Climate litigation
As a scientist working on quantifying the responsibilities of various actors to achieve the global climate goals, I have been asked to inform court of law in multiple climate litigation cases and legal processes around the world, in national and international jurisdictions.
Below are my contribution to the following cases:
Ongoing case before European Court of Human Rights on the case People v. Oil (Greenpeace v. Norway).
Two of the three climate cases ruled by the European Court of Human Rights:
Duarte Agostinho v. all members of the ECHR, 32 countries and the EU
KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland with a submission mentioned in the ECHR ruling
People’s Climate Case: Carvalho and Others v. The European Parliament and Council
A case against petroleum company TotalEnergies
With additional information to the cases Urgenda v. the Netherlands, Neubauer et al. v. Germany, Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea.
ECHR - European Court of Human Rights
People v. Oil
(Greenpeace Nordic and others v. Norway)
In this expert report, I compare the emissions budget of Norway to the emissions expected to result from the exploitation of the oil fields whose licenses are challenged. The equal per capita budget is calculated as of 2016, following the Paris Agreement, and does not even factor in notions of responsibility and capability, mentioned in the Paris Agreement. In that sense the calculation of the budget is favourable to Norway that has an above average historical responsibility and financial capability.
The responsibility and ability to act over the emissions embedded in exported products is shared with the importing actor, since territorial accounting is only one of multiple accounting methods. Yet, I show that the median estimate of embedded emissions represent over 10 times those of Norway’s emissions budget remaining at the time of the Paris Agreement. This report also recalls that existing fossil fuel extraction would warm the world beyond 1.5 °C and that “Estimates of future CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructures without additional abatement already exceed the remaining carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5 °C“, according to the IPCC AR6.
KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland
This expert report, mentioned in the ruling, provides a verification of the claims made by the Swiss state that its emissions targets aligned with a methodology from a Policy Brief of Lucas Bretschger dated March 2012. Our expert report shows the inconsistency of Switzerland’s emissions objectives with the methodology presented by the Swiss state, applied to the remaining emissions budget. This report was used by the court to conclude that Switzerland had not established a methodology to determine a country’s carbon budget or a country’s “fair share”. Switzerland had not determined a specific carbon budget.
Duarte Agostinho v. all members of the ECHR
Expert report: “Achieving the 1.5°C Limit of the Paris Agreement: An Assessment of the Adequacy of the Mitigation Measures and Targets of the respondent states in Duarte Agostinho v. Portugal and 32 other States“ (2022)
In this expert report submitted to the court, we explain the science that is used to assess the ambition countries’ emissions targets and suggest what can be considered as adequate emissions levels.
The report presents a specific analysis for all the members of the ECHR, the 32 countries and the European Union.
The other documents submitted to the case are available here.
Rapid reaction seminar on the first climate rulings of the European Court of Human Rights
Joie Chowdhury highlighted the Court's view that "climate change is a truly existential problem for humanity" (paragraph 194 of the Agostinho decision).
According to Sonia Seneviratne, the Court took a serious look at scientific knowledge when assessing whether Switzerland was making a sufficient contribution to limiting global warming.
During the proceedings, the government relied on a 2012 Policy Brief from ETH Zurich. On this basis, Yann Robiou du Pont provided evidence that the emissions objective of Switzerland failed to align with the Brief's methods, and Switzerland does not provide a science-based approach to limit its emissions in line the Paris Agreement.
For Corina Heri, it is impressive that the Court has carefully navigated between two red lines: It could not remain silent on climate change given the threats to human rights, but it also had to take due account of the limits of its role and mandate. The Court has understood this.
On the question of victim status, Véronique Boillet emphasizes that the Court has granted standing to the NGO. The Court recognizes the importance of associations in accordance with the Aarhus Convention. This is a key aspect of the decision.
Documentary on the ECHR climate cases
Arte.tv - Climate: Se you in court!
Documentary - Worldwide, activists spread the word by reiterating their actions. But governments only are able to impose measures commensurate to such challenge. Spanning Europe, we follow 4 major cases initiated by people of all ages, and brought against European states: “#YouthforClimate” (Portugal), “Urgenda” (Netherlands), “L’Affaire du Siècle” (Case of the Century - France) and the “Aînées pour le Climat” (Senior Women for Climate Protection - Switzerland). For the very first time ever, the European Court of Human Rights considered their request…
Through interviews with activists, jurists and experts, we learn about the rise of modern climate justice. More here.
TotalEnergies
Expert report: “Consultation on the alignment of TotalEnergies with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C” (in French).
The report establishes TotalEnergies does not demonstrate how its climate strategy aligns with the 1.5°C trajectories of the IPCC and of the International Energy Agency.
People’s climate case
The People’s Climate Case was the litigation action initiated by 10 families from Portugal, Germany, France, Italy, Romania, Kenya, Fiji, and the Saami Youth Association Sáminuorra against the European Union to ask for a more ambitious 2030 emissions targets.
Our work provided calculations of emissions budgets and emissions trajectories for the EU in line with a principle of equal access to the remaining emissions space. The calculations and graphics that we provided are present in the Application to the court, and in a synthesis article published in a law journal by Gerd Winter in 2020.
