Climate Harms Research Articles

Causation Puzzles in International Climate Litigation

Abstract The multiplicity of causes of climate change makes it difficult to establish causal connections between individual States’ greenhouse gas emissions and harmful effects of climate change. Several States and companies have invoked this causation puzzle as a defence against claims that they would be responsible for harmful effects. However, in recent opinions and judgments, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the European Court of Human Rights, and national courts have shown that this causation puzzle does not necessarily preclude a determination of the responsibility of States contributing to climate change. This paper examines how courts have (partially) solved puzzles of cause-effect relations by relying on normative standards based on the imperative to prevent global risks of climate harm. It also articulates possible solutions to the main causation puzzle that courts have not yet cracked: allocating compensation for climate change harm.

Participation and Collective Harm

Abstract Many global problems nowadays are collective action problems. It is only because many people act in some way that certain problems arise (e.g., climate harms). But when can one be said to participate in such groups in the first place? As Derek Parfit asked, “When we appeal to what groups together do, whom should we count as members of these groups?” As Julia Nefsky has shown, this problem has proven to be notoriously tricky, and without any adequate solution. We present a solution. The proposed account not only overcomes a number of problems for participation-based views, according to which it is morally problematic to participate in such groups at all, but also helps make precise a prominent alternative view, according to which one should help bring about better outcomes.

Health harms, climate harms and the regenerative potential of policing

ABSTRACT Policing, public health, and climate change are interconnected. Police respond to health harms, from pandemics to mental distress. They also respond to climate harms, such as floods and fires. In combination, changing ‘harmscapes’ – or landscapes of harm – place new demands and strains on policing, but they can also serve as ‘portals’ to new imaginings of policing functions. In this essay, we examine the potential for policing to serve a regenerative function, working not only to protect life, but to act as a glue that binds local harm reduction efforts together and stimulate their growth. We offer examples of two developments aimed at improving the policing of health harms (COVID-19 and mental distress respectively) to illustrate the potential of regenerative policing and distil its nascent features. This essay concludes that intentional efforts to advance regenerative policing should be considered in view of new and compounding harms to planetary and human health.

Interpreting the Paris Agreement in its Normative Environment

Abstract International and regional courts are increasingly being asked to determine the rights and responsibilities of states in relation to climate harm. The context for such requests is that the 2015 Paris Agreement, comprising primarily procedural obligations and obligations of conduct, and premised on national determination, appears by itself radically insufficient to resolve the existential climate crisis the planet is facing. This article explores if this is indeed the case and argues that the 2015 Paris Agreement must be interpreted in its ‘normative environment’. The ‘normative environment’ includes the customary international law principle of harm prevention, other treaties, including human rights ones, and a set of principles of varying legal status but considerable operational relevance and guidance. This article examines specific obligations from the 2015 Paris Agreement and seeks to concretize and strengthen them based on this interpretative approach. While such strengthened obligations might yet be insufficient to decisively resolve the climate crisis, these nevertheless reflect a richer account of international legal resolve relating to climate change—one that is premised on an understanding of international law as a seamless web of inter-locking obligations rather than of treaties functioning as atomistic reflections of state consent in that area.

The Nitrous Oxide Project: assessment of advocacy and national directives to deliver mitigation of anaesthetic nitrous oxide.

The environmental emissions attributed to anaesthetic nitrous oxide across the NHS are comparable to the carbon dioxide released by 135,000 flights from Frankfurt to New York. Much of these emissions are attributable to cumbersome and inadequately managed piped systems, resulting in excessive loss and waste. Since 2020, multiple hospital sites have been engaging with the Nitrous Oxide Project, a quality improvement method supporting a 'lean systems' approach to the provision of nitrous oxide. This review considers the frameworks supporting medical gas management in UK healthcare systems, and the impact of professional advocacy and medical gas stewardship to drive anaesthetic nitrous oxide mitigation in the NHS. Nitrous oxide mitigation efforts by grassroots and professional advocacy networks are enhanced through national centralised emission monitoring, distribution of data, technical information and provision of quality analysis. Given the climate harms of nitrous oxide, concerted efforts should be made to rationalise its use, and resources should be committed to supporting this at local, regional and national levels.

