The jurisprudence around climate change all over the world has become very progressive. The Paris Agreement signed in April 2016 not only holds governments accountable for climate change, but also acknowledges that non-state actors should realize their responsibility in addressing and responding to climate change.
Article 2, Clause 3 of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states that:
“3. The Parties included in Annex I shall strive to implement policies and measures under this Article in such a way as to minimize adverse effects, including the adverse effects of climate change, effects on international trade, and social, environmental and economic impacts on other Parties, especially developing country Parties and in particular those identified in Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9, of the Convention, taking into account Article 3 of the Convention.”
The phrase “adverse effects of climate change” has already been a part of the international jurisprudence and with this judgment of the Court, it has now entered the realm of our domestic law.
Another development worth noting in the realm of climate change litigation is the case of Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell (2021) which is considered to be the first major ruling against a corporation. The Hague District Court acknowledged that the current sustainability policy of the company, Royal Dutch Shell was inadequate and directed the Shell Group to limit or cause to be limited the aggregate annual volume of all CO2 emissions into the atmosphere due to the business operations and sold energy-carrying products of the Shell group to such an extent that this volume will have reduced by at least net 45% at the end of 2030, relative to 2019 levels.
Source: Barandbench
