34
the first instance when scientific evidence on climate change will be openly discussed in Court as part of the evidentiary activities to establish causation for climate-related damages.
4 Conclusion: Is Climate Science Turning the Tide?
The ultimate aim of climate change litigation can be understood as the effort to
translate the remarkable degree of scientific consensus on climate change into legal
principles and political action (Peel and Osofsky 2015, p. 9). After beginnings characterized by abrupt failures, climate lawsuits are now gaining a more successful
path by relying on different legal strategies, which are commonly grass-rooted in
the scientific evidence of the risks caused by anthropogenic climate change
(Nachmany and Setzer 2018). Within this backdrop, to demonstrate a clear-cut association between the mention of climate science and more favourable outcome for
climate litigants still constitutes a Gordian knot, which requires further enquiry
(McKormick et al. 2018). Nonetheless, as the cases analysed above display, in
absence of specific provisions specifically enabling climate-related lawsuits, relevant steps forward have been taken towards embracing IPCC’s, as well as other
climate science findings as foundational to: (1) evaluate States conducts with regard
to their climate long-term policies; (2) inform public authorities decisions with
regard to specific, highly GHG intensive projects; (3) establish a liability pattern for
climate-related damages. Where policy-makers tend to refute or neglect climate science as a key tool to develop policies in different fields, adjudicatory bodies are
arguably becoming accustomed to climate science studies and findings, and to
appraise them within the context of the (indeed frequent) references included in
relevant legal texts.
18
Whether it would be appropriate for Courts to lead the way
through the urgently needed widespread debate about global growth cuts and modifications of our societal way of life, as opposed to democratically legitimized institutions, however, remains an open question (Wegener 2019).
References
Allen M (2011) The scientific basis for climate change liability. In: Lord R et al (eds) Climate change
liability: transnational law and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 8–22
Butt D (2017) Historical emissions: does ignorance matter? In: Meyer LH, Sanklecha P (eds)
Climate justice and historical emissions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 61–79
18 The relevance of the precautionary principle in climate change law is beyond debate (De Sadeleer
2016). The UNFCCC requires States to promote scientific research and requires the COP to periodically examine, inter alia, the scientific and technological knowledge. The Paris Agreement
requires Parties to undertake rapid reductions in accordance with best available science (Hanekamp
and Bergkamp 2016). The Treaty on the Functioning of the EU requires the EU to take the available scientific data into account when preparing environmental policy (art. 191).
M. Fermeglia
the first instance when scientific evidence on climate change will be openly discussed in Court as part of the evidentiary activities to establish causation for climate-related damages.
4 Conclusion: Is Climate Science Turning the Tide?
The ultimate aim of climate change litigation can be understood as the effort to
translate the remarkable degree of scientific consensus on climate change into legal
principles and political action (Peel and Osofsky 2015, p. 9). After beginnings characterized by abrupt failures, climate lawsuits are now gaining a more successful
path by relying on different legal strategies, which are commonly grass-rooted in
the scientific evidence of the risks caused by anthropogenic climate change
(Nachmany and Setzer 2018). Within this backdrop, to demonstrate a clear-cut association between the mention of climate science and more favourable outcome for
climate litigants still constitutes a Gordian knot, which requires further enquiry
(McKormick et al. 2018). Nonetheless, as the cases analysed above display, in
absence of specific provisions specifically enabling climate-related lawsuits, relevant steps forward have been taken towards embracing IPCC’s, as well as other
climate science findings as foundational to: (1) evaluate States conducts with regard
to their climate long-term policies; (2) inform public authorities decisions with
regard to specific, highly GHG intensive projects; (3) establish a liability pattern for
climate-related damages. Where policy-makers tend to refute or neglect climate science as a key tool to develop policies in different fields, adjudicatory bodies are
arguably becoming accustomed to climate science studies and findings, and to
appraise them within the context of the (indeed frequent) references included in
relevant legal texts.
18
Whether it would be appropriate for Courts to lead the way
through the urgently needed widespread debate about global growth cuts and modifications of our societal way of life, as opposed to democratically legitimized institutions, however, remains an open question (Wegener 2019).
References
Allen M (2011) The scientific basis for climate change liability. In: Lord R et al (eds) Climate change
liability: transnational law and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 8–22
Butt D (2017) Historical emissions: does ignorance matter? In: Meyer LH, Sanklecha P (eds)
Climate justice and historical emissions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 61–79
18 The relevance of the precautionary principle in climate change law is beyond debate (De Sadeleer
2016). The UNFCCC requires States to promote scientific research and requires the COP to periodically examine, inter alia, the scientific and technological knowledge. The Paris Agreement
requires Parties to undertake rapid reductions in accordance with best available science (Hanekamp
and Bergkamp 2016). The Treaty on the Functioning of the EU requires the EU to take the available scientific data into account when preparing environmental policy (art. 191).
M. Fermeglia