Climate Resistance and the Far Future

This paper argues that climate injustice will be compounded in the future as a result of the deferred nature of many climate impacts. My claim is that the temporal disconnect between emissions and climate harm threatens future people’s ability to access what I call “resistance goods,” which rely on forms of address, often realised in oppositional political action. I identify three resistance goods—self-assertion, solidarity and testimony—and show that each is threatened by the temporality of climate change. A compound of climate injustice is that it will be experienced as demeaning, isolating and silencing by many future people.

Coping with climate change: The role of climate related stressors in affecting the mental health of young people in Mexico.

Young people today are predicted to experience more climate change related stressors and harms than the previous generation, yet they are often excluded from climate research, policy, and advocacy. Increasingly, this exposure is associated with experience of common mental health disorders (CMD). The VoCes-19 study collected surveys from 168,407 young people across Mexico (ages 15-24 years) through an innovative online platform, collecting information on various characteristics including CMD and experience of recent climate harms. Logistic regression models were fit to explore characteristics associated with CMD. Structural equation models were fit to explore pathways between exposure, feeling of concern about climate change, and a sense of agency (meaning the respondent felt they could help address the climate crisis) and how these relate to CMD. Of the respondents, 42% (n = 50,682) were categorized as experiencing CMD, higher among those who experienced a climate stressor (51%, n = 4,808) vs those not experiencing climate stressors (41%, n = 43,872). Adjusting for key demographic characteristics, exposure to any climate event increased the odds of CMD by 50% (Odd Ratio = 1.57; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.49, 1.64), highest for heatwaves. Specific climate impacts such as housing damage, loss of or inability to work, damage to family business, leaving school and physical health affected were adversely related to CMD, though for different climate hazards. More concern and less agency were related to CMD through different pathways, particularly for those exposed to recent events. Future research regarding the cumulative exposures to climate change, not just acute events but as an ongoing crisis, and various pathways that influence the mental health and well-being of young people must be clearly understood to develop programs and policies to protect the next generation.

Forced Emplacement

Abstract As intensifying floods and other climate extremes proliferate, narratives of unidirectional climate migration have become ubiquitous in media coverage and policy debates. This article reviews new scholarship that attends to an underreported dimension of climate change impact exposure. Emerging conversations in Indigenous climate justice research, mobility studies, and critical urban adaptation scholarship seek to understand why so many marginalized communities find themselves immobilized in the face of climate extremes. I argue that these scholars are building a concept of forced emplacement to politicize and historicize the uneven distribution of climate harms. Drawing on this scholarship and brief ethnographic sketches from my work in Peru and the Maldives, I follow forced emplacement across diverse case studies that root devastating immobilizations from flooding in local histories of colonial confinement, unevenly policed mobility, and varied efforts to control marginalized populations. I also illuminate how climate-exposed communities contest adaptation projects that reproduce their immobilization.

Beyond the North–South divide: Litigation's role in resolving climate change loss and damage claims

AbstractWithin the international climate regime, legal aspects surrounding loss and damage (L&D) are contentious topics, implicating liability, compensation and notions of vulnerability. The attribution of responsibility and the pursuit of redress for L&D present intricate legal and governance challenges. The ongoing debates under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are characterized by a pronounced North–South divide and have done little to provide tangible support to those most affected by L&D. This apparent neglect has prompted exploration of alternative avenues for climate harm redress. The burgeoning field of litigation for liability and compensation of climate harm holds potential significance for L&D discourse, but its efficacy, especially in compensation claims relating to the adverse effects of climate change, is uncertain. There is, as yet, no precedent of plaintiffs succeeding in an L&D case, with numerous legal, evidentiary and practical barriers persisting, particularly for Global South plaintiffs aiming to hold Northern governments and actors accountable. This article scrutinizes recent advances in climate litigation and their potential to facilitate or obstruct L&D litigation. Focusing on seminal L&D cases, namely, Lliuya v RWE and Asmania et al v Holcim, we present a novel legal critique of climate litigation's capacity to assist climate‐vulnerable States, populations and communities in pursuing redress for L&D, based on pertinent case law and an examination of overarching issues of attribution and extraterritorial jurisdiction.

