Companies face financial risks from growing climate damage litigation 

by

Key points:

  • A case brought by a Peruvian farmer against German electricity producer RWE has already set a precedent that fossil fuel companies can be held liable in court for climate damages. The hearing is expected to take place in March 2025.
  • Regardless of the result, the use of courts and legal mechanisms to demand compensation for climate impacts will grow as emissions and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events continue to rise.
  • This is particularly the case in the Global South, where climate impacts are most severe. Adaptation and loss and damage remain significantly underfunded by the Global North, which is responsible for the majority of global emissions. 
  • Alongside the pressures that are driving legal claims, advances in attribution science now make it increasingly possible to link extreme weather events to increased greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels.
  • To date there have been 68 lawsuits filed seeking financial redress for the impacts of climate change, of which 43 are still ongoing. The fossil fuel industry has been the target of 54% of these cases. ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP have each had more than 20 cases filed against them. Each case can have multiple defendants, with some fossil fuel companies being cited in multiple cases.
  • Legislation is an increasingly significant risk for fossil fuel firms, particularly in the Philippines and the US, where states such as Vermont and New York are seeking billions of dollars for climate damages.
  • Estimates of climate damages vary, but they could reach trillions of dollars globally. Researchers have estimated that by 2049 there will be USD 38 trillion in climate damages each year. Climate Analytics has calculated that the share of climate damages attributable to the 25 biggest emitting oil and gas companies for their emissions from 1985 to 2018 totals about USD 20 trillion.
  • Companies and investors face additional risks from climate litigation such as deteriorating share prices, reputational damage, reduced creditworthiness and increased financing costs.

Peruvian farmer vs RWE: The tip of the iceberg

The use of courts and legal mechanisms to achieve progress on addressing climate change has grown significantly in recent years, with 70% of cases having been filed since the Paris Agreement was reached in 2015. These cases seek to hold actors accountable for their role in contributing to the crisis and its impacts, or to require public authorities or companies to introduce more effective policies to mitigate climate change.

In 2015, Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya filed a lawsuit against RWE, one of Germany’s largest electricity producers. Lliuya accused RWE of being partially liable for the melting of Palcaraju glacier, which had heightened the risk of flooding and landslides in his home-city of Huaraz. He said RWE’s large historic emissions from its coal-burning power stations had contributed to the melt, and argued that the company should contribute towards the cost of flood defences to protect the 50,000 residents of the city in Peru’s highlands.

A hearing on the case is expected to take place in March 2025. In 2017, an appeals court in Hamm ruled that the case was admissible and recommended a phase to gather evidence on the glacial melt, the risks to Lliuya’s home, and RWE’s contribution to global emissions. In principle, the ruling means that RWE could be held liable for a share of climate change damages. Regardless of the court’s final decision, the precedent has already been set for future cases that fossil fuel companies can be held liable in court for climate damages.

Attribution science: linking cause to culprit 

Over the last 20 years, the data needed to directly attribute individual extreme weather events to climate change has become significantly more precise. More than 500 studies have attributed extreme weather events to the results of increased greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels. Additionally, robust information on the historic emissions of fossil fuel companies allows researchers to calculate a company’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, it is possible to credibly quantify an individual fossil fuel company’s contribution to a specific extreme weather event and any resulting damages.

In his case against RWE, Lliuya referred to a finding by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that “there is a very high degree of confidence in the attribution of climate change to the glacier retreat in the Andes in South America”. One attribution study found that around 95% of Palcaraju glacier’s retreat is due to anthropogenic global warming. Lliuya also referred to the IPCC’s finding that emissions are the cause of global temperature increases, which are observed locally in impacts such as the retreat of glaciers worldwide. His claim noted that: “The existence of global climate change caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is undisputed in Germany.” To date the case against RWE is one of the most advanced cases on attribution science. 

The case was initially dismissed by a district court in Essen on the grounds that “it is impossible to identify anything resembling a linear chain of causation” between RWE’s emissions and specific damages of climate change. However, the appeals court in Hamm overturned the dismissal, setting a precedent that in principle, a private company is responsible for its share in causing climate-related damage. This applies if a share of concrete damage or risks to private individuals or their property can be attributed to the company’s activities.

