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

Big Oil in Court – The latest trends in climate litigation against fossil fuel companies

by Leave a Comment

Key findings:

  • 86 climate lawsuits have been filed against the world’s largest oil, gas, and coal producing corporations – including BP, Chevron, Eni, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies. The number of cases filed against fossil fuel companies each year has nearly tripled since the Paris Agreement was reached in 2015. 
  • Three categories of lawsuits have grown significantly in recent years: compensation for climate damages (38 percent of cases); misleading advertising claims (16 percent); and emissions reduction (12 percent).
  • Compensation for climate damages: Oil and gas companies and their investors are facing increasing financial risks from climate litigation over their role in contributing to the climate crisis. The financial benefits to communities around the world harmed by the impacts of climate change could be significant if additional cases are won.
  • Misleading advertising: Oil and gas companies are coming under increasing pressure for making false climate and environment related claims. All but one of the nine concluded cases that accused companies of misleading advertising have resulted in decisions against the companies or the companies retracting the claims in question. 
  • Emissions reduction: Ten cases have now been brought against fossil fuel companies over their failure to set and implement Paris-aligned emissions reductions. Most notably, a Dutch court ruled that Shell must reduce emissions – including from the oil and gas it sells – by 45 percent by 2030, though Shell has appealed that decision.

Climate litigation is growing

The use of courts and legal mechanisms to achieve progress on addressing climate change has grown significantly since the Paris Agreement was reached in 2015. This growth comes as oil and gas companies fail to reduce fossil fuel production and limit temperature rise,1David Tong and Kelly Trout, ‘Big Oil Reality Check,’ Oil Change International, May 2024. despite research showing that almost 60 percent of developed oil, gas, and coal reserves must stay underground to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees celsius (°C),2Kelly Trout et al, ‘Existing fossil fuel extraction would warm the world beyond 1.5°C’, 2022, 17 Environmental Research Letters 6, 064010; Kelly Trout, ‘Sky’s Limit Data Update:  Shut Down 60% of Existing Fossil Fuel Extraction to Keep 1.5°C in Reach,’ Oil Change International, August 2023. the internationally agreed temperature limit. Organisations and communities around the world are increasingly turning to legal action to hold these fossil fuel companies accountable.

Climate litigation seeks to require public authorities or companies to introduce more effective policies to mitigate climate change, or to hold actors accountable for their role in contributing to the crisis and its impacts. Climate litigation has already achieved some significant wins, including a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights establishing that the Swiss government has a duty to protect its citizens from the impacts of climate change and has failed in this duty by not setting sufficiently rigorous emissions reduction targets.3European Court of Human Rights, “Violations of the European Convention for Failing to Implement Sufficient Measures to Combat Climate Change” (European Court of Human Rights, April 9, 2024).

This analysis by Oil Change International and Zero Carbon Analytics is the first to assess the growth and trends in climate litigation specifically against major fossil fuel producing companies, and builds upon previous analyses such as the LSE’s Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation reports.4Setzer, Joana and Higham, Catherine, “Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2024 Snapshot” (LSE Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, June 27, 2024).

Methodology

This analysis is based upon the Climate Change Litigation Database of 2,761 cases, developed and maintained by the Columbia Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.5Columbia Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, “Climate Change Litigation Databases,” accessed July 22, 2024. To be included in the database, cases must be brought before judicial bodies or specific administrative bodies such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) National Contact Point or the United Kingdom’s Advertising Standard Authority (ASA).6Cases are identified on a rolling basis by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and are reviewed by a global network of peer reviewers to ensure completeness, however it cannot be guaranteed that the database contains all relevant cases. Climate change law, policy or science must be a material issue of law or fact in the case. The analysis draws on both the United States and global case databases.

To identify the cases against fossil fuel producing companies, the ‘Carbon Majors’ list of 122 of the world’s largest oil, gas, coal, and cement producers was used.7InfluenceMap, “Carbon Majors,” accessed July 10, 2024. These producers collectively account for 72 percent of global fossil fuel and cement emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution.8InfluenceMap, “Carbon Majors,” accessed July 10, 2024. This list was then narrowed down to include only oil, gas, and coal producing companies.

The list is not comprehensive and does not include fossil fuel companies involved in the processing, distribution and use of oil, gas, and coal. The analysis presented in this briefing is therefore an estimate of the scale of climate related litigation against fossil fuel producing companies, not an estimate of the scale of such litigation against companies across the rest of the fossil fuel supply chain.

Rise in climate litigation targeting fossil fuel companies

This analysis finds that 86 separate lawsuits have been filed against the world’s largest fossil fuel producing companies, and the number of cases has been rising rapidly. In 2015, when the Paris Agreement was reached, five cases were filed against fossil fuel companies. By 2023, that figure had nearly tripled to 14 cases filed in one year.

Fig 1: Number of cases by year filed (2005-2024)

More than half of all cases have been brought in the US (58 percent), with another 24 percent of cases brought in Europe. The geographic distribution of cases is likely to reflect a combination of the judicial and legislative frameworks of the countries, the location where the fossil fuel companies are headquartered, and the resources of potential claimants. This distribution is similar to the distribution of all climate cases, not just those against fossil fuel companies, where 65 percent of cases are in the US.9Setzer, Joana and Higham, Catherine, “Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation,” 11–12.

Fig 2: Number of cases against fossil fuel companies by jurisdiction (2005-2024)

The overwhelming majority of cases have been brought against investor-owned oil and gas companies. Investor-owned oil and gas companies represent nine of the top 10 corporate defendants.10The number of cases is based on the named defendants in cases and includes cases with multiple corporate defendants. Cases against Hess are recorded separately as its acquisition by Chevron is awaiting approval by the US Federal Trade Commission, though the acquisition would not increase the total number of cases against Chevron as in all of the cases against Hess, Chevron is already a co-defendant. ExxonMobil and Shell top the list, with 43 and 42 cases respectively. Other oil companies include Spain’s Repsol with four cases, and Norway’s Equinor and Australia’s Woodside with two cases each.

Fig 3: Top 10 fossil fuel companies by number of cases (2005-2024)

Types of climate cases against fossil fuel companies

The types of cases against fossil fuel companies vary significantly, and individual cases often make multiple interrelated claims. For this analysis, the cases were categorised by the primary or most significant element of the case.11This categorisation has been developed by Zero Carbon Analytics and Oil Change International to bring together the different categories used in the Sabin Centre’s US and Global databases. Cases will often include features that could fall into multiple categories. The categories used largely matched the categories used by the Sabin Centre. For further details of the categorisation see Appendix One. 

The most frequent ground for bringing a case against fossil fuel companies, accounting for 38 percent of cases, relates to their responsibility for damages caused by the impacts of climate change such as extreme weather. The number of these cases has risen dramatically in recent years, with just three cases filed before 2017 and 30 filed since then.

