It may now be easier to hold the world’s major oil, coal and gas companies legally responsible for climate change damages caused by their carbon emissions, according to research from Oxford University published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
And it could easily provide peer-reviewed attribution science that could provide exactly the kind of evidence that could not only help understand the cause and effect in cases but also help lawyers succeed even before cases reach court. It may help to explore the possibilities of litigation.
Climate change has become the subject of rapid legal action – are 1,500 climate-related cases around the world, in which a Dutch court Shell ordered to cut their emissions, including a case last month, where last month , and in April a German constitutional court ruled that the country’s climate law was inadequate.
While emissions have begun to cut successful lawsuit to force, to sue for damages caused by their emissions of carbon pollutants efforts failed to a large extent – but recent means of scientific development that their success chances has been
So far plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the actions of pollutants can be linked to specific climate events. But attribution science allows scientists to calculate how emissions contributed to specific events such as hurricanes , droughts , heatwaves or floods. For example , a recent research research found that human-caused sea level rise caused $ 8.1 billion in damages when Hurricane Sandy dominated the United States East Coast in 2012 . another study found that climate change was responsible for $ 67 billion in damage caused by Hurricane Harvey in Texas in 2017 .
By combining this scientific analysis with emissions data , plaintiffs can now potentially account for the responsibility of individual fossil fuel companies for their losses. For example , previous research calculated the proportion of temperature rise and sea level rise , which can be attributed to emissions from individual companies including ExxonMobil , Chevron , Shell and Saudi Aramco.
According to the researchers , the plaintiffs have not yet used the latest attribution science. The study has provided insufficient Sasbut to review Kheelaf 73 cases of carbon polluters in 14 courts, which found that “Abhiyogiyon of causation” but “if the courts to accept causation argument in cases of future better scientific proof Will play a clear role.”
The threat of victorious legal action against carbon polluters could undermine the business case for existing and proposed polluting infrastructure such as coal mines , oil and gas wells , pipelines and fossil fuel power plants. Victims of the effects of climate change may also have a way to compensate.
this study The assessment of 73 cases in 14 courts and finds that the names of the evidence of climate science presented by Abhiyogiyon are very backward, which Abhiyogiyon claims that greenhouse-effects born of gas emissions they are suffering, impede Comes.
In the vast majority of cases it was not determined to what extent climate change was responsible for the climate-related events causing the impacts that plagued the plaintiffs , which is an important piece of evidence as not all events are caused by climate change. . Even less has been provided of quantitative evidence linking defendants’ emissions with plaintiffs’ suffering. In 73% of cases, peer-reviewed (peer-reviewed) did not mention the evidence. And 26 claimed without providing any evidence that the weather events were caused by climate change.
The findings illustrate the importance of cutting – edge , peer-reviewed attribution science , which can provide exactly this kind of evidence and thus help prove causation. This will help the lawyers to ascertain the chances of successful litigation before the cases reach the court.
plaintiffs worldwide 1,500 More climate-related lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. , and the rate of claims is increasing. Kiwalina native village versus Aksonmobil Corp. , which is strong evidence of causation to the United States Court of was dismissed in appeals, such as high-profile cases have shown that successful litigation is so important.
Recent Hurricane Harvey Using Attribution Science It has been done to prove the impact of man-made climate change on extreme weather events such as.
With certain types of events (such as drought) too much uncertainty surrounding than others (such as large-scale extreme rainfall), with better evidence-Attribution Science’s decision to pursue matters of climate litigation may also informed
The authors call for greater awareness and the use of cutting-edge attribution science when bringing climate litigation cases to court.
” Effective use of climate-science evidence in courts can remove existing causation barriers , set a legal precedent for demonstrating causality by climate-science evidence , and enable successful litigation on climate-change impacts.” is ,” he says.
Lead author of the study , Rupert Stuart-Smith , says , ‘In recent weeks , the Netherlands , Germany Successive lawsuits elsewhere have seen countries and companies seeking to dramatically strengthen their climate goals by courts. The power of climate litigation is becoming increasingly apparent.
“There are many failed climate sue. Lawyers must make more effective use of scientific evidence if a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages caused by climate change is to have the best chance of success. Climate science can answer questions raised by courts in past cases and remove obstacles to the success of these trials. ‘
Responding to him , Dr Friedrich Auto , Associate Director of the Institute for Environmental Change at Oxford , says , “For the vast majority of climate litigation to change the fate , courts and litigants alike must realize that science is more than finding out. has progressed further that climate change is potentially dangerous and is now providing causal evidence linking tangible harm to emissions.” Oxford Sustainable Law Program’s founding director, Professor Thom Vetjhr , says, “climate change hold accountable the companies that have high emissions of their contributions run the systemic changes and important to protect the most vulnerable from the effects of climate change is. Climate litigation aimed at creating accountability is on the rise , but the results have been mixed. The good news is that our research provides reason to remain optimistic: with rigorous use of scientific evidence , litigants have room to be more effective than they currently are. It is now up to plaintiffs to translate cutting-edge science into high-impact legal arguments. “