1. Causes of Action

I  Australia

In Australia, legal actions under specific climate change legislation remain relatively scarce, with cases like Environment Victoria Inc v. AGL Loy Yang Pty Ltd testing the Climate Change Act 2017 without success. The court ruled that the EPA's decision-making process was only required to consider climate impacts "relevant to" its decision, focusing on regulating pollutants rather than greenhouse gases. Other cases, while not directly linked to climate legislation, highlight efforts in environmental regulation. For example, Greentree v Minister for the Environment and Heritage saw an injunction issued against farmers to safeguard a wetland protected under the Ramsar Convention. Additionally, in Gray v. Macquarie Generation, environmental activists attempted to curtail carbon dioxide emissions from a state-owned power company, invoking common law principles that mandate the prevention of emissions beyond what could be reasonably avoided with due care for the environment and others' interests. This case underscored the complexities of applying common law principles to statutory permits, culminating in the Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss the use of these principles, which protect private rights, in regulating emissions under a statutory permit. These cases underscore the evolving nature of climate litigation in Australia, balancing between specific climate statutes and broader environmental regulations.

II  Brazil

III  Canada

In Canada, corporate climate impacts are governed through a combination of regulatory regimes and legislation derived from international agreements. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), exemplifies regulatory efforts, granting the federal government authority over environmental regulation, including emissions and toxic substances control. CEPA allows Canadian residents to request investigations into environmental offences and to bring enforcement actions under certain conditions, enhancing public participation in environmental protection. The introduction of Bill S-5 proposes to strengthen CEPA by recognizing the right to a healthy environment and incorporating principles such as environmental justice and intergenerational equity. Furthermore, Canada's commitment to international climate goals is reflected in the adoption of the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change and the Paris Agreement, operationalized domestically through the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which mandates federal targets for GHG reduction. The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act introduces a carbon pollution pricing system, outlining registration and payment requirements for businesses regarding fuel and combustible waste, alongside an output-based pricing system for industrial emissions, with the Canada Revenue Agency and Environment and Climate Change Canada overseeing compliance and enforcement. This framework demonstrates Canada's multi-faceted approach to addressing corporate contributions to climate change, blending regulatory oversight with mechanisms for public engagement and adherence to global climate commitments

IV  China

In China, while climate change legislation is still emerging with no specific national law dedicated solely to climate change, the draft "Climate Change Response Law" reflects a growing emphasis on addressing climate change and protecting the ecological environment. Existing legal frameworks incorporate climate-related provisions within broader environmental and energy laws, focusing on areas such as environmental impact assessments and energy efficiency. Regional and local legislation, notably in Tianjin and Shenzhen, introduces "soft" provisions that encourage a low-carbon lifestyle and green development, though without mandatory requirements. These local laws play a crucial role in judicial practices, as evidenced by cases like the administrative punishment of Shenzhen Xiangfeng and the contract dispute involving Microcarbon, where local regulations were pivotal in court decisions. This highlights the challenges posed by the absence of unified national legislation and underscores the importance of local laws in advancing carbon peaking and neutrality objectives. Additionally, the integration of international environmental agreements ratified by China, such as the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol, into domestic legislation and their enforcement within China's legal system, marks a significant step. Judicial decisions referencing these international obligations and principles, like the precautionary principle, demonstrate a growing acknowledgment and incorporation of global environmental standards into Chinese legal and judicial practice, further emphasizing the complex landscape of climate change legislation and enforcement in China.

V  France

In France, climate change litigation has seen significant developments through cases such as the La Mède refinery case (2021) and the Larivot power plant case (2022), which illustrate the judiciary's role in enforcing environmental regulations in line with climate change objectives. The Administrative Tribunal of Marseille's decision against Total's biorefinery operation permit, due to an inadequate environmental impact assessment on climate, underscores the necessity of including comprehensive climate impact analyses in environmental permits, as mandated by the French Environmental Code. Conversely, the Council of State's reversal in the Larivot case delineated the boundaries of environmental authorizations under the EU emissions trading scheme (Directive EU 2003/87), clarifying that such authorizations are not obligated to adhere to national emissions reduction targets specified in Article L. 100-4 of the French Energy Code. The decision underscored the principle of independence of legislation, stating that that the legality of permits issued under one set of laws (environmental, in this case) cannot be assessed against the criteria of another set (energy laws). It suggests that while certain types of authorizations might not directly fall under the ambit of climate goals, others, particularly those related to the operation of power plants, must consider and align with these objectives, thus opening the door for future challenges on these grounds. The two cases collectively advance the legal discourse on the integration of climate considerations into environmental permitting and regulatory compliance, reinforcing the judiciary's critical oversight in aligning industrial operations with France's climate mitigation goals.