The forward-looking polluter pays principle for a just climate transition

ABSTRACT Climate justice demands polluters to take responsibility for both present and future harm caused by past GHG emissions and for future harm caused by future GHG emissions. One problem with this is double climate taxation: people living in historical polluting countries must both shoulder the burden of an effective and inclusive climate transition and repay the climate debt incurred by their predecessors. Although double climate taxation might be defensible on normative grounds, it risks making climate justice politically infeasible. I therefore maintain that global climate justice should focus on future, rather than past, climate harms. The forward-looking polluter pays principle (FL-PPP) can ensure both a cost-effective climate transition and a fair distribution of the climate burden, provided it is applied as follows: i) each country must introduce a carbon price calibrated to the global social cost of carbon; ii) each country must transfer part of carbon revenues collected at the country level to an international fund; iii) global carbon revenues must be redistributed on the basis of the country-level social cost of carbon. The FL-PPP burden can be made more progressive, moreover, if the formula for allocating global carbon revenues is adjusted through two coefficients, one consumption-based and one priority-sensitive.

Fossil fuel companies’ duty of reparation: why the industry must concur to foot the climate bill

ABSTRACT The fossil industry has greatly contributed to the increase of the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This evidence and five morally relevant facts establish its moral responsibility for climate harm. This responsibility imposes on fossil fuel companies a duty of reparation for the climate crisis which requires them to redress their wrongful actions that have led to climate harm by disgorging funds. The article justifies and develops such duty of reparation in terms of financial rectification of climate-related harm. This duty provides a framework for an informed dialogue with civil society and between political representatives on the accountability of fossil fuel companies in the climate crisis and on their role in rectifying the harm they have concurred to create. Fossil fuel companies’ duty of reparation is a moral determination with direct relevance for the ethics, politics, and policy of climate change.

Climate Change Litigation before the African Human Rights System: Prospects and Pitfalls

Abstract Africa is a promising regional venue for climate change-related complaints—not least because it is distinctively vulnerable to climate harms. Yet, neither the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights nor the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights have been theatres to such disputes at the time of writing. In anticipation that climate litigation will emerge before the African human rights system, this practice note provides information to the non-State actors and their lawyers on the procedural challenges that may arise, demonstrating how such challenges may be circumventable in the African context.

UPGRADING HERITAGE URBAN PUBLIC SPACES BY USING RECYCLING WASTE PLASTIC MATERIALS

In low-income countries, population expansion and urbanization bring challenges of inadequate living standards to the fore. Some of the issues could be solved if well-functioning plastic recycling systems were built. To reduce the environmental burden and improve the overall situation in dense cities, the already existing local informal waste treatment system, which is widespread in many low-income nations, needs to be developed with efficient sorting and composting solutions. A case study is carried out in the city of Mina, Lebanon, with the goal of establishing a viable decentralized recycling plastic pavilion material. The effort aims to lessen the climate harm caused by non-recycled waste, improve the quality of life for residents, and enhance the affected locations' aesthetical, educational, and recreational attributes. The concepts were generated according to the resident's needs and to find solutions to the existing problem of the area under study. The goals are based on data and observations about the city, the current waste management system, the stakeholders, the project organization, and any roadblocks. The project's overall work method is known as the Logical Framework Approach. It's a goal-oriented project planning method that relies on disciplined thinking and logical analysis. Literature review, observations, study visits, site analyses, photography, drawing, 3D modeling, and other sub-methods are included in the study. Proposals for plastic pavilions and plastic features for open public spaces in Al Mina are the result of the process. Because the areas have both comparable and dissimilar characteristics, site-specific solutions are required.

Time to pay the piper: Fossil fuel companies’ reparations for climate damages

Time to pay the piper: Fossil fuel companies’ reparations for climate damages

When to Start Saving the Planet?

People should take immediate action to prevent climate harms. Although intuitive, this claim faces two important problems. First, no individual can avert a climate harm on their own. Second, too few people are typically willing to contribute. In response, I point out that individuals can sometimes help prevent harm to the climate, and I argue that they should take preventive action when the prospect of success is good enough. Furthermore, when too few are willing to contribute, an individual may be required to activate others to increase their number. This serves to increase the prospect of success. Crucially, this prospect may be good enough well before enough people have become willing to engage. It follows that people should start saving the planet soon, if not immediately.

