IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v13y2022i5p736-750.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Causality and the fate of climate litigation: The role of the social superstructure narrative

Author

Listed:
  • Friederike E. L. Otto
  • Petra Minnerop
  • Emmanuel Raju
  • Luke J. Harrington
  • Rupert F. Stuart‐Smith
  • Emily Boyd
  • Rachel James
  • Richard Jones
  • Kristian C. Lauta

Abstract

Climate litigation has become a strategic tool to push for climate justice, including compensation for losses caused by climate change. Many cases rely on the establishment of a causal relationship between the defendants' emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) and the plaintiffs' losses. All decided cases seeking compensation for a concrete climate related impact have been unsuccessful (thus far). Legal scholars as well as social and natural scientists have looked at individual cases and evidence of these unsuccessful claims, aiming to identify legal and scientific hurdles. Based on previous research where we analysed specific cases, we step back from a case‐specific analysis in this article and identify the social context in which law and science operate and intersect. We assert that without a general understanding of the urgency of climate change and the scientifically proven fact that climate change impacts the present, and that it is possible to attribute individual losses to human‐caused climate change, the fate and future of climate litigation focusing on losses and damages will continue to encounter major obstacles in courts. This is despite the increasingly sophisticated strategies of litigants; the positive outcome of some strategic litigation and improvements in the field of climate science, all of which would be expected to sway for a successful future of the fight against climate change.