VI  Germany

In Germany, the Federal Climate Change Act (KSG) establishes a broad climate protection framework without specifying measures for climate change mitigation or liability for private actors' contributions to climate change. Conversely, the German Environmental Liability Act (Umwelthaftungsgesetz; UmweltHG) introduces strict liability for environmental damage caused by certain facilities, such as power plants and steel factories, listed in Annex 1 of the Act. Section 1 of the UmweltHG mandates compensation for damages resulting from environmental impacts, focusing on the infringement of protected interests like life, health, and property, without necessitating proof of unlawfulness or fault. However, its applicability to climate litigation is limited due to its narrow scope, only covering specific plant operators and imposing an upper liability limit of 85 million euros. Furthermore, the Act's relevance to distance and summation damages, which are pivotal in climate litigation, remains ambiguous, with legislative materials providing no clear guidance on the inclusion of such damages. Currently, there are no lawsuits pending under the UmweltHG that specifically address climate change liability, indicating a potential gap in the legal framework for addressing comprehensive environmental and climate-related damages in Germany.

VII  India

In India, despite the absence of specific climate change legislation, a robust environmental legal framework coupled with the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) addresses climate-related issues effectively. The NAPCC, introduced in 2008, outlines eight missions focusing on solar energy, energy efficiency, sustainable habitats, and more, aimed at promoting sustainable development and reducing GHG emissions. Judicial interventions, like in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, further emphasize the role of corporate entities in adhering to renewable energy obligations Specifically, the High Court of Rajasthan upheld the statutory requirement for corporations to purchase a minimum amount of energy from renewable sources. Additionally, a wide array of environmental laws, including the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Environment Protection Act, 1986, underpin the country's commitment to environmental protection and sustainability. Landmark cases, such as Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board vs. Sterlite Industries involving the closure of a copper smelter plant, highlight the judiciary's proactive stance in addressing environmental concerns and ensuring corporate accountability. The comprehensive policy and legal measures, supported by active judicial oversight, exemplify India's multifaceted approach to environmental conservation and climate change mitigation.

VIII  Italy

The intricate landscape of climate change and environmental law is characterized by a robust interplay between national, European and international legal frameworks, notably shaped by the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, and the European Union's legislative measures (as implemented), including the European Climate Law and the European Green Deal. Cases such as the TAP case and Greenpeace, Re:Common et al. vs ENI, underscore the legal challenges against corporate and governmental actions impacting climate change, emphasizing the concept of "substantial" - not only formal - "climate legality" that demands genuine compliance with climate commitments. These cases, alongside EU regulations on sustainable investment and industrial emissions (e.g., the IED Directive and the Volkswagen case), highlight the critical role of legal accountability and due diligence in mitigating climate change effects. They reflect a growing legal consensus on the necessity of integrating climate considerations into corporate strategies and governmental policies to achieve global and regional climate goals, thus shaping the future direction of climate litigation and environmental governance.

IX  Japan

In Japan, the Act on Promotion of Global Warming Countermeasures (APGWC, Act No. 117 of 1998, amended in 2021) and the Climate Change Adaptation Act (CCAA, Act No. 50 of 2018) are key statutes aimed at advancing a carbon-zero society, mandating the creation of Global Warming and Climate Change Adaptation Plans by both national and local governments. Despite these legislative efforts, judicial practices have yet to see cases where these acts serve as the basis for litigation, indicating a gap in directly linking governmental duties to corporate accountability in climate change mitigation. Additionally, legal challenges, notably the action against Kobe Steel Ltd., underscore the shortcomings of Japan's environmental legislation, including the Basic Act on the Environment (1993) and the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (1997, revised in 2021), in effectively addressing CO2 emissions. These cases point to the failures of current regulations, such as the Electricity Business Act (1964), in fulfilling international climate obligations set forth in agreements such as the Paris Agreement, particularly with regard to phasing out of thermal power plants.