Cases related predominantly or solely to misleading advertising have also grown rapidly, with the first recorded case submitted in 2019 and a total of 14 cases filed to date. All but one of the nine cases related to misleading advertising that have concluded either resulted in regulators ruling against the companies, or the companies withdrawing the advertising claims that had been challenged.

Ten cases have been filed against fossil fuel companies over their alleged failure to set or implement corporate emissions reductions targets in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Fig 4: Number of cases by primary reason for case (2005-2024)

Thirteen cases have been brought against companies in relation to specific projects, challenging their environmental impact assessments and permits,12These only include cases against fossil fuel companies related to projects and permitting, and do not include the significant number of cases against public bodies related to the permitting of fossil fuel projects (see Wider trends in fossil fuel climate litigation below). while 11 cases have been filed over companies’ alleged failure to address the financial or investor risks of the energy transition. Three cases have been filed in the US primarily focused on consumer protection, claiming that fossil fuel companies have misled consumers over the impact of their products on the environment. In 2022 and 2024, two cases were filed seeking to bring criminal claims against fossil fuel companies, including a case accusing BP of crimes against humanity and claims against TotalEnergies including involuntary manslaughter.13Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, “NZ Students for Climate Solutions and UK Youth Climate Coalition v. Board of BP”, Climate Case Chart, accessed August 20 2024.Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, “BLOOM and Others v. TotalEnergies”, Climate Case Chart, accessed August 20 2024.

Climate damage cases

The rise of cases seeking compensation for climate impacts from fossil fuel companies in recent years could have significant financial implications for the companies and their investors. Climate science can now directly attribute individual extreme weather events to climate change.14Met Office, “The Science of Linking Climate Change to Extreme Weather Events,” Official Blog of the Met Office News Team (blog), June 20, 2023. Over the last 20 years, the data has become significantly more precise, with over 500 studies attributing extreme weather events to the results of increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.15Carbon Brief, “Mapped: How Climate Change Affects Extreme Weather around the World,” Carbon Brief, August 4, 2022. There is also robust information on the historic emissions from fossil fuel companies, through which it is possible to calculate a company’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions.16Ekwurzel, B., Boneham, J., Dalton, M.W. et al. “The rise in global atmospheric CO2, surface temperature, and sea level from emissions traced to major carbon producers,” Climatic Change 144, 579–590 (2017). As a result, it is possible to credibly quantify an individual fossil fuel company’s contribution to a specific extreme weather event, and any damages that result from it.

The potential liabilities for fossil fuel companies are substantial. The climate policy institute Climate Analytics has calculated based on the social cost of carbon that the share of climate damages attributable to the largest 25 oil and gas companies for their emissions from 1985 to 2018 totals USD 20 trillion.17Climate 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. These figures are 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: Marco Grasso and Richard Heede, “Time to pay the piper: Fossil fuel companies’ reparations for climate damages”, One Earth, Volume 6, Issue 5 (2023). Of these, ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP are all estimated to be responsible for climate-related costs of at least USD 1 trillion each. 18Climate Analytics, “Carbon Majors’ Trillion Dollar Damages” (Climate Analytics, November 16, 2023).

Fig 5: Climate damages caused by investor-owned oil and gas companies CO2 emissions

So far, no oil and gas company has had to pay liability for damages associated with climate change. If they are found to be liable in the ongoing cases, the amounts involved in a single case may not in itself be significant for the industry. But this could change in future if the number of cases and claimants rise. If courts and governments start holding oil and gas companies liable for climate change damages, the costs to companies, their investors and insurers could be very significant, as could the financial benefits to communities around the world harmed by climate disasters and other impacts.

RWE accused of liability for flood protection in Peru

In 2015 a Peruvian farmer filed a case at the regional court in Essen against RWE, one of Germany’s largest electricity producers. Saúl Luciano Lliuya accused RWE of being partially liable for a glacier melting near his home due to its large historic emissions from its coal-burning power stations.19“Luciano Lliuya v. RWE AG,” Climate Change Litigation (blog), accessed July 12, 2024. He claimed that as the owner of companies responsible for large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, RWE should reimburse him and the local authorities for a portion of the costs of setting up flood protections. The flood defences were necessary to protect the 50,000 residents who could be threatened by the water volumes which have been rising in the glacial lake since 1975, according to Lliuya.20“8 Years of Climate Lawsuit against RWE | Germanwatch e.V.,” accessed July 12, 2024. 

His claim is based on attribution science, and he refers to an IPCC finding 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”.21“Statement of Claim by Saúl Ananías Luciano Lliuya against RWE” (Unauthorised translation, provided by Germanwatch e.V, 2015). His claim also refers to the UN body’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 notes 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.”22“Statement of Claim by Saúl Ananías Luciano Lliuya against RWE” (Unauthorised translation, provided by Germanwatch e.V, 2015).

His case was initially dismissed by a lower court 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.23“District Court of Essen: Decision | The Climate Case – Saúl vs. RWE,” accessed July 12, 2024. However, in 2017 the appeals court in Hamm ruled that the case was admissible and recommended a phase to gather evidence on the risks to the farm, RWE’s contribution to global emissions and resulting glacial melt in Peru.24“Higher Regional Court of Hamm: Indicative Court Order and Order for the Hearing of Evidence,” accessed July 10, 2024. In principle, the ruling means that RWE could be held liable for a share of climate change damages, which is a significant step. 

Since 2017, judges and lawyers have been assessing the contribution of RWE’s emissions, and in 2022 they travelled to Peru to assess whether Lliuya’s home was directly threatened by potential flooding from the glacial lake. No verdict has been issued as of mid-2024 but the case is one of the most advanced climate cases on attribution.25Setzer, Joana and Higham, Catherine, “Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation,” page 33.

US public authorities vs the fossil fuel industry

In the US, 26 lawsuits have been filed by counties, municipalities and cities against fossil fuel producing companies 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.

These lawsuits are seeking damages for extreme weather events from large oil and gas companies. They accuse the companies of concealing their scientific knowledge about climate change and deceiving the public about the danger of global warming caused by their products. 

None of the cases have yet gone to trial, but this could be about to change. In June 2024 the United States Supreme Court asked the US solicitor general for its opinion on whether a case filed by Hawaiian capital Honolulu seeking to hold several oil companies accountable for climate damages can be heard under federal or state law.26David Gelles, “Is the Fight Against Big Oil Headed to the Supreme Court?,” The New York Times, June 13, 2024, sec. Climate. The oil 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.27Climate Integrity, “Cases Underway to Make Climate Polluters Pay” (Climate Integrity, 2024). In 2023 the Hawaiian state Supreme Court decided the case could go to trial under state law, but oil companies including ExxonMobil and Chevron have taken the case to the US Supreme Court in an attempt to prevent the trial going ahead in Hawaii.28Supreme Court Of The State Of Hawai‘i , “City And County Of Honolulu And Honolulu Board Of Water Supply, Vs. Sunoco Lp (Et. Al.), Appeal From The Circuit Court Of The First Circuit”, October 31, 2023.Clark Mindock, “Exxon, Chevron ask US Supreme Court to toss ruling in Honolulu climate change suit”, Reuters, February 28, 2024. The final decision on whether the case can be heard under state law will be hugely significant in determining whether the more than 20 other lawsuits can go to trial.29Gelles, David, New York Times. “Is The Fight Against Big Oil Headed to the Supreme Court?” 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.30Sutherland, Deepa, “Climate Change Litigation: What Can Liability Insurers Expect in 2024?” (Zelle LLP, 2024). 

