Climate change is a complex phenomenon influenced by many interrelated factors. It is unsurprising, therefore, that apportioning legal responsibility for its impacts should be an equally thorny issue. As the world grapples with the effects of the climate crisis, efforts are underway to hold those responsible to account. This article introduces climate litigation and considers where its impacts could be greatest in enforcing climate action.
The question of climate accountability seems ever more urgent. 2024 was the hottest year on record. It was also the first full calendar year to exceed the threshold of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, a symbolic figure popularised by the Paris Agreement.
This legally binding international treaty, which came into force in 2016, has not yet been officially breached, as it stipulates that global heating should be calculated as a decades-long average. Yet, with Donald Trump withdrawing the US from the agreement for a second time, legal battles over climate responsibilities look set to take center stage in the coming years.
Why is climate litigation on the agenda?
As the world moves closer to breaching legal limits, campaigners and courts are increasingly turning towards legal remedies.
Bringing climate cases to court forms an ‘integral part of securing climate action and justice,’ according to the United Nations Environment Programme. The total number of climate litigation cases more than doubled between 2017 and 2022, reaching more than 2,000 a year.
And the tactic seems to be working. Around 55% of climate litigation cases analysed in 2023 resulted in outcomes deemed “favourable to climate action.” Spurred on by successful cases, climate litigants continue to set new precedents for how countries, corporations and sectors must mitigate and manage their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Using the law to fight climate inequality
The consequences of climate change are not the same in every community or country. Nor are historic and present GHG emissions spread evenly.
Indeed, people and communities in the Global South who are least responsible for the climate crisis are disproportionately exposed to the effects of climate change. Climate inequality means that those who have done the least to cause the climate crisis are often vulnerable to suffer the most.
Black, Indigenous, and People of Color communities and people with low incomes often live and work in areas especially at risk of flooding, sea-level rise, and other climate risks. Systems of inequality that contribute to food insecurity and inadequate healthcare can exacerbate climate vulnerabilities.
A major motivation for climate litigation is to address systemic unfairness by making polluters pay for the consequences of their actions.
Who is legally responsible for the climate crisis?
To determine who should pay, it is first necessary to consider where responsibility lies.
This can be approached in several ways. In international law, national governments hold legal responsibilities in relation to treaties and other climate commitments. Businesses have legal duties they must fulfill under corporate law, while criminal litigation can target individuals.
So, where are climate litigants directing their energies in 2025?
The case for countries
Many climate litigation efforts have targeted countries so far. It is easy to see why. States have the power and tools to implement policies for a sustainable transition.
“Governments have a ton of power,” says Loes van Dijk, Founder of Climate Court. “If we can push for more accountability from governments, especially for emissions tied to companies operating within their borders, we could capture a much larger slice of the problem.”
Not only do countries have power, but they also have the potential to be held accountable by international courts. Last year, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, issued a groundbreaking advisory opinion: states have a legal responsibility to control GHG emissions.
In December 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) also heard evidence on the climate obligations of states, with a ruling set to follow later this year. The judges are weighing what legal consequences should be applied to countries whose actions (or failure to act) make them responsible for the effects of climate change. Last year, an Editorial in Nature argued that the ICJ case “could be one of the most consequential developments in climate policy since the Paris Agreement.”
The outcome of this case could be a “game-changer in terms of influencing different kinds of lawsuits,” says Joie Chowdhury, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law. She expects the ruling to “cut through the political inertia that has plagued climate negotiations and national level climate actions, and have ripple effects around the world.”
International courts’ opinions are influential, adds Chowdhury, “as domestic and regional courts facing a rising tide of climate litigation look for guidance, and as communities facing rising sea levels and temperatures look for remedy.”
Why corporations should be considered
While countries have a powerful role in setting and enforcing policy, many climate campaigners think that corporations should also be held legally responsible.
Just as the richest countries have contributed the vast majority of emissions, researchers have pinpointed the impact of the world’s most polluting companies. According to one analysis, some 57 companies can be directly linked to 80% of the world’s global fossil CO2 emissions since the Paris Agreement.