X  Kenya

In Kenya, the Climate Change Act of 2016 stands as a pioneering legal framework aimed at bolstering the country's response to climate change, marking a notable stride towards low carbon and climate-resilient development. The Act delineates climate-related obligations for both public and private sectors, with the National Climate Change Council vested with the authority to impose climate obligations on private entities. Moreover, the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) is tasked with ensuring corporate compliance under the Act. The Act's draft Regulations, including the Climate Change (Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification) Regulations 2021, aim to enforce monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions by corporates involved in high-emission activities. Additionally, the Environmental Management and Coordination Act No. 8 of 1999 establishes a comprehensive legal and institutional framework for environmental management. It has been updated to reflect contemporary environmental challenges, including climate change, through amendments and proposed bills like the EMCA Bill 2021. This bill, among others, requires the relevant Cabinet Secretary to establish criteria and procedures for measuring air quality and setting GHG emissions standards. Internationally, Kenya's ratification of agreements such as the Paris Agreement integrates international climate obligations into domestic law, potentially holding companies accountable for non-compliance. This legal landscape underscores Kenya's commitment to integrating climate action within its national policies and legal frameworks, highlighting the potential for litigation against entities contributing to climate change.

XI  Netherlands

Since its enactment on September 1, 2019, the Dutch Climate Law has set ambitious climate goals for the Netherlands, mandating governmental action towards these objectives without delineating specific corporate responsibilities, accountability, or liability for climate change mitigation. A noteworthy development within this framework is the amendment adopted by the Dutch House of Representatives on February 14, 2023, targeting the achievement of negative GHG emissions post-2050. Concurrently, the European Climate Law (EU) 2021/1119, adopted on June 28, 2021, establishes a legal foundation for a climate-neutral European Union by 2050, supplemented by the 'Fit for 55' legislative package. This collection of initiatives aims to facilitate a fair, competitive, and green transition by 2030, with anticipated significant repercussions for corporate entities. Although the precise effects of these legislative actions on corporate climate accountability remain uncertain, they hint at the potential for establishing new legal avenues for holding corporations responsible for their climate impact and insufficient mitigation efforts.

XII  Nigeria

In Nigeria, the transition of international climate agreements into actionable domestic law is contingent upon legislative enactment, reflecting the country's dualist system where the Climate Change Act of 2021 marks a significant legislative milestone. This Act, aligning with Nigeria's commitments under the Paris Agreement and the Glasgow Climate Pact, sets ambitious targets for reducing GHG emissions and achieving net-zero by 2060, while imposing specific climate obligations on large corporations and introducing carbon taxes. Despite no cases yet leveraging the Act for corporate climate litigation, its framework, combined with the Supreme Court's broadened scope for environmental lawsuits (evident in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC) and other environmental regulations, lays the groundwork for future legal challenges against corporate environmental malpractices. This is further supported by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act and the 2018 Flare Gas (Prevention of Waste and Pollution) Regulations, alongside the 2021 Petroleum Industry Act, which collectively enhance the legal arsenal available for addressing environmental sustainability and reducing GHG emissions through targeted regulation of significant polluters, particularly in the oil and gas sector.

XIII  Norway

In Norway, a constitutional monarchy outside the EU but part of the EEA, environmental protection and climate change mitigation are entrenched in both national legislation and international commitments. The dualistic legal system of Norway necessitates the incorporation of international agreements into domestic law, prominently seen in the Climate Change Act of 2021, which aligns with the Paris Agreement's goals by setting ambitious GHG reduction targets and establishing a robust framework for periodic policy review and adjustment towards achieving a low-emission society by 2050. This legal framework underscores Norway's commitment to addressing climate change through a blend of constitutional guarantees, legislative actions, and adherence to international climate agreements.