In a related development, a number of US states are in the process of passing “climate superfund” laws. Vermont recently passed 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.31“Vermont Becomes 1st State to Enact Law Requiring Oil Companies Pay for Damage from Climate Change,” AP News, accessed July 12, 2024. The state could collect money from companies that emitted more than 1 billion tons of CO2 around the world from 1995 to 2024. Those companies with a certain threshold of business activity in Vermont would be charged according to their percentage of global emissions with the funds to be used to rebuild and upgrade infrastructure such as stormwater drainage systems, roads and bridges. US states Massachusetts, Maryland, California, and New York are reportedly considering a similar approach.32“Vermont Becomes 1st State to Enact Law Requiring Oil Companies Pay for Damage from Climate Change,” AP News; Gelles, David, “Is The Fight Against Big Oil Headed to the Supreme Court?,” 2024; Begert, Blanca, “The climate Superfund craze hits California,” Politico, April 17, 2024.

Misleading advertising cases

In recent years oil and gas companies have put considerable effort into making green or environmental claims in their advertising, in order to influence the perception of the public and policymakers. This analysis shows there has also been a growth in challenges to those environmental claims, all but one of which have so far either been upheld by regulators or have seen the companies withdraw the claims in question.33In May 2024, the Italian Council of State overturned a EUR 5 million fine issued by the Italian Competition Authority against Eni and ruled that its use of the term “green” in its advertising was legitimate as its Eni Diesel+ was a polluting product but was less harmful than more polluting alternatives.

Shell’s carbon neutral claims

Shell has faced several lawsuits questioning its reliance on carbon offsetting as a means to achieve carbon neutrality. In the UK, the ASA found in 2020 that Shell had breached the advertising code on carbon neutrality claims in relation to its Shell Go+ “drive carbon-neutral” advertising campaign.34“Advertising Standards Authority’s Ruling on Shell UK Ltd.’s Shell Go+ Campaign,” Climate Change Litigation (blog), accessed July 12, 2024. In 2023 the ASA upheld another complaint claiming Shell’s advertising exaggerated the proportion of its business that consisted of lower carbon activities.35“ASA Ruling on Shell UK Ltd (Following a Complaint by Adfree Cities),” Climate Change Litigation (blog), accessed July 12, 2024. 

Meanwhile, the Dutch advertising authorities ruled in 2021, despite appeals by Shell, that the company’s claims of carbon neutrality were misleading because the company could not back up its claims that carbon offsetting worked in practice.36“RCC Ruling on Shell ‘Drive CO2 Neutral’ 2,” Climate Change Litigation (blog), accessed July 12, 2024. The company has faced similar complaints in Canada. Greenpeace Canada submitted a formal complaint in 2021 to the country’s competition regulator alleging that Shell Canada’s carbon neutral adverts were misleading because carbon offsetting is not a proven means to reduce emissions.37“Greenpeace Canada v. Shell Canada,” Climate Change Litigation (blog), accessed July 12, 2024. While this case was not formally resolved, it was closed in December 2023 because Shell had removed the adverts within Canada. 

BP accused of greenwashing

ClientEarth submitted a complaint to the UK National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises in 2019 alleging that BP’s advertising campaigns were misleading the public because they gave a false impression of the size of the company’s renewable and low-carbon energy investments. The initial assessment was that the complaint was material and substantiated.38“Complaint against BP in Respect of Violations of the OECD Guidelines,” Climate Change Litigation (blog), accessed July 12, 2024. There was no final decision on the case because BP withdrew the adverts.

Emissions reductions cases

Another area growing in prominence is cases that explicitly seek to force companies to reduce emissions. These include emissions directly related to the company’s own operations and emissions that are associated with their value chain (Scope 3 emissions). In the case of a fossil fuel company this includes when their customers burn the oil, gas and coal they have produced, for example at industrial facilities or in road transport.

Landmark ruling against Shell 

The landmark case in this area was against Shell. In 2019 Friends of the Earth Netherlands along with several NGOs and more than 17,000 citizens served Shell a court summons.39“Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc.” Climate Change Litigation (blog), accessed July 12. 2024. They argued that in the context of the goals of the Paris Agreement and scientific evidence of climate change Shell had a duty of care to reduce its emissions in order to align with the rights to, among other things, life, private property and family life as set out in the Dutch Civil Code and the European Convention on Human Rights.40“Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc.” accessed July 12. 2024. They argued that to be in line with the Paris Agreement the company needed to reduce its emissions by 45 percent by 2030 compared to 2010 levels, and to zero by 2050.41“Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc.” accessed July 12. 2024.

In a historic precedent, the District Court of The Hague ruled in May 2021 that Shell should speed up its emissions reductions across its entire operations (including Scope 3 emissions) in order to avoid breaching its duty of care under Dutch law and human rights obligations.42Setzer, Joana and Higham, Catherine, “Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2024 Snapshot” (LSE Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, June 27, 2024). In its judgement, Shell was ordered to reduce its emissions “by at least net 45 percent at end 2030, relative to 2019 levels.”43The Hague District Court Judgement, Case number: C/09/571932 / HA ZA 19-37926, May 2021. 

Crucially, the court made its decision provisionally enforceable which means that while Shell has appealed the case, it is still required to meet its emissions reductions obligations. The court concluded: “The court acknowledges that RDS [Royal Dutch Shell] cannot solve this global problem on its own. However, this does not absolve RDS of its individual partial responsibility to do its part regarding the emissions of the Shell group, which it can control and influence.”44The Hague District Court Judgement, Case number: C/09/571932 / HA ZA 19-37926, May 2021. This is the first time a major fossil fuel company was ordered to reduce its emissions by a court. A judgement on Shell’s appeal is expected in Autumn 2024. 

Other relevant cases: TotalEnergies and Holcim
Criminal cases

One new trend that has emerged in recent years is litigation through criminal rather than civil courts against fossil fuel companies and their executives. These cases significantly raise the potential penalties, particularly for individuals in leadership positions within the industry.

BP executives’ alleged crimes against humanity

In 2022, Students for Climate Solutions New Zealand and the UK Youth Climate Coalition submitted a request to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to open an investigation against BP senior executives.50“NZ Students for Climate Solutions and UK Youth Climate Coalition v. Board of BP”, Climate Case Chart, accessed August 27, 2024. 

