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

marine resources, Transition to a circular economy, Pollution prevention and control, and Pro- tection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems [107] (other jurisdictions such as China have a similar, yet distinct objectives). In the case of Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell (Table 1, case 9), litigants sought to extend the ruling of Urgenda to private companies. Shell is the parent company of many subsidiaries and has a principal place of business in the Hague, Netherlands. According to the summons, “the financial incentive for Shell to continue its fossil business model developed since 1890 is enormous, which is why it hampers the energy transition, and every year contin- ues to invest dozens of billions to secure the future of the fossil industry for much of this cen- tury”. Milieudefensie campaigns for “climate-friendly banking” and believes “private banks and public asset managers are the ideal partners in that respect”. In the ruling against Shell the court stated that although “RDS cannot solve this global problem on its own. However, this does not absolve RDS of its individual partial responsibility to do its part regarding the emis- sions of the Shell group, which it can control and influence”. The centrality of financial capital in global economies embeds financial institutions within the broader climate law and mitigation landscape. Financial investment is a powerful influen- cer on industrial and economic activities serving as an enabler, through incentives, or as a bar-

rier. These organizations offer another avenue for communities to ensure their sentiments are reflected. With regards to financial institutions, several cases illustrate this indicator of finan- cial liability in climate change lawsuits, in which the strategy of litigation has been referred to as “investor activism” [108]. In McVeigh v Rest [109], the respondent sought information from his investment fund, about any actions the respondent was taking, regarding the financial risk posed to his investment by cli- mate change. The court decided that funds have a duty to disclose information that allow the investor to make an informed decision about the investment in relation to such climate risk. Con- sidering the shifting values as citizens on all continents witness climate catastrophes, and the emergence of global youth movements, consumer and social preferences are changing in favor of the environment, health, and well-being. Consequentially, banks, insurers and investment funds face increasing risks of litigation if their activities are not compliant with climate frameworks. In JAM v International Finance Corp [110] (IFC), a group of Indian villagers brought a case against IFC, the investment arm of the World Bank, before the US Supreme Court, because it had financed the construction of a coal fired plant in India, which polluted the surrounding area. Prior to this case, the IFC held immunity from such prosecutions, in the same manner enjoyed by foreign governments. This ruling overturned the IFC’s immunity from liability for

its investments. Because the case involved the World Bank, such a ruling exemplifies how financial entities can be liable in law for financing harm to the environment and public health. Cases of climate litigation reinforce the need for a globally coordinated approach to climate law, public health, and economics. The World Bank has offered categories for Environmental and Social Investing (ESG) including negative screening, best in class, impact investing, ESG integration, and responsible ownership [111]. All of this relies upon data provided by sover- eign countries. The challenges of climate adaptation and mitigation have been translated into a new economics. This must be fully embedded in all legal systems, before massive public health devastation ensues [42]. Despite 29 of the largest 30 financial institutions having set 2050 cli- mate goals, all 30 institutions remain committed to short terms actions, which oppose emerg- ing sustainable finance policy, and have cumulatively enabled at least $740 billion in primary financing to the fossil fuel production value chain in 2020 and 2021 [112]. It remains likely that the financial sector will continue to enable real-economy activities misaligned with 1.5˚C climate scenarios as long as they remain legally and economically viable in the short term [112]. PLOS ONE Public health as a legal tool in climate litigation PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268633 June 15, 2022 21 / 31