Lawsuits are a method used by numerous groups to try to protect the climate and environment, from suing governments to accusing companies of misleading marketing. We spoke with Hannah Wiseman, an IEE faculty member and professor of law at Penn State Law, about these lawsuits and their impact on the environment and climate.
Question List
-
Who are the typical plaintiffs in these lawsuits? Individuals, communities, or environmental groups?
-
Who are the most common defendants in these lawsuits? Fossil fuel companies, governments, or both?
Can you walk us through the current landscape of climate change/environmental lawsuits? What are the major trends you're seeing?
Over the past two decades or so, lawsuits have become a powerful tool for pushing action on climate change. Legal battles target governments that fail to adequately regulate polluters or support polluters through subsidies and research and development. They also target industries that produce fossil fuels or use these fuels and release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The scope of these lawsuits has broadened beyond simply demanding emissions reductions. Environmental groups are increasingly taking aim at entire infrastructure projects, like pipelines, for their wider environmental impact, particularly their contribution to climate change. By successfully blocking a pipeline, for example, these groups, in part, hope to restrict access to new sources of fossil fuels, potentially leading to a decrease in emissions even if they aren't directly targeting polluters themselves.
These legal challenges leverage existing environmental laws with substantive limits on pollution, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to argue that project reviews haven't adequately considered the potential climate impacts. While these lawsuits might not directly result in immediate cuts to emissions, they play a significant role in pressuring governments and industries to take climate change more seriously. This ongoing wave of litigation is shaping the conversation and could influence future actions in the fight against climate change.
Do you think these lawsuits are significantly impacting corporate behavior or government policy regarding climate change?
Climate change lawsuits are a growing strategy, but their effectiveness varies. Lawsuits targeting specific projects, like pipelines, have shown promise from the perspective of those looking to curb fossil fuel production and use. By blocking or delaying construction, they limit access to new fossil fuels, potentially leading to emission reductions.
Natural gas pipeline lawsuits highlight the complexity of the issue. Natural gas burns cleaner than coal, offering some short-term climate benefits. However, it's still a fossil fuel with its own climate impacts. Blocking pipelines could force continued reliance on even dirtier fuels like coal, potentially negating any climate gains. There's debate around natural gas. Some argue blocking pipelines simply delays the transition to renewables like solar or wind. Others worry that continued investment in natural gas infrastructure could lock us into fossil fuels for the long term.
The approach of targeting fossil fuel-adjacent infrastructure seems more impactful than broader lawsuits aimed at forcing companies to cut emissions or pushing governments for stricter regulations. These broader lawsuits often face challenges because they attempt to apply existing laws to a new issue. Courts may be hesitant to reinterpret existing legal frameworks in such a way.
The legal landscape is constantly evolving, however. Interestingly, some of the same environmental laws once used to challenge fossil fuel projects are now being used by environmental groups to fight renewable energy projects. This highlights the complexities involved in balancing climate goals with other environmental considerations, such as the impacts of all types of energy infrastructure on wildlife habitat. Overall, climate change lawsuits are a work in progress, but they are undoubtedly influencing the conversation and shaping future actions to curb climate change.
Are there specific industries or types of emissions that are most frequently targeted in these lawsuits? Why or why not?
Early climate change lawsuits tended to target the biggest polluters: major oil and gas companies like Exxon and BP, along with power plant giants like American Electric Power. This focus made sense - these industries were responsible for the largest share of US emissions. Transportation, primarily gasoline-powered vehicles, remains the biggest emitter of US greenhouses gases, and the oil companies that produce oil refine it into gasoline were a logical target. Power plants are the second-largest emitter, further solidifying the initial focus.
However, lawsuits have broadened their scope in recent years. Beyond the top polluters, there's a growing focus on companies making misleading claims about their environmental impact. Lawsuits now target smaller emitters, often through class actions, to stop them from greenwashing their products with claims of sustainability or net-zero emissions that may not be true. This trend has expanded the pool of defendants to include a much wider range of companies. Additionally, government agencies responsible for environmental regulations are frequently sued by groups seeking stricter regulations or aiming to block specific projects they believe are harmful to the environment.
What are the different legal arguments being used in these lawsuits? For example, public nuisance, negligence, or human rights violations?
Climate change lawsuits can be pursued under three main legal categories. The first is statutory claims, which argue that a government agency isn't following existing laws related to the environment. For instance, a lawsuit might claim an agency isn't fulfilling its legal obligation to regulate emissions.
The second category is constitutional claims. These typically involve suing a government entity for violating people's constitutional rights by failing to address climate change. These claims can be complex, and courts may be hesitant to find constitutional violations in such cases.
The third category is common law claims, which are legal principles developed by the courts themselves. Public nuisance claims, a type of common law claim, allege that a private entity, like an oil company, is interfering with a basic right, such as the right to clean air. These lawsuits argue that the company's actions are harming the environment and public health.
Another type of common law claim gaining traction is deceptive marketing or product misinformation. These lawsuits allege that companies, like oil and gas companies, knew about the climate harms of their products but deceived consumers by failing to disclose this information. Some lawsuits even go beyond failure to warn and allege active deception, claiming companies actively covered up the dangers of their products. These "consumer misinformation" claims are still making their way through the courts, facing procedural challenges about which courts have jurisdiction and which claims can proceed.
Who are the typical plaintiffs in these lawsuits? Individuals, communities, or environmental groups?
The fight against climate change through lawsuits involves a surprisingly diverse group of plaintiffs. Leading the charge are states and local governments, particularly coastal regions most vulnerable to climate impacts. These entities have sued federal governmental actors, urging more aggressive action on climate change.