The submission argued that climate change is a crime against humanity that constitutes a “widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population.”51New Zealand students for Climate Solutions & UK Youth Climate Coalition, “Request To Open Investigations & Request For Reparations Regarding The Crimes Against Humanity Of Climate Change,” December 8, 2022, p19. It accused senior BP executives of pursuing a common purpose to maximise petroleum profits regardless of the impacts of climate change, and said BP executives were aware of those impacts since at least the 1950s.52New Zealand students for Climate Solutions & UK Youth Climate Coalition, “Request To Open Investigations & Request For Reparations Regarding The Crimes Against Humanity Of Climate Change”, p39-49. In addition to continuing the growth in production of oil and gas, the submission argues that BP executives contributed to the common purpose through delaying climate action and deceiving the public and policymakers.53New Zealand students for Climate Solutions & UK Youth Climate Coalition, p50-68.

The organisations seek “climate justice reparations” from BP’s senior executives, and request that those damages are paid into a fund to address loss and damages caused by climate change.54New Zealand students for Climate Solutions & UK Youth Climate Coalition, p69. The claim was dismissed by the International Criminal Court, but Students for Climate Solutions said they intend to continue to push the court to recognise climate change as a crime against humanity.55Students for Climate Solutions, “Current Projects”, accessed August 28, 2024.

Request for criminal liability: TotalEnergies directors and shareholders

Three NGOs and eight individuals affected by climate change filed a criminal case requesting a prosecutor open an investigation against Total Energies directors and main shareholders in 2024.56BLOOM, Alliance Santé Planétaire, and Nuestro Futuro, “NGOs and climate change victims file criminal case against TotalEnergies board of directors and shareholders”, May 21, 2024. The submissions claims that these individuals’ potential crimes include deliberately endangering the lives of others, involuntary manslaughter, neglecting to address a disaster, and damaging biodiversity. Each offence is punishable by at least one year of imprisonment and a fine.57BLOOM, Alliance Santé Planétaire, and Nuestro Futuro, “NGOs and climate change victims file criminal case against TotalEnergies board of directors and shareholders”.

The case goes beyond the submission against BP by pursuing the company’s shareholders based on their voting record. Specifically, the group are seeking to pursue BP shareholders who voted in favour of climate strategies they allege are inconsistent with the 2°C temperature limit, and against strategies that would have aligned TotalEnergies with the goals of the Paris Agreement.58BLOOM, Alliance Santé Planétaire, and Nuestro Futuro. In addition to criminal sanctions for the directors and shareholders, the complaint also seeks to halt the expansion of fossil fuel extraction by TotalEnergies.59BLOOM, Alliance Santé Planétaire, and Nuestro Futuro.

Wider trends in climate litigation against fossil fuel companies

Directors’ liability

There is a growing trend of lawsuits targeting the climate risk management practices of corporate boards and directors. According to the LSE Grantham Institute, these cases address how companies should manage the risks associated with the climate crisis and the transition to net zero.60Setzer, Joana and Higham, Catherine, “Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2024 Snapshot,” (LSE Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, June 27, 2024). Cases like ClientEarth v Shell are leading the way in holding corporate leadership personally liable for inadequately managing climate risks. In that case, ClientEarth brought a claim alleging members of Shell’s board had failed to implement policies that would enable the company to meet the goals of its own energy transition strategy (i.e. its net zero commitment).61“ClientEarth v Shell’s Board of Directors,” Climate Case Chart, accessed July 12, 2024. Although the case was dismissed by the UK High Court,62ClientEarth, “Our groundbreaking case against Shell’s Board of Directors comes to an end,” January 2024. it may inspire future litigation, with shareholders and activists pushing for greater transparency and proactive efforts from companies to mitigate their climate impacts.

Project permitting

Lawsuits challenging governments’ permitting of fossil fuel projects could also see a significant rise in the future. A notable breakthrough happened in Norway in 2024 when Greenpeace Norway successfully challenged the government’s approval of three new oil and gas fields to Equinor.63Nerijus Adomaitis and Gwladys Fouche, “Three Norwegian Oil and Gas Field Permits Invalidated on Environmental Grounds,” Reuters, January 18, 2024. In a major precedent setting ruling, the court found that the environmental impact assessment for the projects was inadequate as it failed to assess the impacts from the end use of the oil and gas that would be extracted.64Nerijus Adomaitis and Gwladys Fouche, “Three Norwegian Oil and Gas Field Permits Invalidated on Environmental Grounds,” Reuters, January 18, 2024. This was followed by a UK Supreme Court ruling in 2024 that emissions from fossil fuels extracted must be considered as part of the permitting process, when Sarah Finch successfully challenged Surrey County Council’s decision to extend planning permission for an oil drilling well.65UK Supreme Court, “R (on the Application of Finch on Behalf of the Weald Action Group) (Appellant) v Surrey County Council and Others (Respondents),” (UK Supreme Court, June 20, 2024). Her victory has strengthened the prospects for similar legal challenges, including those against the planned Cumbria coal mine and the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields.66“Government will not defend Cumbria mine legal challenges”, LeighDay, July 2024.

Anti-SLAPP suits

The EU directive adopted in April 2024 to protect people and organisations from strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP suits) – commonly known as the anti-SLAPP directive – may also provide a further avenue for legal action.67“Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’),” Official Journal of the European Union, April 16, 2024. SLAPP suits are cases brought with the purpose of intimidating or harassing the defendant for criticising or opposing the actions of the company, and are considered an abuse of the legal process. For example, Greenpeace International in July 2024 sent a Notice of Liability to fossil fuel infrastructure company Energy Transfer, notifying it of a potential lawsuit in a Dutch Court to recover damage and costs in relation to an alleged SLAPP-suit the company had brought in North Dakota.68‘Greenpeace International challenges Energy Transfer in first use of EU anti-SLAPP Directive’, Greenpeace International, 23 July 2024; Zraick, Karen, “Greenpeace Tries a Novel Tactic in Lawsuit Over Dakota Access Pipeline”, New York Times, accessed August 22, 2024. As civil society organisations have previously accused a number of fossil fuel producers of bringing SLAPP suits,69See for example: Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, “Italy: Months after NGOs bring first climate lawsuit in Italy, ENI responds with a SLAPP lawsuit”, May 9, 2023; Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe, “Shell lawsuit against Greenpeace: A blatant attempt to stifle environmental activism”, May 17, 2024; “Breaking: Major victory for freedom of speech in TotalEnergies case against Greenpeace France”, March 28, 2024. this may become a significant area of litigation against those companies.

Climate litigation is extending its impact beyond the courtroom. These cases increasingly shape public perception of fossil fuel companies and help publicise climate science. 

Litigation against fossil fuel companies to keep growing

The significant upward trend in new cases being filed against fossil fuel companies appears likely to continue. If legal precedents are set in any successful cases against these companies, it is likely that more cases will seek to build on them. The cases can also set norms and impact companies’ social licence to operate and access to finance.