Oil and gas companies top the list of climate culprits. In Japan, a major corporate climate lawsuit will return to court in February 2025. The lawsuit pits 16 youth plaintiffs against 10 Japanese energy companies, who stand accused of violating the plaintiffs’ human rights through their carbon-intensive practices.
Meat and dairy corporations are also facing scrutiny. The five largest livestock companies (JBS, Tyson, Cargill, Dairy Farmers of America, and Fonterra) together emit more GHGs than ExxonMobil, Shell, or BP. With meat and dairy consumption forecast to grow globally, the problem is set to worsen. Indeed, if the growth of the global meat and dairy industry continues as projected, the livestock sector as a whole could consume 80% of the planet's annual greenhouse gas budget by 2050.
Many of the top polluting meat companies have not produced Net Zero targets. Those who have claimed to be going green are also in hot water. Last year, New York State’s Attorney General, Letitia James, filed a lawsuit against the US division of JBS. In 2021, the world’s largest beef producer launched a “Net Zero by 2040” campaign. In it, JBS made “commitments” and “pledges” to hit Net Zero within two decades. The company’s sustainability chief has since backtracked and argued that this goal was ‘never a promise’.
Holding large corporations accountable for their emissions goes hand in hand with preventing greenwashing. As Glenn Hurowitz, CEO at Mighty Earth, puts it: “It’s clear [JBS] is hellbent on continuing business as usual.” Strategic litigation puts a spanner in the dirty works and helps enforce the urgent measures needed.
Criminal litigation against individuals
Should individuals be held accountable too? From a climate justice perspective, there is a compelling case.
In terms of personal consumption since the 1990s, research shows that just 1% of individuals have burned through twice as much of the carbon budget as the poorest half of humanity combined.
Carbon accounting can help clarify responsibility by taking disparities between where emissions are produced and consumed into consideration. Take Brazil as an example. Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest is well documented, with beef ranching and growing soy as chicken feed known to be two of the main causes. Brazil has committed to reducing emissions by 59% to 67% by 2035. However, the country’s emissions vary greatly depending on whether “ghost acres” – the ecological footprint of resource consumption from abroad – are included in the producing or consuming country.
Climate advocates often emphasize the structural forces that contribute to climate inequality. However, individuals could also become culpable if their actions can be proven to be responsible for significant amounts of warming.
Van Dijk says criminal litigation could be one of the most exciting areas to watch in climate litigation in 2025. While still in its “very early stages,” criminal litigation has enormous potential to disrupt business as usual.
Last year, a case was brought in France against the board of directors and main shareholders of TotalEnergies, alleging that they should be held criminally liable for their decisions that contributed to climate change. The case could be a “real game-changer,” van Dijk thinks. “If it moves forward, it could give us a precedent for holding individuals—not just corporations—criminally accountable for actions that worsen climate change.”
Can we really apportion legal blame?
There is clearly no one single culprit for the climate crisis. Its causes and effects form a complex web of interrelated factors such that legal responsibility cannot be placed squarely on one defendant.
Could the legal blame game become a distraction? Taking climate change to the courts certainly comes with risks. For one, litigation is an expensive and slow option for bringing about change. Court decisions often apply only to specific jurisdictions and even then may not be enforced if judgments are advisory.
Climate litigation also comes with the potential for backlash. “Anti-climate litigation has its place in the legal system,” says van Dijk. But it can be very frustrating: as well as draining resources, there is a risk that, if courts rule in favor of these cases, they could set precedents that have a detrimental impact on the climate movement. “But it’s part of how the rule of law works,” says van Dijk. “And it may even help legitimize pro-climate litigation by balancing the process.”
Climate litigation is part of the solution
Climate litigation is a key part of the solution to combatting climate change. Countries, corporations, and individuals can all be held accountable for their actions (past and present) in regional, national and international courts. Legal precedents can act as deterrence against future polluting activities or actions.
Assigning guilt for a phenomenon as complex as the climate crisis is a difficult but important task. Given that GHG emissions are not confined by national borders, a global approach to climate accountability that considers historic and continuing injustices is essential. Upcoming decisions in 2025, notably the ICJ’s ruling on the climate obligations of states, could determine national implementation of environmental policy for years to come.
