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

eco-centric laws have been codified in Colombia, Mexico, Uganda, and are included in Chile’s proposed constitution. In the United States, rights of nature have been shaped at the local level in more than 30 instances, including in the states of Pennsylvania, Florida, Minnesota and Colorado. Giving rights to nature is a way to fulfill the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as they are inter-dependent. Ultimately, both public health promotion and legal reform have common aims of creating a policy landscape conducive to human well-being. 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 and public health. By knowing to what degree public health has featured in the empirical arguments used to justify climate legal action to date, we can better understand how well exist- ing eco-centric and other environmental health laws lend themselves to public health promo- tion. Should gaps be identified, we can begin to postulate how existing legal doctrines and practices can be enhanced to increase the credibility of public health arguments in climate legal action and by consequence, ensure legal rulings on climate litigation have positive impli- cations for public health. Objectives The Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy examined in 2021 global trends in climate change liti-

gation [68]. Our objective is to extend this work, by examining the extent, characteristics and success of cases based on protecting human health, either directly or indirectly by safeguarding environmental determinants of health. Given a) the rising recognition of the human health threats posed by climate change and environmental devastation and b) the pre-existing and growing legal focus on protecting the environment (in both anthropocentric and eco-centric frames), on preventing infringement on the human right to health, and on regulating industry to protect public health, we set out to answer the following research questions: 1. In what ways has climate litigation evolved as a legal tool for climate action, and contributed to liability, particularly under the agenda of protecting the environment, safeguarding human rights, and promoting public health? 2. How receptive have courts been to legal cases grounded on public health? 3. How have references to public health contributed to legal decision-making in climate litigation? Method We identified databases, with access to litigation documents, and judgements, of climate liti- gation, including translations from non-English languages. A review of climate science, legal databases was conducted on all such publicly reported, documented, English language (and translated) cases of climate litigation filed in any country or jurisdiction between 1990 and September 2020, to identify cases which relied upon public health science and can be catego- rized as public health climate litigation.

The following search terms were entered into available legal case databases: “climate change”, “climate change and public health”, “human rights and climate change”, “govern- ments and climate change”, “corporations and climate change”. PLOS ONE Public health as a legal tool in climate litigation PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268633 June 15, 2022 7 / 31