As the world continues to warm, the negative impacts of climate change and extreme weather will intensify. With the growing number and accuracy of climate science attribution studies, legal pressure on companies to contribute to climate costs is likely to keep growing. More examples are already emerging. In 2024, Belgian farmer Hugues Falys filed a lawsuit against French fossil fuel major TotalEnergies, seeking compensation for damage to his farm as a result of extreme weather. He also urged the court to require TotalEnergies to halt new fossil fuel investments and cut its oil and gas production by 75% by 2040. In 2022, four residents of Pari island, around 40 kilometres north of the Indonesian capital Jakarta, started legal proceedings in Switzerland against the Swiss cement firm Holcim. The residents are seeking a 43% reduction in Holcim’s carbon emissions by 2030 and almost USD 4,000 in compensation each for damages caused by flooding. Around 11% of the island’s surface area is already under water.



The rise of litigation for climate damages

Analysis by Zero Carbon Analytics found that 68 climate damage cases have been brought worldwide, with 54% of cases being brought in the US. Brazil has seen the second highest number of cases filed, with 14, and 11 cases have been brought in Indonesia. 

This analysis is based on Columbia Law School’s Climate Change Litigation Database, which comprises 2,914 cases.1Data from January 2025. Climate damages cases were identified as those which sought to seek a financial remedy or payment as a result of harms caused by greenhouse gas emissions, or to cover the cost of adapting to climate change. To be included in the database, cases must be brought before judicial bodies or specific administrative bodies and climate change law, policy or science must be a material issue of law or fact in the case.

Fig. 1: US tops climate litigation, followed by Brazil and Indonesia  



The fossil fuel industry has been the target of 54% of climate damage cases. Large investor-owned oil and gas companies are the most common defendants, with ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP each having more than 20 cases filed against them. 

Cases linked to illegal deforestation account for one third of cases, all of which were filed against national companies in the country where the lawsuit was filed. In Brazil, payments for climate damages aim to compensate for the collective harm caused by emissions from deforestation. These cases apply a methodology to quantify climate damages from deforestation which could be used in other countries where land use change is a major contributor to national emissions.

Fig. 2: Fossil fuel companies are the primary target of climate damage litigation



There is a fairly clear geographic link between the countries and the industries involved, with cases in the US primarily focusing on the fossil fuel industry, and those in Brazil and Indonesia focused on deforestation.

Fig. 3: Cases by country and industry



The first climate damage case was filed in 2005, and the number of cases filed each year remained relatively low until a boom in 2018 when 15 cases were filed, with seven deforestation cases filed in Brazil and six against fossil fuel companies filed in the US. In recent years this trend has steadied to between three and eight cases each year.

Fig. 4: Rising trend in climate damage litigation over time, with spike in 2018



Of the 68 cases, 63% are still ongoing. Of those that have concluded, 44% have been successful, 48% have been unsuccessful and 8% have resulted in a settlement. All but one of the successful cases was brought in Indonesia, and all but one were related to illegal deforestation.

Fig. 5 Majority of climate damage cases are ongoing
Legislation: Establishing the legal basis for climate accountability

In addition to court cases, companies are also facing legislation by national and local governments that seeks to may them pay for climate damages. The majority of legislation has been developed in the US so far, but draft bills are being created in countries such as the Philippines that could set a powerful precedent.

US states take on fossil fuel firms in court

In the US, 26 lawsuits have been filed by counties, municipalities and cities against fossil fuel producing companies seeking damages for extreme weather events, according to research published by Zero Carbon Analytics last year. The lawsuits have been filed on a range of grounds, including:

  • Consumer protection and consumer fraud – alleging that companies misled consumers about their role in causing climate change and their own early knowledge of climate science several decades ago.
  • Cost recovery – arguing that companies should pay compensation for the costs of increasing flooding, forest fires and heatwaves.
  • Racketeering – alleging that companies have committed fraud.

None of the cases have yet gone to trial, but this could be about to change. In January, the US Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a lawsuit filed by Honolulu against oil companies over their role in climate change. The companies are being sued for damages that have already occurred, such as increasing forest fires, and for future rising sea levels and flooding that threaten assets such as harbours and airports. The recent decision will allow the case to go to trial under state law. The oil companies had sought to have the case heard in federal courts, which they believed would have led to a more favourable outcome. The decision is significant in determining whether the more than 20 other lawsuits can go to trial in states across the US. If one of these cases concludes the oil and gas industry is liable, it would set a precedent, with particular impacts in the liability insurance market.

