Climate Litigation: A Growing Force in the Fight Against Climate Change

September 22, 2024 / activist360

As the world faces increasingly severe climate impacts, governments and corporations are being held accountable through a surge of climate-related lawsuits. A recent study, Research Areas for Climate Litigation, conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in September 2024, highlights the critical role of climate litigation in driving action where traditional policy-making has often fallen short.

The Rise of Climate Litigation

Since 2015, more than 1,800 climate-related lawsuits have been filed worldwide, with at least 230 new cases in 2023 alone. The United States, United Kingdom, and Australia have become the primary hubs for this legal activity, while other regions, especially parts of Africa, have seen limited litigation.

The UCS study emphasizes that this growing body of legal action requires strong scientific evidence to be effective. To that end, scientists and researchers are increasingly collaborating with legal teams to provide the necessary data, helping courts make informed decisions on climate cases. The study aims to bridge gaps between science and law by identifying key research priorities that can strengthen future litigation efforts.

Key Research Areas for Climate Litigation

The study highlights three priority research areas that are essential for advancing climate lawsuits:

Attribution Science: This field connects specific climate impacts to particular sources of emissions. Courts need this science to establish a clear causal link between climate change and its effects, such as extreme weather events. The study calls for more geographically diverse research, particularly in regions like the Global South, where climate data is scarce.
Climate Change and Human Health: Legal arguments are increasingly focusing on the health impacts of climate change. Vulnerable groups, including older adults, infants, people with disabilities, and those in poverty, are especially at risk from worsening air quality, heatwaves, and water scarcity. The study points to a need for more research linking climate change to health outcomes like asthma, cardiovascular diseases, and heat-related illnesses.
Economic Modeling: Courts rely on economic data to assess the costs of climate change. This includes not only the direct damages caused by extreme weather events but also the costs of adapting to a changing climate and the economic opportunities lost due to inaction. The study calls for robust economic modeling that can predict future costs and benefits under different climate scenarios.

Strategic Research Areas for the Future

Beyond the priority areas, the study identifies five strategic research areas where further scientific evidence is needed to support climate litigation:

Legal and Financial Accountability: Holding corporations accountable for their emissions, particularly in industries like fashion and cement, requires more detailed research on how financial institutions contribute to climate change by funding fossil fuel projects.
Disinformation and Greenwashing: The study stresses the importance of exposing and countering misleading claims made by corporations about their environmental practices, which can mislead consumers and delay meaningful climate action.
Fair Share Analysis and Compliance: Understanding whether corporations and nations are meeting their climate goals is critical. The study highlights the need for standardized emissions metrics and tracking, especially for corporations with complex supply chains.
Environmental and Social Impacts: Research on how climate change affects ecosystems, biodiversity, and human communities—especially in remote regions with limited data—is vital for comprehensive environmental impact assessments.
Emissions Accounting and Reductions: Courts need better methods for tracking and reducing emissions, particularly those related to the indirect effects of products, known as Scope 3 emissions. The study also calls for research into the effectiveness of renewable energy credits and other mitigation strategies.

Losses and Damages: A Cross-Cutting Theme

One of the study’s most important cross-cutting themes is losses and damages—the economic and non-economic harms caused by climate change that can’t be prevented through adaptation or mitigation. The study calls for more research to quantify these losses, especially in terms of intangible cultural heritage, social structures, and ways of life. Understanding these losses is critical for communities seeking reparations for the damage caused by climate change.

Why This Study Matters

As climate litigation accelerates globally, the need for solid scientific research to support these cases becomes more urgent. The UCS study provides a roadmap for scientists looking to contribute to the legal battle against climate change by focusing on areas where their work can have the greatest impact. This research will not only improve the effectiveness of climate lawsuits but also push governments and corporations to take more meaningful climate action.

Summing Up

Climate litigation is emerging as a powerful tool in the fight against climate change. With over 1,800 lawsuits filed since 2015, the legal community is increasingly relying on science to prove the connections between climate change, its impacts, and the entities responsible. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2024 study highlights the critical research areas—such as attribution science, health impacts, and economic modeling—that will strengthen these legal efforts.

For those interested in how climate change is being addressed through legal channels, this study underscores the vital role that science plays in holding governments and corporations accountable. As the impacts of climate change worsen, the importance of this intersection between science and law will only grow.

Source: Merner, L. D., Phillips, C. A., & Mulvey, K. (2024). Research areas for climate litigation: 2024 report. Union of Concerned Scientists.

New Study Shows West Antarctic Ice Sheet Might Be Safer from Collapse This Century

August 25, 2024 / activist360

Glacier breaking edge in the Lemaire Canal. The Lemaire Canal is a narrow ship passage. It separates the island of Booth from the Antarctic Peninsula. Credit: W. Bulach, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons, December 8, 2005.

Some Climate Threats May Be Less Urgent, But Action Is Still Needed to Protect Ice Sheets

A recent study led by researchers at Dartmouth College brings some good news about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, particularly Thwaites Glacier. Scientists have found that this massive ice sheet might be less likely to collapse during the 21st century than we previously feared. This discovery could mean that the threat of rapidly rising sea levels is not as immediate as some had thought.

What Is MICI and Why Does It Matter?

MICI stands for Marine Ice Cliff Instability. It’s a big concern in the world of climate science. The idea is that if the floating ice shelves around Antarctica collapse, they could expose tall ice cliffs. These cliffs might break apart quickly, leading to more ice melting and causing sea levels to rise around the world. Previous studies suggested that MICI could cause the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to collapse, leading to significant sea level rise by the end of this century.