The negative impacts of climate change and extreme weather are set to increase as the world continues to warm. Given this trend, and the strength and number of climate science attribution studies, it is likely that the pressure through the courts for fossil fuel companies to contribute to those costs will continue to build.

Appendix One: Case categorisation methodology

The Columbia Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law’s Climate Change Litigation US and non-US databases are structured using different case categorisation. In order to allow comparisons to be made across the cases as a whole, a simplified case classification was produced, based on the groupings used in the two Sabin Center databases.

Table 1: Case categorisation

The new category for criminal cases against fossil fuel companies was added reflecting this as a novel development in litigation strategies, which were previously categorised in the Sabin Center database under “​​Suits against corporations,individuals>Corporations”.

The exceptions to this methodology are:

  • “Norwegian Climate Network et al vs Statoil” was categorised in the Sabin Center database under “Suits against corporations, individuals>Corporations>Disclosures”. In this analysis it is included in the “Environmental impacts & permitting” category as it sought Statoil (now Equinor) to withdraw from all oil sands production in Canada.70Norwegian Climate Network et al vs Statoil, Climate Case Chart, accessed August 27, 2024.
  • “Communications to Saudi Arabia, Japan, France, USA, and the UK, and 13 financial institutions concerning Saudi Aramco’s business activities in the fossil fuel sector” was categorised in the Sabin Center database under “Suits against corporations, individuals>Corporations>Financing and investment”. In this analysis it is included under “Emissions reduction” as its focus on Saudi Aramco is its failure to align with the Paris Agreement goals.71“Communications to Saudi Arabia, Japan, France, USA, and the UK, and 13 financial institutions concerning Saudi Aramco’s business activities in the fossil fuel sector,” Climate Case Chart, accessed August 27, 2024.
  • “Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. Total” was categorised in the Sabin Center database under “Suits against corporations, individuals>Corporations”. In this analysis it is included under “Emissions reduction” as its primary aim is for TotalEnergies to undertake action to ensure the company’s activities align with a trajectory compatible with the climate goals of the Paris Agreement.72“Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. Total,” accessed August 27, 2024.
  • “Hugues Falys, FIAN, Greenpeace, Ligue des droits humains v. TotalEnergies” was categorised in the Sabin Center database under “Suits against corporations, individuals>Corporations>Climate damage”. In this analysis it is included under “Emissions reduction”, as the request for TotalEnergies to reduce its future emissions is a substantial part of the case, alongside the request for damages.73International Federation for Human Rights, “TotalEnergies sued over its responsibility for climate change in Belgium’s first-ever climate action against a multinational company”, March 13, 2024.
  • “Luciano Lliuya v. RWE AG” was categorised in the Sabin Center database under “Suits against corporations, individuals>Corporations>GHG emissions reduction”. In this analysis it is included under “Climate damages” as the case sought financial compensation from RWE and did not request that the company reduce its emissions in future.74“Luciano Lliuya v. RWE AG,” Climate Change Litigation (blog), accessed July 12, 2024.

It is important to note that each case is complex and may have features that would fall within multiple categories, however for the purpose of this analysis each case has only been allocated to one category.

Appendix Two: Database of cases against fossil fuel companies

Unnatural disasters: The connection between extreme weather and fossil fuels

by Leave a Comment

Key points:

  • Rising temperatures have increased the likelihood and intensity of extreme weather events, and individual extreme weather events can now be directly attributed to the effects of climate change.
  • Fossil fuels are responsible for around 70% of carbon dioxide emissions that lead to climate change since the industrial revolution, with the rest resulting from farming and deforestation. One third of fossil fuel emissions since 1965 have been caused by the output of just 20 fossil fuel firms.
  • Fossil fuel companies have known about their impact on climate change for decades while proactively working to oppose climate action.
  • Litigation is increasingly being used to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their impacts on the basis of climate science connecting extreme weather events to their emissions, and claims they misled the public in denying responsibility for climate change.
  • Profits of fossil fuel firms over a 30-year period stand at more than USD 21 trillion – are more than a quarter larger than the damages related to climate change they are estimated to be responsible for, calculated at USD 15 trillion.
  • Reducing supply and demand of fossil fuels is necessary to limit global temperature rise and its impact on extreme weather events. Most of the technologies needed are available and already cheaper or close to it.
  • Progress in decarbonising energy systems and transportation show it is possible to phase out fossil fuels.

Explaining extreme weather

Rising global temperatures impact the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events outside the boundaries of natural variability. While not the sole cause of the intensification of extreme weather, recent events such as heatwaves, droughts and floods would not have happened at the same frequency and intensity without the fossil fuel-driven influence on climate change.

More than 500 attribution studies have linked individual extreme weather events to climate change. Attribution science compares models of a world with and without increased greenhouse gas emissions using observed climate data to assess the extent to which climate change impacts extreme weather.

These studies have confirmed that heatwaves are now stronger and more likely due to human-caused climate change. Studies have also shown that climate change has driven the occurrence of compound events, including simultaneous heatwaves and floods, which have been particularly damaging to people and crops in affected regions.

With nearly 20 years of attribution studies to refer to, and evidence on the physical science behind climate change, it is now possible to link many extreme weather events to climate change without undertaking a dedicated study on a specific event (Table 1).

A larger proportion of attribution is certain in the Global North due to limited data in the Global South, where climate impacts are felt more severely. Researchers warn this may lead to underestimating the role of climate change in data-poor regions.

Table 1: Attributing climate change impact on extreme weather event based on body of research
Fossil fuels are responsible for bulk of global warming

Climate change is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases which absorb energy, slow heat loss to space and act as a blanket trapping heat in the atmosphere. Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions get released into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), deforestation and farming.

Fossil fuels account for around 69% of global carbon dioxide emissions since the industrial revolution. Of this, 80% is the output of the Carbon Majors.1 Carbon Majors is the name applied to 122 large oil, gas, coal and cement firms whose production data has been tracked from the start of the industrial revolution in 1854.

Fig 1: Total carbon dioxide emissions by source, 1850-2021 (% total)

In 2018, researchers reported that just 20 fossil fuel companies were responsible for over a third of global carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane emissions – 480 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent – since 1965, when it is documented that the environmental impacts of fuels were known to industry leaders.

Without significant efforts to stop burning fossil fuels, we risk exceeding the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees celsius, which will increase the prospect of earth systems reaching a climate tipping point, catalysing large and often irreversible changes to the climate. The United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) 2023 production gap report found that more than double the amount of fossil fuel production is planned in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees celsius.

Living with the impacts of climate change: Who foots the bill?

The impacts of an increasingly warming world and the extreme weather events that come with it are experienced globally, but are particularly onerous for low-income countries. Research has found that “global warming has very likely exacerbated global economic inequality”. GDP per capita in tropical countries has fallen by a quarter since the 1960s relative to a world without climate change. Globally, a 1 degrees celsius increase in temperature could lead to a 12% decline in GDP.

