Insights
This year’s Global Trends in Climate Litigation Snapshot, from the Grantham Research Institute, outlines how the field of climate litigation continues to develop, with growing challenges, maturation of the field and expansion.
Complexity is of the ‘everything, everywhere, all at once’ variety. Organisations encounter challenges from multiple directions: pro-climate and anti-climate, pro-consumer and anti-consumer, and developments in green v green suits.
Green v green litigation, highlighted in 2024, consider climate-aligned initiatives which inadvertently hamper the environment.
Maturity is highlighted in the number of cases reaching apex courts. This often places governments as the defendants and therefore presents a growing judicial engagement, with complex legal questions around responsibility, attribution and enforcement.
It is important to note that even unsuccessful cases lay the groundwork for improved litigation design and the likelihood of increasing successful suits.
Climate litigation now spans some 60 countries
The field is no longer dominated by a few jurisdictions, sectors or legal strategies. At this moment in time it spans nearly 60 countries and includes a wide array of legal theories, actors, and strategic approaches.
For investors, understanding climate litigation and how it is shaping currently, where the physical impacts are being felt with increasing geographical range and intensifying harm, is vital in terms of assessing climate-related financial risk.
As of 2024, more than 2,900 climate cases have been identified globally, with 164 cases in the US alone.
The Grantham Research Institute provides a valuable resource. This year’s edition runs to 52 pages, and as the authors remarked at launch, it is becoming increasingly challenging to describe the annual release as a ‘snapshot’. Precisely because the field of climate litigation is expanding in line with the impacts of climate change.
Reading the report in full is highly recommended, but for speed, the brief highlights are as follows.
Global pace of climate cases increase
As of 2024, more than 2,900 climate cases have been identified globally, with 164 cases in the US alone. Since 2015, the pace of filings has increased, stabilising recently outside the US. Litigation focuses on various actors, including governments and corporations, with notable growth in the Global South, where recent cases have involved governments as claimants in 56% of instances.
Key developments include apex courts addressing broad climate obligations and international cases clarifying state responsibilities., such as the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea ruling on marine-source emissions.
Climate-aligned strategic cases
In 2024, 187 strategic cases were filed globally, addressing government frameworks, integrating climate considerations into policies, and corporate accountability. South Korea saw its first success in a government framework case, while Europe made strides in scope 3 emissions scrutiny.
Litigation against corporations continues to explore liability for localised damages and global emissions. Cases targeting climate misrepresentation, particularly regarding carbon credits, remain widespread. Notable corporate cases include Milieudefensie v. Shell, where emissions reduction obligations were debated, and ING’s financing practices were challenged.
Non-climate-aligned strategic cases
Approximately 27% of 2024 cases opposed climate goals, with most originating in the US. Litigation included challenges to state initiatives on energy efficiency and federal ESG policies. Anti-ESG cases, sometimes alleging anti-trust violations, were prevalent, as were Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suits designed to silence climate advocacy.
Internationally, cases highlighted tensions between local environmental concerns and broader climate strategies, such as legal challenges to fossil fuel exploration and renewable energy projects.
Climate litigation is a material financial risk
Climate litigation influences governance, legislation, and financial decisions. Rights-based cases like Urgenda v. Netherlands have driven policy changes and enhanced public support for climate action. New legislative proposals, such as superfund laws in New York and Vermont, aim to hold fossil fuel companies liable for climate impacts, though they face legal challenges.
The financial sector increasingly views litigation as a material risk, influencing investment decisions and corporate strategies. Banks, investors, and insurers are under growing pressure to address litigation risks linked to climate governance.
Just transition and green v. green cases
Litigation addressing social equity and environmental trade-offs in the climate transition is rising. 'Just transition' cases spotlight the need for inclusive climate policies, while 'green v. green' lawsuits highlight conflicts between climate mitigation and biodiversity protection.
Examples include India’s Supreme Court reconsidering species protection versus energy infrastructure, and Romanian challenges to hydropower projects in protected areas.
Will climate litigation remain a driving force in global governance?
Climate litigation's growing prevalence is transforming governance, economics, and public discourse. While advancing legal precedents for accountability, litigation also faces counterforces, including political resistance to ESG principles and jurisdictional variations in success rates. As the field evolves, it faces challenges in addressing scope 3 emissions, balancing justice with ecological protection, and influencing systemic financial risks.
Within diminishing timescales for temperature reduction, failure to achieve these objectives will entail losses on a vast scale. Crucially, these could have been avoided.
The next few years will determine whether litigation remains a driving force in global climate governance amidst shifting political and environmental landscapes.
In the months and years ahead, we expect more nuance on the key question of what it means to follow the best available science. The existence of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions as its source are no longer in doubt. Now, within diminishing timescales for temperature reduction, failure to achieve these objectives will entail losses on a vast scale. Crucially, these could have been avoided.
Following disclosure and due diligence in climate litigation, the question of equitable relief – a financial outcome for both claimant and defendant – will become central to the considerations of, and mitigation of climate-related financial risk.
If you’d like to take part in our working groups and help to shape the outputs of our resources, why not get in touch today to find out more about joining IIGCC.