Climate superfund laws

In a related development, a number of US states are in the process of adopting so-called climate superfund laws. In May 2024, Vermont was the first state to pass a law that aims to force the fossil fuel industry to pay into a fund for climate damages that have hurt public health, agriculture, housing and other areas. The state can collect money from companies that emitted more than 1 billion tons of CO2 around the world from 1995 to 2024. Those companies engaged in the trade or business of extracting fossil fuels or refining crude oil in Vermont would be charged according to their percentage of global emissions, and the funds would be used to rebuild and upgrade infrastructure such as stormwater drainage systems, roads and bridges. 

New York has also introduced a law that aims to collect USD 3 billion from fossil fuel companies per year, totalling USD 75 billion over the next 25 years. Fossil fuel companies are required to contribute a share of the funds based on their historical contributions to emissions. In February 2025, 22 US states sued to block the law, claiming that it overreaches by seeking to hold energy companies liable that are based outside of the State of New York. The opposition is being led by West Virginia, a leading producer of coal in the US, and includes several oil and gas trade associations.

Similar bills have been proposed in Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey and California — which was recently hit with some of the worst wildfires in the state’s history. The Eaton and Palisades fires in California collectively burnt down nearly 40,000 acres of land, resulting in the destruction of 12,000 structures and the deaths of at least 27 people. Climate science attribution studies show that the fires were made worse by climate change. Latest estimates suggest the economic losses could range between USD 95 billion and USD 164 billion. The bill proposed in California last year did not proceed, however, it’s possible that a similar bill will be reintroduced this year following the extensive damage.

In addition, a federal bill aiming to create a national climate liability framework and coordinate state-level initiatives was introduced last year and reintroduced in January. The Polluters Pay Fund aims to collect USD 1 trillion in funding from the biggest polluters in annual increments of USD 100 billion. However, the legislation does not currently have the bipartisan support it would need in Congress to become law.

Climate legislation in the Philippines 

In the Philippines, which is one of the countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, the Climate Accountability (CLIMA) Act is currently under discussion in Congress. The bill aims to hold corporations and the state accountable for their role in climate change and protect vulnerable communities. The bill states that polluters will pay into a Climate Change Reparations Fund that will respond to claims from victims and survivors of climate-related loss and damage. The bill states that attribution science will be used to determine the extent to which a company is liable. Between 2010 and 2020, national climate-related losses and damages in the Philippines were equivalent to PHP 515.51 billion (USD 10.6 billion), despite the country contributing only 0.3% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Department of Finance.

If the bill is passed it could have far reaching consequences beyond the Philippines, by reinforcing the cross-border liability of fossil fuel companies. Under EU law, claimants can decide to apply the law of the country where the damage occurred, or the law of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred. In effect this could mean there are many more cases similar to the case brought against RWE. 

While other laws under consideration integrate the concept of due diligence, such as the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Supply Chain Due Diligence Directive, the CLIMA bill exhibits higher climate ambition as it combines company reporting with emissions reduction obligations and climate reparations, and threatens harsher penalties for companies. For example, companies that fail to comply with the act may face fines equivalent to 15% of their gross income.

Similar draft legislation was approved by a standing committee in February 2025 in Pakistan, with hopes that it will now be considered in parliament. The Climate Accountability Bill aims “to prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change within the framework of sustainable development and to establish minimum standards for climate accountability of business entities.” Penalties will be paid into a fund that will finance climate mitigation and loss and damage reparations.

The scale of climate damages

Estimating climate damages is evolving as the data on attribution becomes more precise. There are a wide range of estimates, often because studies are focused on different geographic areas.

Globally

At the global level, researchers have calculated that by 2049 there will be USD 38 trillion in climate damages each year.2Under a ”middle-of-the-road” scenario, in which social, economic, and technological trends do not shift markedly from historical patterns. Figure in 2005 USD, with a likely range of USD 19 trillion – 59 trillion. The study used data collected over the last 40 years from 1,600 regions around the world. These damages are mainly due to rising temperatures, but also come from changes in the variability in rainfall and temperature, which hits infrastructure, labour productivity and agricultural production.

