Ridhima Pandey was 9-years-old in 2017 when she filed a case, with her family's help, before India's National Green Tribunal under the Public Trust doctrine, demanding greater accountability to redress the effects of climate change.

The case is part of a growing phenomenon of climate change litigations the world over. While the Tribunal dismissed the case, her appeal in the Supreme Court is ongoing. Pandey, now 17, has literally "grown up" fighting this case.

Climate litigation can help fight polluters, but lawsuits can also backfire and be used by powerful interests against those trying to protect the environment. Two developments in litigation related to climate change globally have wide-ranging consequences.

While the verdict is out in the North Dakota pipelines case threatening to finish off the environmental NGO Greenpeace as damages for defaming Energy Transfer, which operates the Dakota Access Pipeline, another verdict is expected on May 28 from the regional court at Hamm, Germany on reparation for climate pollution, filed by Saul Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide.

Even as the news of the activist organisation Greenpeace being fined $660 million by a jury in the North Dakota district court on March 19, sinks in, climate change litigation the world over is rapidly expanding. While Greenpeace has a strong basis for appeal, the case has raised alarm the world over.

According to an independent group of 12 legal experts from around the world — including leading U.S. civil rights attorney Marty Garbus, climate advisor Ayisha Saddiqa, Natali Segovia — who formed a trial monitoring committee to oversee the case, the jury verdict reflected a “deeply flawed” trial. The experts found that there were many due process violations which denied Greenpeace a full defense. Lawyers pointed out that this was a corporate funded Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation (SLAPP) against Greenpeace. The organisation asserts that its role in the protests against the pipeline, largely dominated by the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, was minor.

Climate damages

The Greenpeace case could have a chilling effect on environmental activism, according to a report published in March by Zero Carbon Analytics, an international research group which provides insights on climate change and energy transition. So far 68 lawsuits have been filed globally, seeking financial redress for the impacts of climate change, of which 43 are still ongoing. More than half these cases (54%) target the fossil fuel industry. ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and British Petroleum each have more than 20 cases filed against them.

Researchers estimate that by 2049 climate damages will amount to USD 38 trillion a year. Between 1985 and 2018, the share of climate damages attributed to the 25 biggest offenders – oil and gas companies -– for their emissions was about USD 20 trillion.

Attribution science, linking the role of climate change to specific or extreme weather events, has helped identify the polluters, says the Zero Carbon Analytics report.

Over the last 20 years, the data needed to directly attribute individual extreme weather events to climate change has become significantly more precise. More than 500 studies have attributed extreme weather events to the results of increased greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels, as evident in the human contribution to the 2003 European heat wave.

As a result, the ZCA report points out that it is possible to credibly quantify an individual fossil fuel company’s contribution to a specific extreme weather event and any resulting damages. Building on this, a new report by Carbon Majors, which draws from a database of historical production data from 180 of the world’s largest oil, gas, coal, and cement producers provides a key foundation for the case brought by Peruvian farmer Lliuya. His legal action rests on the proportionate share of emissions attributed to the German power company, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Elektrizitätswerk AG (RWE), headquartered in Essen, Germany.

Four islanders from Pari Island, Indonesia, filed a similar case demanding proportionate compensation against the Switzerland based cement giant Holcim. The island is threatened with submergence and the case against the cement corporation is ongoing in a Swiss court which has granted them free legal aid.

Legal frontlines

South Asian countries have reported multiple litigations related to climate change.There are 14 such cases in India, six in Pakistan, four in Nepal and one in Sri Lanka. These include the landmark Asghar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan case where a farmer sued the Pakistan government for not implementing the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 and the Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (2014-2030). In response, the Lahore High Court created a Climate Change Commission and advised the implementation of oversight committees to implement the laws related to climate change.

A coalition of concerned women in Pakistan also filed a constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court in 2018 on behalf of future generations against various government agencies for not fulfilling their mandate to address climate change. Maria Khan v. Federation of Pakistan is ongoing.

Pandey’s 2021 appeal before the Indian Supreme Court has led to the court’s order of December 2024 on the importance of the issue – carbon emissions affecting the environment. This requires “examination of the legal regime” regulating such emissions, commented the court. It appointed two counsels, Jay Cheema and Sudhir Mishra, as amici curiae to assist the court. It also directed the government to compile relevant rules and regulations on carbon emissions.

In February this year, the court observed that while India has ratified and incorporated the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement nationally through various initiatives, the enforceability and binding force of these initiatives must be examined. The court called for a ‘meticulous examination’ of existing environmental laws “with a view to incorporating climate-centric mandates.” It also directed eight Indian ministries to be impleaded as parties in order to integrate their institutional framework.

For Pandey, now 17, it has been a long journey. She was a child when the terrible flash floods in Kedarnath, Uttarakhand in 2013 brought home the reality of climate change to her as her father Dinesh Pandey, a conservationist and lawyer, helped rescue animals from the ravaged areas.

Speaking from her home in Haridwar, Pandey told Sapan News that growing up in a family where the conversation centred around wildlife conservation and politics and later, the impacts of extreme events, she wanted to do something. Her father’s stories of rescue during the 2013 floods had a huge impact on her psyche. She often wondered what would happen if there were flash floods and destruction around her and how the family would cope.

She also realised that the government was doing little to prevent further ravages of climate change. Using her father’s connections with environmental lawyers, she filed a petition before the National Green Tribunal. While the case is taking longer than expected, she is optimistic about the Supreme Court hearing.

Over the years she has taken part in the climate strike at the United Nations in New York, filed a petition on child rights along with others at the UN Child Rights Committee, and was nominated among the BBC’s 100 inspiring and influential women from around the world for 2020. She believes that laws need to be fine-tuned to tackle climate change and that project clearances need stricter checks with an eye on future impacts.

Her advocate, Rahul Choudhary, recalls Ridhima’s keenness as a child to file this case with a view to demanding a climate audit and preparing an inventory of emissions generated by industries, as well as a ‘carbon budget’. Additionally, environmental impact assessment for large projects should include climate impacts.

The climate audit would identify what activities contribute to climate change, so that policy can be framed accordingly. The lawyers have submitted ample documents to show the current inadequacies in climate change policy and action. The case will be heard next on April 30.

As climate litigants swing between hope and despair, legal recourse has emerged as an avenue to hold polluters accountable and pay for damages. For many, this appears to be the only way forward, given the lethargy of political leaders towards ambitious actions to reduce the burning of fossil fuels.

(The writer is an independent journalist and author who is currently visiting postdoctoral fellow at the Leeds Arts and Humanities Research Institute, University of Leeds, U.K. This story is part of The 89 Percent Project, an initiative of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now. By special arrangement with Sapan)