The polluter pays principle is a widely accepted practice of placing the responsibility of negative externalities2 A negative externality is when one party incurs the costs of a negative effect resulting from actions taken by another. In the last 20 years, moves have been taken to impose the costs of externalities on the producer onto emitters, that is the fossil fuel companies whose products emit greenhouse gas. The principle can be applied through different approaches. One approach is a “carbon price”, which is leveraged through policy instruments such as a carbon tax or emissions trading system. Other approaches can include windfall taxes on excessive profits and legally mandated payments to cover loss and damage costs.

Based on the social cost of carbon (using an estimate of USD 185 per tonne), climate science and policy think tank Climate Analytics finds that the “dirtiest dozen” Carbon Majors are responsible for around USD 15 trillion in economic damages for production between 1985 to 2018, a period in which they earned USD 21 trillion in profits.3 The methodology conservatively estimates that producers are responsible for one third of damages caused by fossil fuels’ greenhouse gas emissions.

The profits of fossil fuel companies are such that earnings in 2022 of seven of the largest carbon majors – including Aramco, ExxonMobil and Shell – were almost twice the calculated damages for that year, at USD 497 billion against USD 260 billion. And earnings continue to grow. In the aftermath of the 2022 gas crisis, Saudi Aramco’s CEO claimed the company had “probably the highest net income ever recorded in the corporate world”, with operational cash flow of USD 186 billion.

Table 2: Estimated climate damages linked to emissions from the 12 highest-emitting (MtCO2e) fossil fuel companies and their respective financial gains (2020 USD trillions), 1985-2018

Legal routes to hold fossil fuel companies accountable

While research continues linking the emissions of the fossil fuel industry to estimates of monetary climate damages, the approach of holding the industry accountable is being put into practice through legal routes. More and more legal connections are being made between extreme weather and the fossil fuel industry, litigating and legislating to demand payments for loss and damage.

Legislating polluter pays

In May 2024 the US state of Vermont, hit by extensive flooding in 2023, passed 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 could collect money from companies that emitted more than 1 billion tons of CO2 around the world from 1995 to 2024.

Those companies with a certain threshold of business activity in Vermont would be charged according to their percentage of global emissions, with the funds to be used to rebuild and upgrade infrastructure such as stormwater drainage systems, roads and bridges. Other states reportedly considering a similar approach include Massachusetts, Maryland and New York.

Litigating loss and damage

According to the LSE Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, liability for damages sustained in extreme weather events based on the polluter pays principle is an area of growing climate litigation. It cites the ongoing case Municipalities of Puerto Rico v. Exxon Mobil Corp, which makes “extensive arguments about the ‘compounded losses’ sustained by Puerto Rican communities as a result of Hurricane María in 2017 and Hurricane Fiona in 2022” to argue that fossil fuel companies are liable for losses incurred during these storms as well as ongoing economic impacts.

In May 2022, after a seven-year investigation into whether 47 of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies in the world had violated the human rights of Filipinos, the Philippines Commission on Human Rights found that climate change is a human rights issue and that the world’s largest fossil fuel companies knew about the impacts of climate change and attempted to obstruct efforts to address climate change.

A case filed in 2015 by a Peruvian farmer against RWE, one of Germany’s largest electricity producers which has used coal-burning power stations, alleges the power company is liable for climate damages in Peru caused by a melting glacier. The case appears to be nearing conclusion, though no verdict has been issued as of mid-2024.

Alongside this there are over 20 lawsuits from states and municipalities in the United States seeking damages for extreme weather events from large oil companies for allegedly concealing their own scientific knowledge about climate change and thus deceiving the public about the danger of global warming caused by their products.

There is momentum building in this area. In June 2024 California’s attorney general announced it was seeking damages from large oil companies under a new state law that allows the administration to claim profits earned by companies that violated unfair competition and false advertising laws.

And in the same month, the Supreme Court asked the US solicitor general for its opinion on whether a legal case from Hawaii suing the oil industry for deceptive advertising can be heard under federal or state law. In 2023 the Hawaii state supreme court ruled the case could go to trial under state law, but this was appealed by the oil industry, including companies such as ExxonMobil and Chevron. The final decision on where to try the case could lead to the other 20+ lawsuits going to trial.

Fossil fuel industry awareness of climate change and opposition to action

There is a growing body of evidence that the fossil fuel industry knew decades ago that the burning of fossil fuels was a driver of climate change. Newly released documents indicate the oil industry funded climate change research as early as 1954. Shell’s scientists internally warned about the dangers of climate change in the 1980s, according to media reports.

Peer reviewed academic research has found that Exxon knew about climate change in the 1970s but continued to make public statements regarding climate science that were in direct contradiction to its own scientific data, which closely matched global warming forecasts of independent academic and government models. Other studies find that Total also knew about climate change in the 1970s but engaged in denial of climate science in the 1980s and 1990s.

Despite its early knowledge about climate change, the fossil fuel industry has used a range of strategies to oppose government-led efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for decades. One of the most well known was to fund and promote the denial of climate change as an urgent threat that needs addressing.

Trade associations in particular have lobbied to undermine the conditions that would have enabled rival green technologies to flourish. In the United States and Europe new evidence shows oil and gas industry trade associations have lobbied since the 1960s to delay the uptake of solar and wind energy, and electric vehicles. In Asia the fossil fuel industry has pressured the Japanese government to prioritise fossil fuel technologies such as coal, LNG and ammonia co-firing. In the US the oil industry is suing the federal government for emission standards that seek to advance the adoption of clean technologies.

Research by the US Senate into the scale of this agenda culminated in a May 2024 hearing to discuss the oil and gas industry’s “Campaign of Climate Denial, Disinformation, and Doublespeak”. Based on internal documents from industry firms, the staff report found that:

  • Historically fossil fuel companies “understood since at least the 1960s that burning fossil fuels causes climate change and then worked for decades to undermine public understanding of this fact and to deny the underlying science”.
  • There has been a shift in emphasis as “the industry’s outright denial of climate change has evolved into a green-seeming cover for its ongoing covert operation – a campaign of deception, disinformation, and doublespeak waged using dark money, phony front groups, false economics, and relentless exertion of political influence – to block climate progress”.
  • For example, the industry has put resources into portraying natural gas as a clean green fuel “while internally acknowledging that there is significant scientific evidence that the lifecycle emissions from natural gas are as harmful to the climate as coal and are incompatible with scientific emissions reduction targets”.
  • One tactic has been to “privately lobby – either directly or through their trade associations – against pro-climate legislation and regulations that they publicly claimed to support”.

Fossil fuels must be phased out to slow temperature rises

The world’s preeminent authority on climate change science – the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – has stated clearly that global greenhouse gas emissions need to peak before 2025 and be reduced by 43% by 2030. Fossil fuel companies are moving slowly or obstructing climate action. Government policies to reduce supply and demand of fossil fuels would be required to achieve this reduction.

Reducing supply of fossil fuels

The contribution of fossil fuels to global warming was finally recognised by all countries at COP28 where nations agreed to “Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science”.