Countries in the Global South are particularly impacted by extreme weather events. In 2024, the Global South experienced 10 times more flooding events than the Global North, and floods in the Global South affected 900 times more people, according to the International Disaster Database. In January, flooding left almost 350,000 people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in need of humanitarian aid.The most vulnerable 20 countries globally calculate that they have lost about USD 525 billion from their economies due to the impact of climate change driven temperature increases and precipitation patterns.

Regionally

Between 1980 and 2023, there were estimated economic losses from extreme weather and climate of EUR 738 billion in the European Union, according to the European Environment Agency. These losses have intensified over time, meaning that about 22% occurred between 2021 and 2023. Major causes of these losses were flooding (44%), storms (29%), and heat waves (19%).

Nationally

In the US there have been 403 weather and climate disasters between 1980 and 2024 where overall losses have exceeded USD 1 billion, with the total cost of these events exceeding USD 2.9 trillion. There were 27 such events in 2024 (Figure 6).

Fig. 6: Weather and climate disasters costing more than USD 1 billion in the US
Source: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (2025), DOI: 10.25921/stkw-7w73.
Company

The potential liabilities for fossil fuel companies are substantial. Climate policy institute Climate Analytics has calculated that the share of climate damages attributable to the 25 biggest emitting oil and gas companies for their emissions from 1985 to 2018 totals about USD 20 trillion, based on the social cost of carbon.3Climate Analytics calculated the total damages at USD 60 trillion, and attributed one third to fossil fuel companies, on the basis that responsibility for fossil fuel emissions should be shared equally between producers, emitters and policymakers. The USD 20 trillion figure is therefore a conservative estimate. Grasso & Heede reached a similar conclusion in their 2023 academic paper which attributed USD 23.2 trillion to the top 21 companies in the Carbon Majors dataset. Of these, ExxonMobil, Shell and BP are estimated to be responsible for climate-related costs of at least USD 1 trillion each.4The methodology conservatively estimates that producers are responsible for one third of damages caused by fossil fuels’ greenhouse gas emissions.

Fig. 7: Climate damages caused by investor-owned oil and gas companies CO2 emissions


Growing risks for companies & investors 

To date, no oil and gas company has been held financially liable for damages associated with climate change. If courts and governments start holding oil and gas companies liable for climate change damages, the costs to companies, their investors and insurers would be significant, as would the financial benefits to communities around the world harmed by climate disasters and other impacts. “The financial implications of climate litigation risk are huge,” said the UK Financial Conduct Authority’s Climate Financial Risk Forum. “Aside from damages and transition-related costs, the company’s share price, creditworthiness and financing costs could deteriorate”.

A study assessing 108 climate lawsuits between 2005 and 2021 found companies experienced an average 0.41% fall in stock returns following a climate-related filing or negative court decision. The effect was larger for filings against carbon majors, which experienced a 0.57% drop in stock returns following a climate-related filing and a 1.5% drop following negative decisions. The researchers found no significant effect for filings or decisions before January 2019, showing an increase in climate litigation risk over time and “suggesting the financial markets are increasingly responding to climate litigation.” RWE lost almost 6% of its stock market value at times during the court proceedings with Lliuya. Researchers estimate the average economic cost of a negative court decision is around USD 360 million, though they note that figure is highly influenced by cases against large companies. 

While S&P Global has not yet identified climate damages cases affecting the credit rating of an oil and gas company, it highlighted that this could change in the future. The credit rating agency found that if the costs “associated with climate litigation were to increase materially, the potential impact on the competitive position and financial risk profiles of some entities would change.” S&P also noted that the “direct costs of lawsuits against tobacco companies or opioid-related cases in the US took several years to transpire but had material financial and strategic impacts on many of the companies sued.” While individual firms may have sufficient financial resources to pay out any damages, “if many companies in the [oil and gas] sector were hit with financial litigation-related penalties, the implications could be more material for the sector, overall.”

This is a growing concern for investors. In 2023, a motion was presented by ExxonMobil shareholders that requested additional litigation disclosures. The motion cited media reports of “multiple climate lawsuits brought by states and attorneys general alleging failures to adequately address climate risks, an obligation to pay damages for climate harms and misleading consumers and investors regarding greenhouse gas emissions.” It added that “individually and cumulatively, losing these cases could have a direct financial and/or reputational impact on ExxonMobil.” Although the motion did not pass, receiving only 9.1% of shareholder votes, it highlights investor concerns over the potential consequences of climate damages litigation.

