cases arising in the global south, which accounts for about 8 percent of all cases.
While the majority of climate litigation cases are still filed against governments, an increasing number are being filed against companies, with an imbalance between the US and the rest of the world — 40 percent of cases outside the US were filed against companies, while in the US just 15 percent of cases involved companies.
The authors cautioned that while “some types of cases, such as government framework cases, have already had lasting impacts on domestic climate governance … the long-term implications of other case types, such as climate-washing cases, remain unclear.”
Photo: AP
A report published by the UN environment program (Unep) and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University last year highlighted the importance of litigation for climate action around the world.
“Climate litigation … has become an undeniably significant trend in how stakeholders are seeking to advance climate action and accountability,” said Andy Raine, the head of international environment law at Unep.
One of the most prominent litigation cases of last year was the Montana ruling, where a judge ruled in favor of young Montana residents’ claims that state officials had infringed on their right to a clean and healthy environment by promoting fossil fuels.
Photo: AP
Last week, the UK’s supreme court handed down a landmark judgment ruling that the emissions impact of burning coal, oil and gas should be factored into planning applications for new extraction projects, after a local campaigner challenged Surrey county council’s decision to give planning permission to an oil-drilling well at Horse Hill.
Lawsuits against companies are less established, but have met with some success in shifting corporate behaviors. Shell, the Dutch airline KLM and the Australian oil company Santos are just a few of the targets of a plethora of climate-related legal challenges in the private sector.
Last year, the London School of Economics and Political Science in a paper showed that climate litigation filings or unfavorable court decisions reduced firms’ value on the stock market by an average of -0.41 percent.
That US assistance was a model for Taiwan’s spectacular development success was early recognized by policymakers and analysts. In a report to the US Congress for the fiscal year 1962, former President John F. Kennedy noted Taiwan’s “rapid economic growth,” was “producing a substantial net gain in living.” Kennedy had a stake in Taiwan’s achievements and the US’ official development assistance (ODA) in general: In September 1961, his entreaty to make the 1960s a “decade of development,” and an accompanying proposal for dedicated legislation to this end, had been formalized by congressional passage of the Foreign Assistance Act. Two
President William Lai’s (賴清德) March 13 national security speech marked a turning point. He signaled that the government was finally getting serious about a whole-of-society approach to defending the nation. The presidential office summarized his speech succinctly: “President Lai introduced 17 major strategies to respond to five major national security and united front threats Taiwan now faces: China’s threat to national sovereignty, its threats from infiltration and espionage activities targeting Taiwan’s military, its threats aimed at obscuring the national identity of the people of Taiwan, its threats from united front infiltration into Taiwanese society through cross-strait exchanges, and its threats from
Despite the intense sunshine, we were hardly breaking a sweat as we cruised along the flat, dedicated bike lane, well protected from the heat by a canopy of trees. The electric assist on the bikes likely made a difference, too. Far removed from the bustle and noise of the Taichung traffic, we admired the serene rural scenery, making our way over rivers, alongside rice paddies and through pear orchards. Our route for the day covered two bike paths that connect in Fengyuan District (豐原) and are best done together. The Hou-Feng Bike Path (后豐鐵馬道) runs southward from Houli District (后里) while the
March 31 to April 6 On May 13, 1950, National Taiwan University Hospital otolaryngologist Su You-peng (蘇友鵬) was summoned to the director’s office. He thought someone had complained about him practicing the violin at night, but when he entered the room, he knew something was terribly wrong. He saw several burly men who appeared to be government secret agents, and three other resident doctors: internist Hsu Chiang (許強), dermatologist Hu Pao-chen (胡寶珍) and ophthalmologist Hu Hsin-lin (胡鑫麟). They were handcuffed, herded onto two jeeps and taken to the Secrecy Bureau (保密局) for questioning. Su was still in his doctor’s robes at
RSS