Suggested Citation

  • Friederike E. L. Otto & Petra Minnerop & Emmanuel Raju & Luke J. Harrington & Rupert F. Stuart‐Smith & Emily Boyd & Rachel James & Richard Jones & Kristian C. Lauta, 2022. "Causality and the fate of climate litigation: The role of the social superstructure narrative," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(5), pages 736-750, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:13:y:2022:i:5:p:736-750
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.13113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13113
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.13113?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elisabeth Eide & Risto Kunelius, 2021. "Voices of a generation the communicative power of youth activism," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-20, November.
    2. Myles Allen, 2003. "Liability for climate change," Nature, Nature, vol. 421(6926), pages 891-892, February.
    3. Tobias Pfrommer & Timo Goeschl & Alexander Proelss & Martin Carrier & Johannes Lenhard & Henrike Martin & Ulrike Niemeier & Hauke Schmidt, 2019. "Establishing causation in climate litigation: admissibility and reliability," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 67-84, January.
    4. Dáithí A. Stone & Suzanne M. Rosier & David J. Frame, 2021. "The question of life, the universe and event attribution," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 11(4), pages 276-278, April.
    5. Geert Jan Oldenborgh & Karin Wiel & Sarah Kew & Sjoukje Philip & Friederike Otto & Robert Vautard & Andrew King & Fraser Lott & Julie Arrighi & Roop Singh & Maarten Aalst, 2021. "Pathways and pitfalls in extreme event attribution," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-27, May.
    6. Rupert F. Stuart-Smith & Friederike E. L. Otto & Aisha I. Saad & Gaia Lisi & Petra Minnerop & Kristian Cedervall Lauta & Kristin Zwieten & Thom Wetzer, 2021. "Filling the evidentiary gap in climate litigation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 11(8), pages 651-655, August.
    7. Friederike E. L. Otto & Geert Jan van Oldenborgh & Jonathan Eden & Peter A. Stott & David J. Karoly & Myles R. Allen, 2016. "The attribution question," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(9), pages 813-816, September.
    8. Friederike E. L. Otto & Ragnhild B. Skeie & Jan S. Fuglestvedt & Terje Berntsen & Myles R. Allen, 2017. "Assigning historic responsibility for extreme weather events," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 7(11), pages 757-759, November.
    9. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521727327, January.
    10. Emily Boyd & Rachel A. James & Richard G. Jones & Hannah R. Young & Friederike E. L. Otto, 2017. "A typology of loss and damage perspectives," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 7(10), pages 723-729, October.
    11. Chad S. Boda & Turaj Faran & Murray Scown & Kelly Dorkenoo & Brian C. Chaffin & Maryam Nastar & Emily Boyd, 2021. "Loss and damage from climate change and implicit assumptions of sustainable development," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-18, January.
    12. Allen Thompson & Friederike Otto, 2015. "Ethical and normative implications of weather event attribution for policy discussions concerning loss and damage," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 133(3), pages 439-451, December.
    13. Matthias Damert & Rupert J. Baumgartner, 2018. "External Pressures or Internal Governance – What Determines the Extent of Corporate Responses to Climate Change?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(4), pages 473-488, July.
    14. David J. Frame & Michael F. Wehner & Ilan Noy & Suzanne M. Rosier, 2020. "The economic costs of Hurricane Harvey attributable to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 271-281, May.
    15. Elisabeth A. Lloyd & Naomi Oreskes & Sonia I. Seneviratne & Edward J. Larson, 2021. "Climate scientists set the bar of proof too high," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(3), pages 1-10, April.
    16. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521898690, January.
    17. Petra Minnerop, 2022. "The ‘Advance Interference-Like Effect’ of Climate Targets: Fundamental Rights, Intergenerational Equity and the German Federal Constitutional Court," Journal of Environmental Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 135-162.
    18. E. M. Fischer & R. Knutti, 2016. "Observed heavy precipitation increase confirms theory and early models," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(11), pages 986-991, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Benoit Mayer, 2022. "Attribution science and the fate of climate litigation," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(5), pages 831-832, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rebecca Newman & Ilan Noy, 2023. "The global costs of extreme weather that are attributable to climate change," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Diekert, Florian & Goeschl, Timo & König-Kersting, Christian, 2024. "The Behavioral Economics of Extreme Event Attribution," Working Papers 0741, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    3. John McClure & Ilan Noy & Yoshi Kashima & Taciano L. Milfont, 2022. "Attributions for extreme weather events: science and the people," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 1-17, October.
    4. David J. Frame & Suzanne M. Rosier & Ilan Noy & Luke J. Harrington & Trevor Carey-Smith & Sarah N. Sparrow & Dáithí A. Stone & Samuel M. Dean, 2020. "Climate change attribution and the economic costs of extreme weather events: a study on damages from extreme rainfall and drought," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(2), pages 781-797, September.
    5. Henrik Thorén & Johannes Persson & Lennart Olsson, 2021. "A pluralist approach to epistemic dilemmas in event attribution science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-17, November.
    6. Henri F. Drake & Geoffrey Henderson, 2022. "A defense of usable climate mitigation science: how science can contribute to social movements," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 1-18, May.
    7. Emily Williams, 2020. "Attributing blame?—climate accountability and the uneven landscape of impacts, emissions, and finances," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(2), pages 273-290, July.
    8. Zhongwei Liu & Jonathan M. Eden & Bastien Dieppois & Matthew Blackett, 2022. "A global view of observed changes in fire weather extremes: uncertainties and attribution to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 1-20, July.
    9. Natalie Slawinski & Jonatan Pinkse & Timo Busch & Subhabrata Bobby Banerjeed, 2014. "The role of short-termism and uncertainty in organizational inaction on climate change: multilevel framework," Working Papers hal-00961226, HAL.
    10. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 525-550, June.
    11. Tammy Tabe, 2019. "Climate Change Migration and Displacement: Learning from Past Relocations in the Pacific," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    12. Felix J. Formanski & Marcel M. Pein & David D. Loschelder & John-Oliver Engler & Onno Husen & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "Tipping points ahead? How laypeople respond to linear versus nonlinear climate change predictions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Luke J. Harrington, 2017. "Investigating differences between event-as-class and probability density-based attribution statements with emerging climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 141(4), pages 641-654, April.
    14. Kate Elizabeth Gannon, Mike Hulme, 2017. "Geoengineering at the ‘edge of the world’: exploring perceptions of ocean fertilization through the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation," GRI Working Papers 280, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    15. Janet Judy McIntyre‐Mills, 2013. "Anthropocentrism and Well‐being: A Way Out of the Lobster Pot?," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 136-155, March.
    16. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    17. Sanober Naheed & Salman Shooshtarian, 2021. "A Review of Cultural Background and Thermal Perceptions in Urban Environments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-15, August.
    18. Greg Lusk, 2017. "The social utility of event attribution: liability, adaptation, and justice-based loss and damage," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 201-212, July.
    19. Friederike Hartz, 2024. "“We are not droids”– IPCC participants’ senses of responsibility and affective experiences across the production, assessment, communication and enactment of climate science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(6), pages 1-21, June.
    20. Hall, C. Michael & Amelung, Bas & Cohen, Scott & Eijgelaar, Eke & Gössling, Stefan & Higham, James & Leemans, Rik & Peeters, Paul & Ram, Yael & Scott, Daniel & Aall, Carlo & Abegg, Bruno & Araña, Jorg, 2015. "No time for smokescreen skepticism: A rejoinder to Shani and Arad," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 341-347.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:13:y:2022:i:5:p:736-750. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.