Appendix: Database of climate damages litigation cases

Social movements making climate action more just and effective

by Leave a Comment

The most vulnerable and marginalised are hit first and hardest by the climate crisis. Climate change impacts could further exacerbate marginalisation by, among other things, intensifying the disregard for black lives, worsening the plight of trans communities, sidelining the homeless and perpetuating racist refugee rhetoric. Through a series of case studies, this briefing illustrates how communities are joining forces to show that climate change does not impact people equally. The way an individual experiences climate change is influenced by many intersectional factors, including race, gender, power and poverty.

Poverty, equity, homelessness and climate justice

  • Debt activists and climate groups unite in the call to write off international climate debt: Unjust debt is connected to the wider problem of inequality, as very poor countries have limited access to global financial markets. Current international debt mechanisms can easily lock them in ‘debt traps’, while lenders often ask for important national assets as collateral. The Jubilee Debt Campaign has run several campaigns on the connection between debt and climate change, arguing that rich countries are morally obligated to help, in particular to Small Island Developing States that are both heavily indebted and bear the brunt of climate damages. The Jubilee Debt Campaign joined several climate groups last year in demanding a fair and climate-centred post-pandemic recovery. Among the demands was a call for the immediate cancellation of debt payments, with the goal of achieving an unconditional debt cancellation for countries in the Global South. 
  • Climate activists ally with groups demanding fairer COVID vaccine distribution: While some nations are in “vaccine euphoria”, others are seeing a devastating rise in cases. In India, for example, well over 314,000 cases were reported in a single 24-hour period on 22 April, and the trend shows no signs of abating. By late April, a quarter of people in high-income countries had been vaccinated compared to less than 0.2% in low-income countries. Many well-off countries have secured more vaccine doses than they need to cover their own populations. Climate activist Greta Thunberg donated EUR 100,000 from her foundation to vaccine equality and highlighted how the ecological damage we are currently committing is also increasing the risk of pandemics. Other climate groups and research organisations have joined the call for vaccine justice, with some arguing that vaccine inequality risks making the Glasgow COP26 climate negotiations less inclusive and fair. 
  • Protecting the homeless as the climate crisis exacerbates precarious living in the US: Homelesness is rising in the US as climate disasters like the recent wildfires in California and the coldsnap in Texas become more common. Nearly 60,000 people were experiencing homelesness in the US before the pandemic, and the number of children on the streets is rising. These numbers are likely to have increased, while the number of temporary shelters that host those in the housing crisis –  like women and children who are victims of domestic violence or those evicted due to the economic impacts of the pandemic – have fallen. For people who live on the streets or in precarious housing, extreme weather events can exacerbate underlying conditions and upend any hard-won stability. Increasing climate impacts could also push more people out of their homes, onto the streets and into temporary accommodation. A few groups, like Invisible People, the Climate Reality Project and some academics, have initiated conversations on this topic.

