Ten Climate Court Wins In 2024
As 2024 draws to a close, here is a look back at some of the year’s key victories for climate activists in the courts. Of course, not all climate litigation outcomes and developments this year were positive in terms of advancing climate action and accountability. There were some notable setbacks in several cases against oil majors, for example. But there were also quite a few significant wins, especially in youth climate cases. Here is a recap of ten climate court wins in 2024.
Oslo District Court invalidates Norwegian government’s approval of three offshore oil fields
In January, the Oslo District Court ruled in favor of Norwegian environmental groups challenging Norway’s approval of three offshore oil fields. The court’s decision, according to Greenpeace International, marked a “historic win” for Greenpeace Nordic and Natur og Ungdom (Young Friends of the Earth Norway) against the Norwegian government.
The decision invalidated the government’s authorizations of the Breidablikk, Yggdrasil and Tyrving fields in the North Sea, finding that state officials failed to consider the downstream combustion emissions that would occur from developing these fields. Such inadequate assessment of the oil fields’ climate impacts, the environmental groups argued, violated the Norwegian Constitution and EU law as well as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The district court ultimately agreed that the fields’ approvals were unlawful, and the court ordered a prohibition on issuing any new permits to construct and operate the oil fields.
The case, however, is ongoing, as the government appealed both the district court’s judgment and the injunctive order or ban on developing the fields. In the fall of 2024, the Court of Appeal lifted that prohibition in a win for the Norwegian state and oil companies, allowing oil extraction to proceed in the Tyrving and Breidablikk fields and for development of the Yggdrasil field to continue. The environmental groups have appealed to the Norwegian Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the government’s appeal concerning the validity of the fields’ approvals is still pending. A European court in Luxembourg is expected to weigh in on the question of whether an EU law called the Project Directive requires assessment of the downstream emissions from oil drilling. The UK Supreme Court determined it does in a separate climate case won by climate activist Sarah Finch earlier this year. According to Greenpeace Norway, “the British Supreme Court [in the Finch case] referred specifically to our ruling in the Oslo District Court, and wrote that they agreed with it, and how the EU's project directive was interpreted by the District Court.”
UK Supreme Court rules that government must consider downstream climate impacts when evaluating new drilling projects
That ruling from the UK Supreme Court came in June, in a decision consistent with the Oslo District Court’s determination that environmental reviews of new oil projects should consider the combustion emissions stemming from that production.
The UK case involved Surrey resident Sarah Finch challenging the Surrey County Council’s decision granting planning permission for oil development at a site called Horse Hill. Finch argued that the council’s failure to consider combustion emissions violated the EU project directive, which is implemented in the UK through domestic law. The Supreme Court agreed that these downstream emissions must be taken into account during environmental impact assessments of fossil fuel projects.
Environmental organizations said the court’s ruling could be a game-changer for stopping new fossil fuel projects in the UK.
“This historic ruling is a watershed moment in the fight to stop further fossil fuel extraction projects in the UK,” Katie de Kauwe, a lawyer with Friends of the Earth, said in a statement. “This judgment will make it harder for new fossil fuel projects to go ahead.”
Amsterdam district court finds Dutch airline KLM’s sustainability claims to be misleading in landmark greenwashing case
Climate campaigners celebrated what they said was a “historic” victory against greenwashing in the aviation sector when a Dutch court ruled in March that airline KLM’s sustainability claims were misleading and in violation of EU consumer law.
The lawsuit, filed in 2022, was the first of its kind to challenge an airline’s marketing and advertising as unsubstantiated greenwashing in court. The case’s success, according to the environmental law charity ClientEarth, sets a “major legal precedent with ramifications across the international aviation sector.”
The court found that KLM’s advertisements promoting sustainable aviation fuel and carbon offsetting gave a misleading impression of the airline’s actual ability to decarbonize, and that claims around KLM’s commitments to the Paris Agreement were too optimistic given its limited decarbonization measures.
“Companies that publicly advertise commitments to the climate goals of the Paris Agreement must now ensure that those claims are feasible and concrete, or risk losing in Court,” ClientEarth lawyer Johnny White said in a statement.
European Court of Human Rights delivers victory to Swiss senior women in KlimaSeniorinnen case
In April, the European Court of Human Rights handed down decisions in three climate change cases in the first-ever rulings by this international court concerning the climate crisis. While the court dismissed two of the cases on procedural grounds, it decided in favor of applicants in a case brought by an association of elder Swiss women against the Swiss government. The court’s ruling in this case, dubbed “KlimaSeniorinnen”, found that Switzerland’s insufficient climate protection measures violated Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This Article 8 right, the court determined, includes the right to effective protection from the adverse impacts of climate change. Switzerland’s failure to implement stringent greenhouse gas reduction measures, and failure to meet its previous emissions reduction targets, constitutes breaches of that right, the court found.
The ruling marked the first time that an international court had said that states have a duty to ensure climate protection under human rights law.
“We expect this ruling to influence climate action and climate litigation across Europe and far beyond,” Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law, said in a statement.
The European Court of Human Rights also found that the Swiss domestic courts’ failure to take this case seriously and examine it on the merits violated Article 6 (Section 1) of the Convention, which concerns access to the courts.
The Swiss government has since denounced the European court’s ruling, indicating that the government will not take further climate mitigation measures in response to the verdict. That rejection of a judicial decision signifies the challenge of compliance with “landmark” rulings in climate court cases and indicates the limitations of courts to compel greater climate action.