Action needs to be taken on fossil fuel supply to stay inside the 1.5°C carbon budget threshold. To achieve this, almost 40% of already developed reserves of oil, gas and coal needs to stay in the ground and new fields should not be opened. Looking ahead, the International Institute for Sustainable Development finds that by 2030 oil production needs to fall by 15% and gas production by 30% (compared to 2020 levels) to stay within the 1.5°C budget, based on the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE) scenario.

Fig 2: Oil and gas production from new and existing fields vs a 1.5°C aligned pathway

Some countries are already leading the way in this area. Colombia has stopped approving new exploration licences for oil, gas and coal since 2023. In Europe, France, Ireland, Spain and Denmark have banned the exploration and extraction of fossil fuels. These countries, alongside sub-national administrations such as the Canadian province of Quebec and the US state of Washington, have joined together to create the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance, which advocates for more countries to follow their lead in reducing production towards a just, equitable and managed phase out. Another approach being championed by a number of national governments, cities and civil society leaders is the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Reducing demand for fossil fuels

Alongside supply measures, demand for fossil fuels must be curtailed and replaced with other technologies. The IEA Net Zero Roadmap recommends achieving the following milestones:

  • By 2025 no new sales of fossil fuel boilers
  • By 2030 increasing renewables capacity threefold, all new buildings are zero-carbon ready and 60% of global car sales are electric
  • By 2035 no new internal combustion engine car sales and net zero emissions electricity in advanced economies

Along these lines, governments have acted to reduce future demand by announcing they will phase out the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles and water heaters. According to the IEA 20 countries have announced they will ban the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles. There are also a growing number of EU countries that have committed to phase out the sale of fossil fuel powered water heaters.

Governments are deepening policies to reduce demand for fossil fuels, including by accelerating the use of solar and wind energy for electricity generation through subsidies, enabling access to land, and research and development to increase efficiencies and lower costs. This has been a factor in the tumbling costs of solar panels, wind turbines and batteries that have helped make solar and wind energy some of the cheapest options for new electricity generation. Together these have contributed to the increasing share of renewable energy in electricity generation in a number of countries. In 2023 global renewable capacity additions reached almost 510 GW, which is the fastest growth rate in the last two decades.

In the European Union ever more ambitious directives on the binding renewable energy target (currently at 42.5% by 2030) are contributing to the rising use of renewable energy. This has increasingly displaced fossil fuels for electricity generation, resulting in a 24% reduction in emissions from power plants across the bloc in 2023.

Advances in reducing the use of fossil fuels can be seen in the generation mix across a number of high-consumption countries. The Energy Institute tracked generation across 21 countries that collectively account for 80% of global consumption and found that of the ten most decarbonised electricity systems, 40% generate less than a third of their power from fossil fuels. In Brazil, that figure falls to less than 10%. Germany, the Netherlands and Spain generate roughly a third of electricity from solar and wind power.

Fig 3: Top 10 decarbonised electricity systems among high-consumption countries

China in particular has vastly accelerated its use of renewable energy, although the significant size of China’s energy use means that it still relies heavily on fossil fuels. Between 2014 and 2023 China’s solar capacity increased from 28 GW to close to 610 GW and wind energy from 96 GW to 4,441 GW. To give an idea of the scale of this shift, in 2023 China commissioned the same amount of solar PV as the rest of the world did in 2022. This meant that by 2023 China accounted for 14% of installed solar PV capacity globally.

In the area of transportation, policies such as subsidies in China and stricter auto emissions standards and tax credits in the US through the Inflation Reduction Act (which also apply to clean energy and buildings), promote the use of electric vehicles (EVs) to reduce oil demand. This has led to a jump in the number of EVs from around 300,000 in 2013 to just over 28 million in 2023. Globally, the sales of EVs displaced around 0.9 million barrels per day (Mb/d) of oil in 2023, when total oil demand grew by 2.1 Mb/d.

Fig 4: Global electric vehicle sales by region, 2013-2023

Looking ahead, another area of focus are the reforms needed to reduce the size of global fossil fuel subsidies, which amounted to over USD 1.5 trillion in 2022, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

Reducing the scale of worsening extreme weather events

The impacts of climate change are set to worsen as global temperatures rise. Extreme weather events are likely to continue to get more frequent and more severe as a result. Climate science is clear that fossil fuels, and the emissions from the largest fossil fuel companies, are responsible for these changes. Only reducing the supply and use of fossil fuels can limit the rise in global temperatures and the extent to which these impacts worsen.

  • 1
    Carbon Majors is the name applied to 122 large oil, gas, coal and cement firms whose production data has been tracked from the start of the industrial revolution in 1854.
  • 2
    A negative externality is when one party incurs the costs of a negative effect resulting from actions taken by another. In the last 20 years, moves have been taken to impose the costs of externalities on the producer
  • 3
    The methodology conservatively estimates that producers are responsible for one third of damages caused by fossil fuels’ greenhouse gas emissions.

Australia, a global climate outlier?

by Leave a Comment

Key points:

  • Australia’s environmental laws currently fall short in addressing climate change. The country does not have a climate trigger mechanism, despite having one of the highest rates of biodiversity loss in the world.
  • There is a growing number of countries, including the US, UK and New Zealand, that include climate change and emissions considerations in their environmental frameworks.
  • The Australian government’s stance on fossil fuels stands in contrast to warnings from international scientific bodies regarding the urgency of addressing climate change.
  • Australia could be responsible for up to 17% of global carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 if planned expansion of fossil fuels goes ahead.
  • The introduction of a climate trigger presents a chance for the country to align itself with global efforts in tackling GHG emissions from fossil fuel projects and reverse alarming environmental trends.

What is a climate trigger?

A climate trigger means governments have to consider the emissions and climate change impact of a project when assessing whether it should go ahead. Several countries and economies, including the US, UK, European Union, New Zealand and Canada, include assessments of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other climate change considerations in their environmental regulatory frameworks. However, Australia currently has no explicit mechanism to account for climate change and the impacts of fossil fuel projects in its national environmental laws.

Australia’s environmental backbone

Australia has a dual approach to environmental governance, with individual states and territories having their own environmental laws and regulation, alongside national law governed primarily by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act). While state and territory laws address environmental concerns within their jurisdictions, the EPBC Act serves as a comprehensive framework that complements and coordinates these efforts.

The EPBC Act designates nine key areas as matters of national environmental significance, or triggers, including specific regions, species and ecosystems that hold ecological value and require protection at the national level. If a project is deemed likely to have a significant impact on one of these areas, then a thorough impact assessment and environmental approval process is “triggered.”

