Climate Litigation Celebrates a Decade of Legal Victories for Environmental Protection

This year marks the 10th anniversary of both the Paris agreement and the groundbreaking Urgenda case, when the Netherlands became the first state ordered to accelerate carbon emissions cuts to protect its citizens from climate change. The Urgenda ruling, upheld by the Dutch supreme court in 2019, sparked a global wave of climate litigation that has fundamentally reshaped the legal landscape for environmental protection.

The past year has witnessed a remarkable series of judicial decisions and tangible policy changes driven by climate-focused legal action around the world.

In early 2024, a Scottish court delivered a significant blow to fossil fuel expansion when it ruled that UK government approvals for the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North Sea were illegal. The court determined that the approvals failed to account for greenhouse gas emissions that would result from burning the extracted fuels.

This ruling built on a 2024 supreme court decision in a case brought by climate campaigner Sarah Finch, which also led to the withdrawal of plans for a new coalmine in Whitehaven, Cumbria. While the government published updated guidance in June on environmental assessments, it appears poised to potentially approve Rosebank again after Equinor submitted revised environmental documentation in October, prompting Greenpeace to promise further legal challenges.

In Brazil, civil society organizations successfully halted plans for what would have been the country’s largest coal plant. After years of opposition to the Nova Seival plant and Guaíba mine planned by coal company Copelmi in Rio Grande do Sul, activists argued the project violated Brazil’s climate obligations and had improper licensing procedures. Following a 2022 court decision that suspended licenses and mandated process revisions, Copelmi formally abandoned its plans in February 2024, citing project unfeasibility.

Even apparent legal setbacks have opened new pathways for climate justice. When a German court rejected Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya’s case against energy company RWE, seeking compensation for flood defense costs proportional to RWE’s global emissions contribution, it nonetheless established a precedent regarding polluter liability. This legal groundwork enabled Pakistani farmers to initiate claims against two of Germany’s highest-polluting companies for flood damages later in the year.

Corporate accountability for misleading environmental claims has intensified. In May, EnergyAustralia settled a landmark greenwashing lawsuit brought by the Parents for Climate group, acknowledging that carbon offsets don’t prevent or undo greenhouse gas emission damage. The company apologized to 400,000 customers who were part of its carbon neutrality scheme, marking Australia’s first successful case against a company for falsely marketing itself as carbon neutral.

International courts delivered historic opinions on climate obligations in July. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights affirmed a human right to a healthy climate, while the International Court of Justice declared countries must prevent harm to the climate system or potentially face compensation requirements. These rulings are already being cited in climate lawsuits globally, though their application in international climate negotiations has proven challenging.

In Australia, the New South Wales court of appeal annulled approval for the state’s largest coalmine expansion in July. The court found that MACH Energy’s Mount Pleasant Optimisation project failed to account for “scope 3” emissions—those released when exported coal is burned overseas—following a case filed by local environmental advocates.

Tech giant Apple faced regulatory scrutiny when a Frankfurt court ruled in August that the company could not market its Apple Watch as “carbon neutral.” The court sided with German environmental group Deutsche Umwelthilfe, finding Apple couldn’t demonstrate long-term carbon neutrality since its claim relied on funding eucalyptus groves in Paraguay with soon-expiring leases. Apple subsequently removed carbon-neutral marketing from its watches globally.

Hawaii delivered on its promise to cut transport emissions after settling a lawsuit brought by 13 young people who argued the state was violating their rights through climate-harming infrastructure. In October, Hawaii unveiled its energy security and waste reduction plan, including electric vehicle charger expansion, public transportation investments, and native reforestation initiatives to achieve zero emissions for ground, sea, and inter-island air transportation by 2045.

Kenyan environmental campaigners succeeded in blocking a coal power plant in Lamu after a decade-long legal battle. The environment and land court upheld a license revocation for the Amu Power project, citing flawed environmental assessment, inadequate public participation, and insufficient climate impact analysis.

Oil giant TotalEnergies faced a reckoning in France when a Paris court found the company had made false claims about its climate goals. Environmental groups successfully argued that TotalEnergies’ “reinvention” campaign violated European consumer law by suggesting it could achieve net zero emissions by 2050 while continuing fossil fuel production.

The meat industry has also come under legal pressure for environmental claims. JBS USA agreed to a $1.1 million settlement with New York state over misleading emissions reduction statements, with funds directed toward climate-smart agriculture programs. Similarly, Tyson Foods agreed to stop marketing its beef as “climate friendly” and abandoned claims about reaching net zero emissions by 2050.

In the UK, legal pressure forced the government to publish a revised carbon budget and growth delivery plan in October after its previous plan was ruled unlawful. The new document reaffirms commitments to decarbonize electricity supply by 2030 and drastically reduce emissions by 2037, though campaigners are preparing another challenge at the European Court of Human Rights.

Norway’s fossil fuel industry faced a significant setback when a court declared licenses for three North Sea oilfields illegal in November. The Borgarting Court of Appeal ruled that approvals for the fields operated by Equinor and Aker BP failed to consider full climate impacts, though it allowed a six-month window for the Norwegian government to rectify the licensing issues rather than immediately halting production.

These cases collectively demonstrate the growing effectiveness of legal action as a tool for climate protection, forcing both governments and corporations to confront their environmental responsibilities with increasing rigor and transparency.