Racial, indigenous and climate justice

  • Local environmental and justice groups call for an end to environmental racism in South Africa: Climate change is accelerating, with rising food prices and water shortages impacting the country’s poor and working class. Black South Africans are more likely to live on the most damaged land, in polluted neighbourhoods and in less climate-resilient housing compared to their white counterparts. Many also lack access to clean air and water. But a coalition of local environmental groups, including Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance and Earthlife Africa, have joined forces with other organisations, like feminist coalition Womin and local groups focusing on labour justice, to demand a fair end to fossil fuel burning and pollution. On-the-ground groups in South Africa have also pioneered a climate justice charter in which they ask, among other things, for radical, non-racist and gender-conscious climate leadership.
  • Reckoning with racism and climate change in US farming: Today, only 2% of US farmers are black, down from 14% in the 1920s. To address the systemic injustices that deny black people land and food sovereignty, a nationwide movement is attempting to reclaim farming. At the same time, the Biden administration is intent on addressing the greenhouse gas emissions from US agriculture, which accounted for more than 10% of the nation’s emissions in 2018. Though discussions on how to marry these communities are ongoing, some cautiously welcomed solutions include establishing a ‘carbon bank’ that will award farmers for increasing soil carbon storage. If done well, this could benefit small-scale black farmers. 
  • Climate groups call for an end to “fossil fuel racism” in the US: A recent report by Greenpeace charts how people of colour, especially Black Amercians, and people living in poverty bear the brunt of fossil fuel pollution in the US. Many of these communities are also on the frontlines of climate impacts, and recent research has revealed that historical discriminaton has increased the chances of experiencing impacts like extreme heat, asthma and flooding. The report gathers insight from several communities, asking for both the end to, and reversal of, historical environmental injustices. It also advocates for a green economic recovery that leaves no workers behind, as well as the phase out of fossil fuels. 
  • Youth activists mobilise against climate injustice and environmental racism: The Global Day of Climate Action on 25 September 2020, called for by the Friday’s for Future Movement, placed environmental racism and climate justice in the centre of climate action. More than 3,500 towns and cities in over 150 countries participated in the protests, mostly online, and all activists were encouraged to show the symbol coined MAPA, or Most Affected People and Areas. The symbol represents solidarity with those communities who contribute the least to climate change but suffer the most. The movement also runs an Instagram account centring activists from the MAPA regions, with the aim to elevate their voices and experiences of climate change. 
  • Indigenous groups lead global climate strikes: In 2019, 250,000 people took to the streets in New York City to ask for faster and fairer climate action. Fronting the protests were a large contingent of indegenous Brazilian leaders and activists, who highlighted the current destruction occurring in the Amazon as wildfires are used to clear land by agri-buisness. While in the halls of the 2019 UN climate summit Artemisa Xakriabá, a 19-year old indigenous climate activist from Brazil, spoke against the unfolding environmental crisis. Indigenous people around the world have a long history as frontline agents of environmental conservation. They have also played an active role in combating climate change through participation in international events, as well as by means of activism and political engagement at both national and local community level. 

Gender rights and climate justice 

  • Climate activist and women’s rights groups call for care work to be centered in the US’s green new deal: There is a critical need to recognise care work as a cornerstone of any green economy and society, according to a new report by The Feminist Green New Deal. Care work can provide jobs for those transitioning out of fossil fuel industries and, on the flip-side, the climate crisis could increase the need for high-quality care. The report argues that societies risk perpetuating gendered power dynamics, which consistently undervalue care work. Without intervention, a predominantly white male hegemony on high-paid clean energy jobs will continue, exacerbating the gender pay gap. The report is fronted by a diverse coalition of women and gender groups, as well as climate organisations, like the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN), MADRE and the Sierra Club. 
  • Joining forces to demand more space for women in the renewable energy sector: Studies show that utility companies with over 30% female boards have higher profit margins, and that diverse executive boards across sectors outperform all-male ones. But despite the widely recognised benefits of increasing women’s participation, the current energy sector is one of the least gender diverse, and women are responsible for less than 11% of energy-related patents. The renewable energy sector does a little better than oil and gas, employing 32% and 22% women respectively in 2018. It is also crucial that women are part of the growing clean energy industry that should offer fair and rewarding work. Today, a number of initiatives are working to advance women’s role in energy, like Solar Sister, a sub-Saharan African social enterprise that aims to eradicate energy poverty by empowering women through local green jobs, both as leaders and entrepreneurs. Another group set on women’s inclusion and empowerment is ENERGIA, which has carried out research and campaigned on the issue globally. In the UK, the ReWIRE network works to increase the number of women in clean energy leadership roles. 
  • Trans rights and climate justice groups join forces: Marginalised people are more likely to live in areas vulnerable to climate change, to be poor, and to have resources and assistance denied to them.1Transgendered people in the US are more than twice as poor as an average American. Marginalisation is also exacerbated in times of crisis. This was observed during Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans when trans people faced discrimination and were even turned away from emergency shelters. Another example was seen after tropical Cyclone Harold in Fiji, where LGBTQ+ people and sex workers were disproportinatley impacted, with their safety hubs and centres wrecked by the storm. Gender-based violence, which also impacts the trans community, also increases after natural disasters. As such, the fight for LGBTQ+ rights is also a battle for climate justice. There are a few groups, like Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club, who have started talking about how the environmental and climate movement need to integrate trans rights. But more can be done to encourage cooperation and sharing between these communities. 

