Search

Lawsuits concerning the impacts of climate change make causal claims about the effect of defendants’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on plaintiffs and have proliferated around the world. Plaintiffs have sought, inter alia, compensation for climate-related losses and to compel governments to reduce their GHG emissions. So far, most of these claims have been unsuccessful. Here we assess the scientific and legal bases for establishing causation and evaluate judicial treatment of scientific evidence in 73 lawsuits. We find that the evidence submitted and referenced in these cases lags considerably behind the state of the art in climate science, impeding causation claims. We conclude that greater appreciation and exploitation of existing methodologies in attribution science could address obstacles to causation and improve the prospects of litigation as a route to compensation for losses, regulatory action and emission reductions by defendants seeking to limit legal liability. Legal cases to force governments to reduce emissions or to pursue compensation for climate change-related losses are increasing. The scientific evidence used in such cases is found to be lagging behind state-of-the-art climate science; using up-to-date methodologies could improve causation claims.

Companies in the United States and in Europe have been disclosing sustainability performance data in voluntary reports and in formal securities filings for decades. These reports include quantifiable ESG metrics, such as annual greenhouse gas emissions and employee diversity data, as well as aspirational targets and future commitments. In both the European and U.S. legal contexts, companies have generally been considered exempt from liability for boilerplate language and aspirational statements. Companies take advantage of this legal standard by making vague statements, limiting any commitment to concrete actions, and omitting ESG disclosures that might reflect poorly on the company. This chapter describes nascent legal frameworks in the United States and Europe that aim to require more complete ESG reporting and to protect investors against inaccurate or misleading corporate sustainability disclosures.