The nine triggers identified under the EPBC Act are:
  1. World Heritage properties: These include the Great Barrier Reef and the Tasmanian Wilderness.
  2. National Heritage places: Sites recognised for their outstanding heritage value to the nation, such as iconic landmarks or culturally significant areas.
  3. Wetlands of international importance: Designated under the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty aimed at conserving key wetland ecosystems and their biodiversity.
  4. Listed threatened species and ecological communities: Endangered species and ecosystems that are at risk of extinction or significant decline.
  5. Listed migratory species: Migratory birds and marine species that require protection during seasonal movements across national and international borders.
  6. Commonwealth marine areas: The marine environment within Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone, such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
  7. Nuclear actions: Activities related to uranium mining, nuclear power plants, and other nuclear-related actions.
  8. Water resources: The impacts of coal seam gas and large-scale coal mining on water quality and availability.
  9. The Great Barrier Reef: Activities that may impact water quality, coastal development and shipping activities
Criticism of current laws

The lack of a climate trigger has prompted concerns in Australia over the effectiveness of the EPBC Act, in which “climate change” appears just once, as well as the country’s commitment to the 2015 Paris Agreement. Advocates of a climate trigger argue that its omission results in insufficient scrutiny of activities. Projects with substantial climate impacts are allowed to proceed without undergoing the same rigorous assessments as those falling under other triggers, leading to potential habitat degradation and exposing ecosystems to climate-related risks.

Importance of climate trigger for Australia

Increasingly high temperatures, wildfires and other climate impacts have significantly disrupted numerous ecosystems and species in Australia. The country has one of the highest extinction rates of plant and animal species in the world. Since 1999, 84% of threatened species have experienced habitat loss. In the last seven years, Australia witnessed a series of marine heatwaves that lead to four mass coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef, causing a 50% decline in the coral population. Climate change has the potential to exacerbate these losses by fivefold.

Climate triggers globally

Globally, there is a growing trend of countries incorporating climate change considerations into their national environmental frameworks, and the assessment of projects with large amounts of GHG by independent bodies has become standard practice. Examples include the EU, the UK, the US, Canada and New Zealand.

While the environmental frameworks of these countries differ in scope, enforceability and effectiveness, they all prioritise human well-being. The frameworks of the UK, US, and Canada do not explicitly mandate GHG assessments, but GHG considerations are indirectly addressed through other legal mechanisms. Climate change considerations, while not always explicitly mentioned, are increasingly woven into these frameworks, reflecting a global imperative to address climate-related challenges.

Table 1: Comparative analysis of environmental legislation

The countries chosen for analysis — the UK, EU, US, Canada and New Zealand — were selected based on several criteria to enable meaningful comparisons. New Zealand’s proximity to Australia provides regional relevance. The EU and UK dominate global climate discussions, while similarities in political systems led to the inclusion of Canada and the US.

Comparative-analysis-of-environmental-legislationDownload

Australia’s climate trigger proposal

The debate over whether to adopt a climate trigger mechanism in Australia has been ongoing for decades, and several proposals, including a bill submitted by then Shadow Minister for Environment and Heritage Anthony Albanese, failed to win enough support. This was due to concerns that such a trigger would harm jobs, economic development and investment, or clash with existing environmental legislation.

In 2020, a review of the EPBC Act found that it had failed to adequately protect Australia’s vulnerable flora, fauna and ecological communities. The Australian government has committed to revising the Act, and in December 2022 a series of reforms were proposed by the government to be adopted in late 2023. However, climate change considerations were still not addressed.

The Australian Greens plan to submit a proposal for a climate trigger, in order to position the country on par with international trends. Building on an unsuccessful 2020 proposal, the new bill is expected to cover the following:

  • Ministerial authority on carbon dioxide emissions: the bill would grant the climate minister the authority to factor in GHG emissions when making project-related decisions. These powers are categorised into two thresholds:
  • Significant Impact on Emissions: Projects emitting 25,000 to 100,000 tonnes of GHG emissions annually must be evaluated by the ministry, ensuring alignment with the national carbon budget and emission reduction targets.
  • Prohibited Impact on Emissions: Projects emitting over 100,000 tonnes will automatically be denied approval.
  • Introduction of national carbon budget and enhanced roles for the Climate Change Authority (CCA): The CCA is an Australian government agency responsible for providing independent advice on climate change policy. If passed, the bill will mandate the CCA to develop a national carbon budget spanning from 2023 to 2049 in terms of total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. The CCA must conduct annual evaluations of the remaining budget, while the minister is responsible for evaluating projects, considering the ongoing assessments of the budget.
How does Australia’s climate trigger compare globally?

While most laws discussed in Table 1 are undergoing revisions to better address the challenges posed by climate change, parallels can be drawn between some of them and Australia’s Climate Trigger proposal. Under the Climate Change Act 2008, the UK became the world’s first country to establish legally binding carbon budgets. The measure closely resembles what the Climate Trigger bill aims to introduce in Australia — a national carbon budget, accompanied by annual evaluation of new projects. In Canada, the environment minister was also given authority to require assessments for certain projects if they could have adverse climate impacts. These parallels underscore how Australia’s bill aligns with international efforts to address climate change and responsibly manage emissions, something that is argued to be lacking in the current EPBC Act.

However, what sets the Australian Greens’ bill apart from other laws is its commitment to explicit emissions thresholds. Among the countries examined, none of them automatically ban projects that exceed specific emissions limits. While this doesn’t prevent new fossil fuel projects being approved that emit more than initially estimated, it does pave the way for regulating these emissions.

Next steps for Australia’s climate trigger mechanism

The bill is currently under consideration by an environmental committee in the Australian Senate and a final ruling is expected in December 2023. A majority of lawmakers in parliament now recognize the need for government intervention in addressing climate change, and the crossbench offers strong support for a climate trigger.1The crossbench is where independent and minor party members sit in Australia’s parliament.

However, there has been a significant shift in the stance of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Labor party since 2005. The current Labor government has ruled out a ban on new fossil fuel developments as long as investors perceive demand for coal and gas. It argues that introducing flexible measures, such as carbon offsets, would allow fossil fuel projects to proceed while still enabling the country to achieve its 43% emissions reduction target for 2030. The government’s position diverges from the warnings of organisations such as the United Nations, and leading climate science bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency.

Australia is the world’s third-largest exporter of fossil fuels behind Russia and Saudi Arabia, accounting for about 7%. In 2022, Australia had twice the electricity use per capita of China, and 47% of its electricity was generated by coal-fired power plants — more than four times the global average. Since 2014, the expansion of LNG production in Australia has grown by 360%, leading to a significant increase in national emissions levels. By 2030, Australia could potentially be responsible for up to 17% of global emissions, up from about 5% currently, if government and industry projections for fossil fuel expansion go ahead.

The Climate Trigger bill offers Australia the opportunity to take accountability for its emissions and the global harm caused by fossil fuels extracted within the country. If passed, it may help to reverse concerning environmental and biodiversity trends.2Assumes that the rest of the world adopts policies in line with the Paris Agreement.

  • 1
    The crossbench is where independent and minor party members sit in Australia’s parliament.
  • 2
    Assumes that the rest of the world adopts policies in line with the Paris Agreement.

Follow Us