Citizen and environmental groups are also well-represented among plaintiffs. Nonprofits, shareholders, and even companies are increasingly joining the fight. Some companies are suing other corporations, arguing a failure to disclose climate-related risks under Securities and Exchange Commission regulations.
Lawsuits are also being filed on behalf of large groups of individuals through class actions. These lawsuits often target product misinformation and deception, particularly "greenwashing" claims. For example, a class action suit might challenge an airline's claim of having net-zero carbon emissions.
Another notable group of plaintiffs gaining traction is children. Several high-profile cases involve children suing governments and corporations, arguing that their future is being jeopardized by inaction on climate change.
Who are the most common defendants in these lawsuits? Fossil fuel companies, governments, or both?
The landscape of defendants in climate change lawsuits has shifted over time. Initially, federal agencies were frequent targets. However, key court decisions have made it harder for plaintiffs to win such cases.
State agencies are now a common target. These lawsuits often focus on how state agencies approve oil and gas projects, regulate emissions, or take other actions that impact the environment. Additionally, some municipalities are being sued for not aggressively pursuing their existing climate action plans.
The reach of climate change lawsuits extends far beyond traditional polluters. While fossil fuel companies and power plants remain defendants, a wider range of industries are now in the crosshairs. This is especially true for companies making claims about the environmental impact of their products.
As introduced above, some lawsuits indirectly target climate change by challenging infrastructure projects. Pipeline companies, for example, might be sued not for their direct emissions, but because the pipelines would enable access to new sources of fossil fuels.
How is the legal system responding to these lawsuits? Are judges and lawyers eager to be a part of these?
Climate change lawsuits in the US face a complex legal landscape. Judges have generally been hesitant to apply updated interpretations of existing laws and constitutional rights to accommodate these claims. There's a sense of skepticism toward how plaintiffs try to fit climate concerns within established legal frameworks.
This skepticism is evident in several ways. One example is Juliana v. United States, where children sued federal agencies for promoting fossil fuels. The case raised questions about potential climate rights enshrined in the Constitution, but the court dismissed it on procedural grounds before delving into that issue. Similarly, courts have been reluctant to recognize tort claims, like nuisance suits, arguing that existing statutes, even if currently inadequate, are the appropriate path forward. Judges often view climate change as a problem best addressed by legislation and regulation, not through broad interpretations of existing laws and rights.
There have been exceptions. For example, Montana's Supreme Court, in a landmark 2024 case, mandated state agencies to consider climate impacts. With respect to lawyers’ interest in climate lawsuits, lawyers naturally gravitate toward issues with financial potential. Strategic moves by environmental groups involve exploring areas like tort liability (claims of wrongdoing) to attract more legal representation. A potential class-action lawsuit against a large company for misleading net-zero claims could be financially lucrative for lawyers. While public interest lawyers have always been involved in climate litigation, the expanding scope of lawsuits could attract a wider range of legal professionals not traditionally associated with environmental law.
What kinds of outcomes are these lawsuits achieving? Are there any landmark cases that have set precedents?
The 2007 Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA is arguably the most significant climate lawsuit in US history. Several states, local governments, and nonprofits sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. They argued that the Clean Air Act, which requires the EPA to regulate pollutants that could endanger human health, applied to greenhouse gases from vehicles.
The Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs in a landmark decision. While it didn't mandate regulations, it did clarify that the Clean Air Act covered greenhouse gases. This was a major win for groups concerned about climate change, as it established carbon dioxide as an air pollutant under the Act.
However, the Massachusetts v. EPA decision had unintended consequences. The Court, in a later decision in another case, ruled that the Clean Air Act displaced federal common law claims related to climate change. This means plaintiffs can't use federal court-made legal principles (common law) to address climate issues if there's already a federal statute (Clean Air Act) addressing them, even if the statute doesn't provide a complete solution.
This approach to statutory displacement of common law claims has directly hampered other types of climate lawsuits. For instance, lawsuits against power plants for public nuisance and a lawsuit by an Alaskan tribe against fossil fuel companies for relocation costs due to rising sea levels were both dismissed because the Clean Air Act was deemed the appropriate legal avenue.
In conclusion, Massachusetts v. EPA, while a victory for establishing the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, also limited the options for federal climate lawsuits outside the framework of the Clean Air Act. This leaves environmental groups with a complex legal landscape to navigate in their efforts to curb climate change.
In your opinion, what role can lawsuits play in addressing the issue of climate change? Are there any limitations to this approach?
Climate change lawsuits, while not directly leading to major emissions reductions yet, are playing a crucial role in pressuring industry and government to take action. These lawsuits create a landscape of expectation for climate action, with potential consequences for inaction. Even though some argue the financial burden of lawsuits is minimal for large corporations, the sheer volume and variety of lawsuits make them more than a nuisance.
Beyond pressuring action, these lawsuits are changing the conversation. Industries are increasingly factoring in a low-carbon future, even if not fully embracing it. Additionally, the publicity surrounding these lawsuits raises public awareness of the issue, potentially leading to increased pressure through consumer choices and other non-legal avenues. While the legal battles themselves may not be revolutionary yet, they are shaping the overall approach to climate change.
Hannah Wiseman is a professor of law at Penn State Law and a professor and Wilson Faculty Fellow in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. She teaches and writes in the areas of energy law, oil and gas law, land use regulation, environmental law, and administrative law. Her work focuses on the mechanics and design of regulation and governance in these areas, including the challenges of determining appropriate governance levels, fostering effective experimentation, and addressing expansions in the scale of regulated activities.