XIV  Philippines

The Philippine legal framework for climate change and environmental law encompasses a broad spectrum of statutes aimed at protecting the environment and addressing climate change impacts. The Climate Change Act, alongside the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, is a central component of this legal regime, emphasizing the state's policy to involve businesses in mitigating climate change effects and integrating disaster risk reduction into climate change initiatives. The Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act set forth specific prohibitions against activities contributing to air and water pollution, directly linking to climate change mitigation efforts. Additionally, the Fisheries Code, Revised Forestry Code, Renewable Energy Act, Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, and Mining Act each contribute to a comprehensive approach towards environmental protection, with provisions for the rehabilitation of mined-out areas, promotion of renewable energy sources, and strict penalties for violations that harm the environment. Notable cases, such as Victoria Segovia et al. v. Climate Change Commission et al. and John Eric Loney et al. v. People of the Philippines, demonstrate the application of these laws in litigation, highlighting the potential for holding corporations accountable for environmental damages and climate change impacts through a combination of environmental protection statutes.

XV  Poland

Poland's Environmental Protection Law Act (EPLA) lays the groundwork for managing the environmental impacts of commercial activities, emphasizing civil liability within the framework of the Polish Civil Code. Specifically, Article 323 of the EPLA is pivotal for individuals or entities facing direct threats or damages from unlawful environmental impacts, enabling them to seek remedial actions or halt detrimental activities. This is evidenced in landmark climate litigation cases, such as ClientEarth's and Greenpeace's actions against PGE GiEK, where Article 323 was invoked to demand significant reductions in GHG emissions arising from burning coal by 2030. The legal discourse surrounding this provision debates its standalone liability mechanism for environmental harm, necessitating a demonstration of unlawful environmental impact, resultant damage or its threat, and a direct causal relationship. The interpretation of "unlawfulness," especially in activities sanctioned by administrative decisions, and the extent of environmental damage - viewed through a lens that prioritizes public interest - are central to these discussions. The EPLA, together with the Civil Code's provisions on civil liability, creates a legal framework that not only supports both compensatory and preventive measures for environmental damage but also potentially extends the scope of liability. This includes not only the entities directly engaged in harmful activities but also those that benefit from such activities.

XVI  United Kingdom

The UK's climate change and environmental legal framework, underpinned by international commitments such as the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC, has been the subject of litigation exploring its influence on national laws, particularly concerning the Planning Act 2008 and the consistency with the Paris Agreement. The Climate Change Act 2008 sets a foundational domestic mandate for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, with the Committee on Climate Change providing advisory oversight. While direct corporate accountability has been less pronounced, the indirect effects of carbon budget frameworks on corporate conduct hint at potential future legal directions, as seen in recent NGO litigation success against procedural inadequacies in governmental reporting, in the case R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v. Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy). The introduction of the Environment Act 2021 and the establishment of the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) mark significant steps towards enforcing environmental standards, including potential impacts on corporate activities. Jurisprudence, such as the involvement of the OEP in significant cases like Finch before the Supreme Court, reflects an evolving legal landscape that includes assessing indirect effects of developments on GHG emissions. This complex legal interplay, alongside the uncertain future of retained EU law post-Brexit, underscores the dynamic nature of UK environmental law and its implications for both public authorities and the corporate sector in addressing climate change and environmental protection.

XVII  United States

In the landscape of corporate climate litigation in the United States, the absence of cross-sectoral federal legislation specifically addressing GHG emissions has necessitated reliance on sector-specific laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, alongside a cooperative federalism model. This model allows for state-specific adjustments and innovations while adhering to overarching federal standards and goals in addressing climate change and regulating emissions. Early litigation, termed the First Wave, saw limited success in federal courts, with notable cases such as California's lawsuit against auto manufacturers and the Native Village of Kivalina's suit against energy companies being dismissed on grounds of political questions or displacement by federal legislation. A seminal moment came with Massachusetts v. EPA, establishing the EPA's authority to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act, though simultaneously curtailing federal common law claims against corporations for climate change damages. Following these setbacks, litigation shifted towards state-based and tort claims, seeking avenues beyond the federal impasse. More recent efforts, known as the Third Wave, have seen environmental claims under the Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for corporate failure to adapt to climate impacts, with mixed outcomes in courts but a notable perseverance of claims in Connecticut and Rhode Island against major oil companies for inadequate preparation of petroleum storage facilities against climate-induced risks.