Climate litigation, in plain terms
Courts are becoming a front line of climate action. This is a short, jargon-free guide to what climate litigation is, the kinds of cases being brought, and why they matter — the same landscape Climpact measures.
What is climate litigation?
Climate litigation is the use of courts and tribunals to press climate issues — cases that turn on climate law, policy or science. Researchers at the Grantham Research Institute (LSE) and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law have tracked the field for years: more than 3,600 cases have been filed worldwide since 1986, across 62 countries, and over three quarters of them since the 2015 Paris Agreement. Some seek to make governments and companies act; others defend — or contest — climate measures. Together they are reshaping what the law asks of states and business, often well beyond the individual verdict.
Climate litigation today
3,600+
cases filed worldwide since 1986
62
countries — up from just 17 a decade ago
249
new cases filed in 2025
75%+
of all cases filed since the 2015 Paris Agreement
Figures: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (LSE), “Global trends in climate change litigation: 2026 snapshot” (Setzer & Higham, 2026), drawing on the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law databases.
The main kinds of cases
The Grantham Research Institute groups cases into recognisable families. These are among the most active.
Is the response strong enough?
Cases that measure a climate response against what is required — of a government, of a company, and of anyone who should already be preparing for the impacts.
Government framework cases
Challenge whether a government’s overall response to climate change is ambitious enough, or properly put into practice.
Human-rights cases
Frame climate change as a threat to fundamental rights — to life, health, a healthy environment, or the rights of children and future generations.
Corporate framework cases
Seek to establish standards that steer companies away from high-emitting activities and align them with climate goals.
Failure to adapt cases
Argue that a government or company has not done enough to prepare for climate impacts already unfolding — floods, heat, sea-level rise.
Who pays, and who tells the truth
Cases about the cost of climate harm and the honesty of what is said about it: compensation, financial risk and its disclosure, misleading claims, personal responsibility.
Climate-washing cases
Challenge misleading claims by governments or companies about their climate progress — the most common type of case involving corporate defendants.
Transition-risk cases
Target companies, directors or financial actors for failing to manage — or disclose — the financial risks of the shift to a low-carbon economy.
“Polluter pays” cases
Seek compensation from major emitters for their contribution to climate harm — a fast-growing but, so far, largely untested strand.
Personal responsibility cases
Bring individual company directors or officers into the frame for their own role in managing, or mismanaging, climate risk.
When climate action is itself contested
The counter-current — cases brought against climate measures, and cases about whether the way we carry them out is fair or costs something else.
Just transition cases
Turn on the fairness of how the shift away from fossil fuels is carried out — for workers, communities and consumers.
Green v. green cases
Where a climate or clean-energy measure is challenged for its impact on other environmental values, such as biodiversity or landscape.
Backlash cases
Brought to challenge or roll back climate policies and measures — the counter-current to climate-aligned litigation.
Why watch the courts
- 01
It moves policy
A single ruling can force new laws, targets or enforcement — reaching far beyond the parties in the courtroom.
- 02
It moves markets
Litigation risk reshapes how companies disclose, invest and advertise, and how their financiers price climate exposure.
- 03
It moves the debate
Cases turn abstract science into concrete duties and rights, and give affected communities a voice on the record.
From verdicts to impact
Beyond who won or lost, Climpact measures what each case actually changes — across law, policy, business and society. A team of legal scholars, sociologists and economists codes the same cases together, turning scattered rulings into a clear, open-access picture of the landscape.
Key terms
The words that come up most, in plain language.
- Climate litigation
- Cases before courts and tribunals that turn on climate-change law, policy or science.
- Mitigation
- Action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions — the “cut the cause” side of climate policy.
- Adaptation
- Action to prepare for and cope with climate impacts that are already happening or unavoidable.
- Loss and damage
- The harms from climate change that go beyond what adaptation can prevent — and the question of who pays for them.
- Framework case
- A case challenging the overall ambition or implementation of a government’s (or company’s) response to climate change.
- Climate-washing
- Misleading claims by a government or company about its climate action or progress — a fast-growing ground for litigation.
- “Polluter pays”
- The principle — and the cases — seeking to make major emitters bear the cost of the climate harm they contribute to.
- Just transition
- Shifting away from fossil fuels in a way that is fair to workers, communities and consumers.
- Strategic litigation
- Cases brought not just to win, but to set a precedent, shift policy or change public understanding.
- Standing
- Whether a claimant is legally entitled to bring a case — a frequent threshold question in climate suits.
- Attribution
- The science and evidence linking specific emissions or actors to specific climate harms.
- Apex court
- A country’s (or an international) highest court — whose climate rulings and advisory opinions carry the widest weight.