Justice in benefitting from carbon removal

Abstract Non-Technical Summary Climate stabilization requires scaling-up technologies to capture and store carbon. Carbon removal could be very profitable, and some of the agents best placed to benefit are ‘carbon majors’, i.e. fossil fuel companies. We argue that in ordinary circumstances only agents without significant historical climate responsibilities would be entitled to the full benefits from carbon removal. Under non-ideal conditions, carbon majors might be entitled to benefit, provided that no other agent could remove similar quantities of carbon at similar costs. This burden of proof is only likely to be met in countries with poor governance capacities. Technical Summary Climate stabilization requires scaling up technologies to capture and store carbon. Some of the agents best placed to profit from carbon removal are ‘carbon majors’, especially fossil fuel companies. Yet incentivizing carbon majors to undertake carbon removal poses an ethical dilemma: carbon majors have made significant historical contributions to climate change and have significantly benefitted from such contributions without being made to compensate for resulting climate harm. This is why it seems unfair to reward them with additional economic benefits. However, carbon majors possess the technological skills and infrastructure to upscale carbon removal efficiently. We argue that in ordinary circumstances, only agents without significant climate responsibilities would be morally entitled to fully benefit from carbon removal. Yet under non-ideal conditions, it might be permissible to reward carbon majors if no other agent were capable of removing as much carbon at similar costs and on similar timeframes. We believe this argument faces an imposing burden of proof that is only likely to be met in countries with poor governance capacities. In more favorable circumstances, including those of most OECD countries, rewarding carbon majors without having them pay for their historical climate responsibilities remains impermissible. Social Media Summary Rewarding carbon majors to undertake carbon dioxide removal is unjust due to their historical climate responsibilities. Where possible, governments should empower other agents to remove CO2.

Reparations For Climate Harm and The Role of The Loss and Damage Mechanism: Lessons from Other Areas of Law

Reparations For Climate Harm and The Role of The Loss and Damage Mechanism: Lessons from Other Areas of Law

Assessing U.S. consumers' carbon footprints reveals outsized impact of the top 1%

Unsustainable environmental degradation and extreme economic inequality are two of humanity's most pressing challenges. They are intimately linked. Climate-altering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are disproportionately driven by consumption among wealthy and socially privileged groups, yet poorer and socially marginalized peoples face disproportionate climate harms. Here we use the Eora MRIO database and Consumer Expenditure Surveys to quantify GHG emissions related to goods and services consumed by United States households between 1996 and 2019 - including construction of a synthetic dataset to estimate top 1% and top 0.1% household emissions. Top 1% households are of particular interest because their emissions have been largely missed or simplistically and inaccurately estimated in past analysis, yet they exert disproportionate political power in shaping U.S. climate policy. Results suggest significant GHG inequality across economic class and racial lines. In 2019, we estimate the U.S. top 0.1% had emissions (955 t CO2e) 57× higher than bottom decile U.S. households and 597× higher than an average low-income country household. White non-Hispanic household emissions were 1.3× higher than Black households. If climate policy does not account for such extreme emissions disparities, it will limit effectiveness, erode public support, and disproportionately harm economic and socially marginalized groups.

Rendering International Human Rights Law Fit for Purpose on Climate Change

Abstract The present article addresses the unique legal and operational challenges encountered in the adoption of a human rights-based approach to climate change under international law. It examines the suitability for purpose of the international human rights regime and outlines the key steps to be taken in the requisite advancement of recourse to justice in climate matters. Five central challenges are addressed, namely, of the exclusivity of climate law and international human rights law, the operational barriers within the UN human rights system, specific legal challenges facing the UN Treaty Body mechanisms, the causation challenges associated with attributing responsibility for climate harm to states and, finally, the extraterritorial application of international human rights law. These challenges represent some of the most significant hurdles emerging through the literature and practice, which need to be overcome to enable international human rights law to better provide recourse to justice to climate-vulnerable states, groups and individuals.

SIDS, Territorial Loss, and Notions of Statehood under International Law: Reparative Approaches

As global climate change intensifies, Small Island Developing States are experiencing dangerous effects and facing unprecedented risk in terms of projected territorial loss. Because the international system views states as territorial entities and links state membership with the assurance of human rights, the implications of total territorial disappearance of these islands for the realization of human rights are potentially disastrous. By utilizing the metric of adherence to key principles of differentiated responsibility, the paper analyzes potential pathways for protecting vulnerable states and their inhabitants in situations of territorial loss. It concludes that any protective framework must include a reparative approach that places greater differentiated responsibility on the states that caused climate change in terms of handling migration, promoting climate resilience and adaptation, and mitigating additional climate harms, even if doing so requires significant internal change.