How This Study Was Done

Scientists from several universities used advanced computer models to simulate what might happen to Thwaites Glacier if its ice shelf collapses. They applied new methods to gain a clearer understanding of the ice sheet’s stability. These models are more detailed and realistic than the ones used in older studies.

The new methods took into account how the ice both bends and breaks. This made the models more realistic in showing how the ice sheet might behave if the ice shelves collapse and tall cliffs are exposed.

The study also used more advanced and detailed models. By using three different models (ISSM, STREAMICE, and Úa), the researchers made sure their results were not limited to just one type of model. This approach gave a clearer picture of how stable the West Antarctic Ice Sheet might be, especially concerning MICI.

Key Findings: Less Risk of Collapse

The study’s results are reassuring. Even in the worst-case scenarios, where the ice shelf collapses completely, the models show that the glacier would likely remain stable throughout the 21st century. The exposed ice cliffs wouldn’t be tall enough to cause the runaway collapse that was previously feared.

Two important factors help keep the glacier stable:

Faster Ice Movement: If the ice shelf collapses, the ice behind it would begin moving faster, which surprisingly helps prevent the cliffs from breaking apart.
Thinning Ice: The ice near the front would become thinner, making the cliffs less likely to reach dangerous heights.

Why This Matters for Sea Levels

This study suggests that the scenarios where sea levels rise quickly due to the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet might not happen as soon as we thought. However, the scientists warn that other processes could still cause the ice to melt over the long term. We shouldn’t assume everything is fine, but it’s a relief to know that we might have more time to address these challenges.

Call to Action

This study is a reminder that while some climate threats may be less urgent than we feared, we still need to take action. Ice sheets like the West Antarctic are still at risk in the long run.

Morlighem, M., Goldberg, D., Barnes, J. M., Bassis, J. N., Benn, D. I., Crawford, A. J., Gudmundsson, G. H., & Seroussi, H. (2024). The West Antarctic Ice Sheet may not be vulnerable to marine ice cliff instability during the 21st century. Science Advances, 10(eado7794).

Project 2025 Undermines Water Justice and Threatens Public Health

July 21, 2024 / activist360

Splash of a drop of clean water with text that reads: “Protect our water. Protect our environment. Vote #Harris. Vote Blue.

Project 2025 envisages a conservative restructuring of the EPA that prioritizes industrial and business interests over the need for clean water and air, putting communities at risk, especially those near industrial zones. Project 2025 undermines the agency’s ability to protect diverse communities and uphold the human right to clean water. Reject Trump. Vote Blue.

Decentralization and Reduced Federal Oversight

Earlier this year, on April 10, 2024, the Biden-Harris Administration finalized the first-ever national drinking water standard to protect against PFAS, alongside announcing nearly $1 billion from the “Investing in America” agenda to combat these contaminants in public systems and private wells. This landmark initiative, benefiting around 100 million people, aims to significantly reduce illnesses and deaths associated with PFAS exposure, which have been linked to severe health problems including cancers and liver damage.

Project 2025 undermines these advances and instead create a patchwork of environmental standards. States with fewer resources or less governance resolve will fail to adequately protect water quality, which disproportionately affects vulnerable communities that rely on strong federal standards to safeguard their environment. Reject Trump. Vote Blue.

Cutting Back on Regulatory Authority

Project 2025 foretells a reduction in the breadth of the EPA’s authority to regulate, allowing polluters to operate with less scrutiny. This will lead to increased water contamination incidents, similar to the Flint water crisis, disproportionately impacting marginalized communities.

By focusing on reducing the EPA’s regulatory reach and emphasizing cost-effective solutions over comprehensive environmental protections, essential safeguards are weakened, especially those that prevent industries from polluting water sources. Reject Trump. Vote Blue.

Redefinition of Scientific and Risk Assessment Standards

The push for open-source science and revising scientific advisory roles dilutes scientific rigor in decision-making if it is driven by political considerations rather than unbiased scientific inquiry. This results in standards that fail to adequately protect against contaminants known to harm human health. The move toward risk-based regulation overlooks long-term and cumulative impacts of exposure to pollutants. Reject Trump. Vote Blue.

Limiting Legal Recourse

Project 2025 reduces the EPA’s enforcement and compliance capabilities, restricting individuals and communities’ ability to hold polluters accountable through legal action. By delegating more authority to state and local levels, it weakens the uniformity and strength of enforcement across regions and diminishes the legal empowerment of affected communities to sue for enforcement and compliance. This shift erodes a key check on corporate and governmental accountability in environmental protection. Reject Trump. Vote Blue.

Human Right to Clean Water

Clean water is a fundamental human right recognized by the United Nations. Any weakening of water quality standards or reduction in enforcement capability jeopardizes this right, particularly for the most vulnerable populations. Effective protection of water sources is essential not just for health but for the dignity and well-being of all individuals.

Communities of color, indigenous communities, and low-income populations often face the brunt of environmental degradation and are the most affected by policies that do not prioritize robust environmental protections. Ensuring their right to clean water requires strong federal oversight and stringent, uniformly applied environmental regulations. Reject Trump. Vote Blue.

Summing Up

Project 2025 proposes a conservative restructuring of the EPA that places industrial and business interests ahead of the imperative for clean water and air, potentially endangering communities. Project 2025 undermines the EPA’s capacity to safeguard diverse communities and the human right to clean water by favoring economic considerations over environmental and public health protections, exacerbating existing inequalities and environmental justice issues, necessitating the maintenance of robust federal oversight and stringent environmental standards. Reject Trump. Vote Blue.