Judgement Day for Big Polluters: A Landmark Win for Climate Litigation ⚖️

— Written by Lyle Jarvis

The Case for Accountability 📖 

On July 23rd, the International Court of Justice ruled that countries have a legal responsibility, under international law, for their carbon emissions and contributions to climate change. Although the ruling is technically non‑binding, it marks a turning point in honoring climate change as a legal frontier, and opens the door for vulnerable countries to seek their rightful justice from some of the world's largest polluters.

Climate litigation has been on the rise for the past few years. But according to legal experts, this decision laid a clear and united line in the sand: climate obligations are real, and the law has a role to play. 

We've discussed this a few times now in the newsletter, but one of the biggest climate inequalities is becoming increasingly apparent: oftentimes, many countries with the lowest levels of emissions are actually the most vulnerable to its impacts.

This ruling clears a legal path for those nations to pursue legal action for things like destroyed buildings, infrastructure and the environmental harm facing its citizens.

A Student-Led Plan Comes to Life 🧑‍🎓 

Perhaps more impressively, the case emerged from a group of 27 students, mainly from the South Pacific. The idea was clear: change international law by getting the world’s highest court to issue an advisory opinion on the climate crisis. More than half a decade later, their plan came to life.

One of those students was in The Hague to hear the decision, and reported to BBC he was "lost for words."

The campaign was originally led by the nation of Vanuatu, a Pacific state that sits among the frontlines of the climate crisis. It's also considered by the U.N. as the country most prone to climate and natural hazard risk. The plan was hatched in 2019, and what started in Vanuatu picked up steam (and a string of other nation states), demanding clarity and enforceability in global climate obligations. In 2023, it was referred to the ICJ by a decision of the UN general assembly by 130 countries, including Australia.

Coincidentally, since the ruling, Australia is among the first of nations to make headlines facing warnings for their emissions.

Will This Actually Get Polluting Countries to Clean Up Their Act? 🌎️ 

While certainly a promising step forward, the ultimate test of the ICJ’s decision will be how it’s received on a global scale. More specifically, success will be determined by if the biggest polluters will play ball by these new rules.

Starting with the U.S., our courts don’t typically cite international cases. In fact, we dropped compulsory jurisdiction with the ICJ in 1986. In an article covering the ruling, the U.S. and Russia, both of whom are serious polluters, were described as being “staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions.”

To put it bluntly, we’re not holding our breath for the decision to sway President Trump’s love affair with oil and gas. When asked about the ruling, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said  "As always, President Trump and the entire Administration is committed to putting America first and prioritizing the interests of everyday Americans," which sounds like code for “drill baby, drill.” Especially when paired with his (second) departure from the Paris Climate Accord.

But nonetheless, global venues do apply pressure for stronger action, and we’ll be staying tuned to see how the decision is received around the world.

Climate Litigation is on The Rise

What we know for sure, is that there’s a growing legal battle over climate change. According to the London School of Economics, who published a study last year about the sharp rise in climate litigation, at least 230 new climate cases were filed in 2023. Many of these are seeking to hold companies and governments alike accountable for their emissions (e.g., Held V. Montana last year)

And according to Reuters, as companies face growing financial and legal risks for misleading sustainability claims and climate management, claimants were winning 70% of 'climate-washing' cases as of last year.

The icing on the cake for climate warriors? These cases are affecting companies' bottom lines. A study was published by nature.com that found: firms experience, on average, a 0.41% fall in stock returns following a climate-related filing or an unfavorable court decision.

As legal pathways continue to open up following the ICJ’s ruling, we’ll be keeping a close eye on how the legal battle over climate change helps us win the progress we deserve.

What We’re Watching 🎥, Reading 📚, and Listening to 🎧

🎥 How Water Makes This Town Flood-Proof | The Wall Street Journal - The WSJ spoke with an engineer of Babcock Ranch, Florida, to uncover the hurricane-proofing designs that help protect his community from storms.

📚 Dr. Dana Fisher’s Saving Ourselves is out on paperback. ICYMI, check out the piece she wrote in our newsletter earlier this month, and get your paperback copy here!

🎧️ Climate Rising: Geospatial AI Can Forecast Climate Risk | Harvard Business School Sarah Russell, GM of Project Bellwether at X, The Moonshot Factory, joined the Harvard Business School Climate Podcast to share how A.I. can help communities and businesses anticipate and respond to climate risks.