World “ocean court” affirms that states have legal obligations to slash greenhouse gas emissions to protect the marine environment
Another important decision from an international court affirming that climate action is a legal obligation came in May when the world “ocean court” issued its advisory opinion on climate change. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), at the request of a coalition of small island states, examined state responsibilities to protect the marine environment in the context of the climate crisis. The tribunal grounded its opinion in the best available climate science, finding not only that greenhouse gas emissions constitute ocean pollution, but that countries must take all necessary measures to rein in emissions in order to help protect the world’s oceans that are currently warming and acidifying at alarming rates.
The legal authority giving rise to such obligations is a 1982 ocean treaty called the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. That treaty is binding for the 169 countries that have ratified it (the US has not ratified it), though the tribunal’s advisory opinion itself is not legally binding.
Still, legal experts say the opinion is a significant advancement of international environmental law. It is the first of three highly-anticipated advisory opinions on climate change to be issued by international courts. The Inter-American Court on Human Rights and the International Court of Justice are expected to deliver advisory opinions on climate in the coming year.
Youth win landmark settlement agreement in Hawaiian case tackling transportation sector emissions
In June, just days before the start of trial, an unprecedented settlement agreement was announced between Hawaiian youth climate activists and the state of Hawaii in a world-first climate lawsuit focused on transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions. The case Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportation was filed by 13 young people in 2022, alleging the state’s high level of transportation sector climate pollution violated environmental rights protected under the Hawaiian constitution, including the right to a stable climate system.
The settlement agreement affirms these rights and recognizes the constitutional right to a life-sustaining climate. It also places Hawaii’s transportation sector on a path towards full decarbonization over the next 20 years, in line with the state’s ambitious climate objectives.
The settlement is also the first of its kind in a climate accountability case, on in which government officials have decided to work with, rather than against, young climate activists to accelerate climate action.
South Korea’s failure to set long-term climate targets violates constitutional rights, court rules
The Constitutional Court of Korea delivered a first-of-its-kind ruling in Asia in late August, finding that the South Korean government’s failure to set long-term emissions reduction targets through the country’s signature climate law violated the country’s Constitution.
“Article 8, Section 1 of the Carbon Neutrality Framework Act failed to fulfill the State’s duty to protect fundamental rights in violation of the principle of prohibition of insufficient protection,” the court determined. Since the policy does not specify emissions reduction targets beyond the year 2030, it fails to ensure continuous reductions through 2050 and “shifts an excessive burden to the future.”
The ruling is a victory for Korean youth and other plaintiffs who challenged the adequacy of the government’s climate policies, and sets an important precedent for other rights-based climate cases in the region, climate lawyers and advocates say.
Ontario Court of Appeal rules in favor of youth in climate case appeal
Another court win for young climate activists challenging governments’ weak climate policies came from an appeals court in Ontario in October. The court ruled in favor of youth plaintiffs in their appeal of a lower court’s decision dismissing their case against the Ontario government. The youth argue the government’s scaled back 2030 climate target will worsen climate harms, in violation of their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The appeals court found that the lower court’s analysis of the plaintiffs’ claims was flawed. While the appeals court did not decide on the Charter rights at issue, it reversed the dismissal and ordered the case be reexamined again by the lower court.
According to Ecojustice, an organization supporting the youth plaintiffs, the appeals court’s “ruling is an affirmation that the Charter applies to Ontario’s climate targets and confirms that the government’s actions are harming Ontarians. With this decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal significantly advances the law in holding the Ontario government to account.”
Civil society groups win in South Africa’s “Cancel Coal” case, with court striking down government’s plan to add 1500 MW of new coal-fired power to the grid
On December 4, the North Gauteng High Court in South Africa issued a landmark ruling in favor of youth civil society organizations challenging the South African government’s plan to add 1500 MW of new coal-fired power to the national grid. The court found the government’s plan to be unlawful because it did not adequately consider the impact of new coal generation on the rights of children and future generations. These rights, including the right to a clean and healthy environment, are protected under the state’s constitution. In failing to consider the coal procurement’s negative impact on the environment and especially its harms to children, the government failed to comply with its constitutional obligation, the court determined.
“This judgment serves as a landmark legal victory for climate activists and reinforces the importance of considering environmental and health impacts in government decision-making,” the African Climate Alliance, one of the groups that brought the case, said in a statement, adding that the case “sets a precedent for future legal challenges against environmentally harmful projects.”
Montana Supreme Court upholds historic youth climate case win in Held v. Montana
Yet another triumph for youth climate activists in the courts came when the Montana Supreme Court issued a ruling on December 18 upholding a trial court’s landmark decision in favor of youth plaintiffs in the case Held et al. v. State of Montana. In a 6-1 verdict, the state Supreme Court affirmed that the right to a clean and healthful environment under the Montana constitution includes a stable climate system. The court also agreed that a state law banning regulators from considering climate change during environmental impact assessments violated the state’s constitution, as climate change is already degrading Montana’s environment and intentionally ignoring the problem will only make it worse.
Just because other governments are also contributing to the climate crisis does not let Montana off the hook, the court said in rejecting the government’s argument that its own actions don’t matter if other jurisdictions would still be generating significant GHG emissions. “This is akin to the old ad populum fallacy: ‘If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?’” the court wrote in its decision.
The Held case, brought by sixteen young Montanans against their state government, went to trial in June 2023 – the first youth climate case ever to go to trial in the United States. The trial court judge ruled in August 2023 that the state’s anti-climate policy violated the state constitution.
The Montana Supreme Court’s decision upholding that ruling is the first decision of its kind, affirming the right to a stable climate, coming from a state supreme court. Nate Bellinger, lead counsel for the youth plaintiffs, called it a “monumental moment for Montana, our youth, and the future of our planet.”
