Carbon-polluting corporations and their investors face a rising tide of climate litigation, according to a report released Friday, two days after a Dutch court ordered oil giant Shell to slash its greenhouse gas emissions.
Companies operating in rich economies — Britain, the EU, Australia and especially the US, which accounts for the vast majority of cases to date — are most vulnerable to future legal action, business risk analysts Verisk Maplecroft found.
But the report also highlights a growing number of cases in developing countries despite more limited civil rights and a weaker rule of law.
“Our data points to a shift in major emerging economies, which might not bode well for the carbon-intensive companies operating there,” said Liz Hypes, Verisk Maplecroft’s senior environment and climate change analyst. “We are seeing climate litigation expand into countries where climate activism is lower but the threat of climate change is more significant.”
So far, most cases suing for strong climate action have been filed against governments.
But the Shell ruling, which ordered the Anglo-Dutch company to cut carbon emissions 45 percent by 2030, and other recent challenges to fossil fuel companies suggest the corporate world could see a crescendo of lawsuits.
Last month, New York City sued ExxonMobil and two other oil giants for greenwashing their products and intentionally misleading consumers about the extent to which they contribute to climate change.
An earlier bid by the Big Apple to hold five major gas and oil companies liable for damages caused by global warming was rejected weeks before by a federal court, but still inflicted reputational harm, Hypes said.
Also this week, investors brushed aside resistance from the company to install two activists board members at ExxonMobil, and at another annual investor meeting directed Chevron to deepen its emissions cuts.
More than 1,800 climate change-related cases have been filed in courts around the world in the last 25 years, most of them since 2010, according to a database maintained by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School.
A “climate litigation index” in the new report assesses the likelihood of climate lawsuits in nearly 200 countries, based on prior litigation, public awareness, climate activism, and the strength of judicial systems. Not surprisingly, the US tops the risk ranking, followed by the UK, Australia, France and Germany. The next 17 countries on the list are all European, with the exception of Canada (10th) and Japan (18th).
But Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, Brazil and the Philippines are all in the top 50, with Indonesia, Pakistan and India just behind, the index showed.
As governments reacts to public pressure for faster climate action, corporations may run afoul of rapidly shifting regulatory environment.
Failure to curb emissions, and lack of transparency about business exposure to climate risk, can also damage brand reputation, even when courts rule in a company’s favour, as has happened in several US cases involving oil and gas majors.
Risk can also comes in the form of financial penalties as the scope of nature and climate litigation expands.
Companies, and their financial backers, “are facing genuine legal risks from which the repercussions may be significant,” Hypes said.
With fossil fuels generating 80 percent greenhouse gas emissions, oil and gas companies, and coal-powered electric utilities, are especially vulnerable to climate liability lawsuits.
Among the immigrants and expatriates who’ve lived in Taiwan for years, there are hundreds and perhaps thousands who’d very much like to cement their status here and their connection with the country by becoming naturalized citizens — but feel they cannot proceed under current rules. They meet the residency, good conduct, language proficiency and other requirements for citizenship, yet they regard one part of the naturalization process as a dealbreaker. The demand, set out in Article 9 of the Nationality Act (國籍法), that aliens “applying for naturalization shall provide a certificate of loss of original nationality within one year from the
From forgetfulness to difficulties concentrating, many people who have long COVID experience “brain fog.” Now researchers say the symptom could be down to the blood-brain barrier becoming leaky. The barrier controls which substances or materials enter and exit the brain. “It’s all about regulating a balance of material in blood compared to brain,” said Matthew Campbell, co-author of the research at Trinity College Dublin. “If that is off balance then it can drive changes in neural function and if this happens in brain regions that allow for memory consolidation/storage then it can wreak havoc.” Writing in the journal Nature Neuroscience, Campbell and colleagues
In recent months Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) leaders have quietly been shifting their positions on the use of nuclear power. Hints of this have surfaced in public discussions. For example, in May last year, addressing an audience of college students, Vice President William Lai (賴清德) said that in an extreme situation, some nation’s nuclear power plants could be brought back online. His spokesman later clarified that Lai was talking about events such as a wartime blockade, and the DPP issued a denial a few days later, saying that its nuclear-free homeland policies were unchanged. A Taipei Times report in October
“Doesn’t dagou (打狗) mean hit a dog?” I ask the vendor outside the British Consulate in Takow, Kaohsiung, on reviewing my ticket. “That’s how we render Takow in Chinese,” she explains. “It’s based on an indigenous name.” It turns out that until the establishment of Kaohsiung County in 1945, the Hoklo-Saraya designation Takow (sometimes rendered Takao or Takau) was how the southwest corner of Taiwan was known, and it remains a popular epithet used in branding local businesses and events. Along the path that ascends to the hilltop consulate building, the story of Kaohsiung’s role as a cosmopolitan Qing-era treaty port