Lawsuits concerning the impacts of climate change make causal claims about the effect of defendants' greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on plaintiffs and have proliferated around the world. Plaintiffs have sought, inter alia, compensation for climate-related losses and to compel governments to reduce their GHG emissions.To date, most of these claims have been unsuccessful. Here, we assess the scientific and legal bases for establishing causation and evaluate judicial treatment of scientific evidence in 73 lawsuits. We find that the evidence submitted and referenced in these cases lags considerably behind the state-of-the-art in climate science, impeding causation claims. We conclude that greater appreciation and exploitation of existing methodologies in attribution science could address obstacles to causation and improve the prospects of litigation as a route to compensation for losses, regulatory action, and emission reductions by defendants seeking to limit legal liability.
Main textPlaintiffs have brought over 1,500 climate-related lawsuits worldwide, and the number of claims filed continues to increase 1 . Without effective non-judicial mechanisms providing compensation for climate-related loss and damage, plaintiffs have filed lawsuits seeking financial remedies from high-emitting corporations for losses suffered due to climate change 2 . Robust scientific evidence is critical to the success of such claims 3-5 . For example, claims for compensatory damages must demonstrate a causal link between the defendant's behaviour and the plaintiff's injury. Recognising this, recent literature has drawn on analogous categories of case, such as toxic torts, in which modified causation tests reconcile legal causal analysis with scientific evidence that demonstrates multiple entities' contribution to the risk of harm 5 . However, despite developments in scientific 6 and legal theory 5 on causation and attribution of climate change damages, compensatory-damages claims have been unsuccessful. Other lawsuits challenge inadequate state and corporate climate change mitigation targets and policies 7 . To establish admissibility, these claims may also rely on courts finding that emissions resulting from defendants' policies led to impacts affecting the plaintiffs.A claim must first meet procedural requirements that render it admissible, including 'standing', which establishes that plaintiffs have legally protected interests that entitle them to bring the claim. Demonstrating a connection between defendants' actions and plaintiffs' injuries may contribute to meeting the standing requirement. To date, admissibility has been the primary outcome-determinative obstacle for climate