Militarisation, displacement and climate justice

  • The peace movement calls for money to be moved from arms to renewables in the UK: Every year, the UK government authorises the sale of arms to over 100 countries across the world, arguing that one benefit is the protection of high-skilled manufacturing jobs in the country. However, the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) released a report in 2014 arguing that investing in offshore wind and marine energy could produce more jobs than the entire arms industry in the UK. The organisation continues to highlight how real security involves tackling the cause of problems – for instance, the UK’s Ministry of Defence published research last year on how climate change could exaggerate existing threats to international peace and security. As such, CAAT says that if security really is the end goal, the UK should prioritise rapid carbon reduction instead of ramping up the nation’s arms industry.
  • Climate activists join human rights defenders to fight for the humane treatment of displaced people: In 2020, Extinction Rebellion protested against increasing border securitisation and racist rhetoric towards migrants and refugees. They join a host of other human rights and climate groups concerned about the increasing threats facing those displaced by the climate crisis. Regulatory frameworks to protect these groups have also been implemented, such as the Sydney declaration providing guidance on managing climate displacement and the UN Human Rights ruling in early 2020 stating that climate refugees cannot be sent home. The US may also be on the brink of defining what a climate refugee is, which could shift refugee policy. Experts agree that there is a clear connection between migration and the climate crisis, though many worry that reductive assumptions drive anti-immigration rhetoric.

Fair employment, labour groups, unions and climate justice

  • Indigenious people and Canadian oil workers jointly push for a just transition: Between 2015 and 2017, over 100,000 Canadian oil workers lost their jobs due to crashing oil prices. As a result, the worker-led organisation Iron & Earth was formed, which now consists of more than a thousand local workers and indigenous people. The organisation campaigns on the dual need to tackle the climate crisis and to secure fair work for the community. It does this by building on the ground support for a national climate transition, while continuing to advocate for the rights of local communities. The organisation provides training, resources and networks that individuals need to establish careers in the renewable energy industry.
  • A coalition of unions, climate groups and workers call for fairer public transport: A global campaign, fronted by groups like Public Services International (PSI), the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the International Association of Public Transport (UITP), C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Women in Informal Employment Organizing and Globalizing (WIEGO) and Greenpeace, is demanding post-pandemic investments in public transport. They argue that public transport is a centrepiece of fair societies, as many people rely on it to get to where they need to go, be it to work, hospitals or kindergartens. Public transport is also a foundation of sustainable development and supports the infrastructure of green cities, a crucial part of solving the climate challenge. Most carbon emissions already come from cities, and today the rate of urbanisation is unprecedented and shows no sign of abating. 
  • Building local support for renewable energy on the Orkney Islands: The Scottish Orkney Islands, home to about 22,000 people, previously imported all their power from fossil-fuel sources. Today, however, the region produces 120% of its own needs from clean wave and tidal power, as well as community-owned wind turbines, and sells the excess. A membership organisation, The Orkney Renewable Energy Forum, was instrumental in bringing together individuals, researchers and companies to support the transition to a self-sustained renewable society. Established in 2000, the forum became involved in a range of local renewable initiatives, culminating in the opening of the first locally-owned wind turbine in the UK. Overall, investment on the island created 300 new jobs and the area is now a leading knowledge hub for developments in wave and tidal energy.
  • Scientists mobilise for climate justice: The ‘March for Science’, formed by an international community of scientists, science advocates, teachers and parents, took part in the youth’s global climate strikes. Ahead of the strikes, tens of thousand scientists signed an open letter in which they supported the “enormous mobilisation” of youth grassroot climate movements. The March for Science is an annual event, where scientists across the world take to the streets to protest a wide range of science issues, but central is the call for support, research and respect for environmental and climate scientists. In 2017, the protests drew more than one million people in over 600 cities. 

Intersectionality is inherent to many social movements 

Climate groups are now adopting a more intersectional approach to the climate crisis, recognising that disadvantage is the result of many interacting systems of oppression. While this is coming to the fore in the climate movement, intersectionality is already – and has been for a long time – inherent to many social movements. The history of intersectional organising stretches back several decades and is the legacy of feminists of colour who have sought to elevate those voices largely ignored, silenced and sidelined. 

In summary, the increasing number of coalitions and collaborations show how fighting for social justice is increasingly at the heart of climate action and that joint activism is taking many novel forms today. These case studies exemplify how looking at the climate crisis through a social justice lens – which permits space for complexity and nuance – is making the climate movement more diverse, effective, inclusive and just. 

  • 1
    Transgendered people in the US are more than twice as poor as an average American.

Follow Us