Legal implications of the climate-health crisis: A case study analysis of the role of public health in climate litigation

Table 1. Recent public health-linked climate litigation cases. Case No. Plaintiff v Defendant Court and Year Case Filed Brief Case Description and Outcome (If Available) # Times Health Mentioned Example of Health Term Usage 1 Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands [75] Netherlands Court of Appeals, 2015 (Decided 2019) Case: Appeal by Urgenda Foundation for Dutch gov’t to reduce emissions by minimum 25% before 2020 Outcome: Court order for Dutch gov’t to adopt stringent policies to reduce emissions by 25% before 2020 4 “This will result in, among other things, the significant erosion of ecosystems which will, example, jeopardise the food supply, result in the loss of territory and habitable areas, endanger health, and cost human lives.” 2 Future Generations v Ministry of the Environment [76] Supreme Court, Bogota, 2018 (Decided 2018) Case: Youth plaintiffs seek to enforce fundamental rights to a healthy environment which they claim are threatened by climate change and deforestation. Outcome: Court decided that the Amazon has personhood in law thus giving rights to nature 7 “Fundamental rights of life, health, the minimum subsistence, freedom, and human dignity are substantially linked and determined by the environment and the ecosystem.” 3 Maria Khan et al. v Federation of Pakistan [77] Lahore High Court, Pakistan 2018 Case: Lawsuit filed by Maria Khan and group of women against Pakistan gov’t for inaction on climate change, resulting in violation of fundamental rights to clean and healthy environment, climate capable of sustaining human life, equal protection

for women under the law, and no discrimination on the basis of sex Outcome: Pending 7 “The Impugned Conduct infringes the right to life and the right to dignity of the Petitioners, by violating their right to a clean and healthy environment and a climate capable of sustaining human life.” 4 Neubauer et al. v Germany [78] Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 2020 (Decided April 2021) Case: Lawsuit filed by Neubauer and group of German youth against German gov’t for failing to uphold national obligation under Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise to “well below 2 degrees Celsius”; appeal for German gov’t to raise GHG reduction target from 55% to 70% by 2030 Outcome: The Court held that the legislature had not proportionally distributed the budget between current and future generations. Legislature ordered to set clear reduction targets. 28 “Any increase in global temperature (e.g. +0.5°C) will above all have negative impacts on human health–this is undisputed in the scientific literature following the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C (Annex 3).” 5 District of Columbia v Exxon Mobil Corp. [79] District of Columbia Supreme Court, USA, 2020 Case: Lawsuit filed by the District of Columbia against oil and gas companies for allegedly violating the Consumer Protection Procedures Act by misleading consumers about “the central role their products play in causing climate change” Outcome: Pending 12 “These events threaten human health, food security, agriculture, economic productivity, water supplies, national security, and labor productivity.”

6 Youth for Climate Justice v EU Member States [80] European Court of Human Rights, 2020 Case: Lawsuit filed by six Portuguese youth against 33 EU Member States for violating human rights by failing to take sufficient action on climate change; appeal for 33 EU Member States to take more ambitious action Outcome: Pending 2 “Resolution of the question of what constitutes a state’s ‘fair share’ in favour of the Applicants is vital if the objective set out in Article 2 of the Paris Agreement–of preventing “significant deleterious effects [. . .] on human health and welfare” by limiting global warming to 1.5°C–is to be achieved.” (Continued) PLOS ONE Public health as a legal tool in climate litigation PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268633 June 15, 2022 14 / 31