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

in favour for the plaintiffs. Based on this, we selected the 65 cases that were directly linked to public health. We found economic forces and pricing of health risks play a key role, as courts are challenged by litigants to adjudicate on the responsibility for health impacts. Conclusions While courts of law are receptive to public health science, significant legal reform is needed to enhance leveraging of public health evidence in legal judgements of climate litigation cases. The integration of a public health mandate into a new eco-centric legal paradigm will optimize its potential to promote human well-being—the core objective underpinning both international law, human rights, and public health. Existing legal doctrines and practices can be enhanced to increase the weight of public health arguments in climate legal action and consequently ensure legal rulings in climate litigation prioritize, protect and promote public health. Introduction Since its inception, environmental law has been relied upon as a means of preventing harm to the environment, thus enabling healthy human relationships with the environment. Escalating Climate Change impacts across the world is increasing potential for litigation to be brought against corporations, governments, and other parties by individuals and communities on the basis of current or future harm to their health and wellbeing. This risk of legal liability is a key factor in shaping climate-compliant economies whereby actors seek to protect assets, minimize

risk and seek opportunities that are within the boundaries of legal regulatory frameworks. As the field of climate litigation has evolved, so have the legal strategies used to prosecute claims of wrongdoing. Only in the last few years have cases emerged from all areas of law including corporate law, financial law, and human rights, as strategic tools in the pursuit of liti- gation against climate-disruptive actions by corporations, governments, and other parties. The rising trends in litigation have been monitored and recorded by various scholars [1, 2]. With growing evidence of the health impacts resulting from climate change, it is unsurprising that public health concerns now feature more strongly in litigation. Yet there is scant documenta- tion in the literature characterizing the role that public health arguments have played in cli- mate litigation and the legal weight given to public health narratives. Despite solid scientific evidence and the efforts of many, global greenhouse gas emissions are not reducing [3]. Similarly, despite environmental protection laws, environmental damage is demonstrably escalating as ecosystems decay is generating a sixth mass extinction [4]. The human species cannot flourish amid sick ecosystems. Healthy environments and a stable cli- mate are necessary for human survival. Their disruption directly harms human health. In recognizing that climate change is unfolding as a health emergency that disproportion- ately impacts the most vulnerable, health professionals are urging for accelerating efforts to

decarbonize [5]. Accordingly, the public health community has increasingly issued calls for a “public health focussed response” across prevention, mitigation, adaptation, and preparedness [6]. Central to this approach is the need to ensure that viable legal avenues for deterring, halt- ing, and seeking justice for climate-disruptive, health-threatening actions exist. To support this objective, this review provides a comprehensive analysis of the role of public health in PLOS ONE Public health as a legal tool in climate litigation PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268633 June 15, 2022 2 / 31 Funding: The authors received no specific or any funding for this work. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Abbreviations: IPCC, International Panel on Climate Change; CLL, Climate Change Litigation.