Quantum mechanics

Scientific consensus

Algorithm

Philosophy

Causation

Psychoanalysis

Attribution

Ecology

Law and economics

Biology

Social psychology

Economics

Computer science

Plaintiff

Business

Scientific evidence

Physics

Greenhouse gas

Global warming

Climate change

Psychology

Political science

Epistemology

Tort

Liability

Medicine

Action (physics)

Lagging

Compensation (psychology)

State (computer science)

Pathology

Nature Climate Change

Lawsuits concerning the impacts of climate change make causal claims about the effect of defendants’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on plaintiffs and have proliferated around the world. Plaintiffs have sought, inter alia, compensation for climate-related losses and to compel governments to reduce their GHG emissions. So far, most of these claims have been unsuccessful. Here we assess the scientific and legal bases for establishing causation and evaluate judicial treatment of scientific evidence in 73 lawsuits. We find that the evidence submitted and referenced in these cases lags considerably behind the state of the art in climate science, impeding causation claims. We conclude that greater appreciation and exploitation of existing methodologies in attribution science could address obstacles to causation and improve the prospects of litigation as a route to compensation for losses, regulatory action and emission reductions by defendants seeking to limit legal liability. Legal cases to force governments to reduce emissions or to pursue compensation for climate change-related losses are increasing. The scientific evidence used in such cases is found to be lagging behind state-of-the-art climate science; using up-to-date methodologies could improve causation claims.

Filling the evidentiary gap in climate litigation