Author : Subiksha. M, Chennai Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Pudupakkam
To the Point
Climate change, largely driven by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases, represents a pressing global issue with wide-ranging effects on ecosystems, public health, economic development, and fundamental constitutional rights. Around the world, legal frameworks have become essential in addressing environmental harm by establishing binding duties for individuals, corporations, and governments. Through a combination of international agreements and domestic regulations, law now serves a pivotal function in assigning accountability, promoting sustainable innovations, and sanctioning environmental violators. This article explores the comprehensive range of legal instruments and policy mechanisms developed to tackle the growing climate crisis.
Abstract
This article explores legal mechanisms and frameworks developed to address climate change at both global and national levels. It explains the legal language used in environmental law, discusses enforcement challenges, highlights authoritative sources, and evaluates judicial interventions. It includes analysis of international instruments like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement and key national initiatives such as India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change. Through the use of jurisprudence, environmental doctrines, and scientific evidence, this article assesses the effectiveness and adaptability of current laws and policies in safeguarding the planet for future generations.
Use of Legal Jargon
Climate change legislation incorporates specialized legal terminology that draws from both environmental science and regulatory policy. Mitigation involves measures aimed at decreasing or eliminating greenhouse gas emissions, whereas adaptation entails modifying human practices and infrastructure to lessen the adverse effects of climate change. Mechanisms such as emissions trading systems including cap-and-trade permit the exchange of emission credits among entities. The polluter pays principle ensures that those who generate pollution are held financially accountable for its consequences, while the precautionary principle permits proactive steps to prevent environmental damage even in the absence of complete scientific certainty. The doctrine of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) recognizes the unequal burden on countries, reflecting historical emissions and differing capabilities. Foundational legal concepts such as sustainable development, environmental justice, the public trust doctrine, and intergenerational equity have increasingly shaped both legislative frameworks and judicial reasoning. Courts worldwide have begun interpreting constitutional rights, including the rights to life and health, as encompassing protections for a clean and safe environment.
The Proof
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that global temperatures have already risen by more than 1.1°C since the pre-industrial era, with projections indicating a high chance of exceeding the 1.5°C threshold within the coming decade. In light of this, a range of legal instruments has emerged to address the crisis. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , established in 1992, served as the foundational treaty for international climate agreements.
The European Climate Law legally commits EU member states to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, supporting the objectives of the European Green Deal. In India, environmental governance is guided by statutes like the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981, which establish regulatory mechanisms for pollution control. Additionally, India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) outlines strategic missions targeting crucial areas such as renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, water conservation, and ecosystem protection. The Energy Conservation Amendment Act, 2022 introduced a domestic carbon credit trading system to incentivize emission reductions. Indian judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has significantly contributed to climate jurisprudence by interpreting environmental protection as an integral part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Laws
1. Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands (2019)
In this landmark case, the Dutch Supreme Court affirmed a ruling mandating the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions by a minimum of 25% from 1990 levels. The Court concluded that failing to take adequate climate action infringed upon the right to life and well-being as protected under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This judgment set a significant precedent, recognizing that governmental inaction on environmental issues can be legally contested based on human rights violations.
2. Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (2015)
A Pakistani farmer brought a case against the government for neglecting to carry out the climate initiatives set forth in the National Climate Change Policy (2012) and the Implementation Framework (2014–2030). The Lahore High Court ruled that this failure violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights to life and dignity under Articles 9 and 14. In response, the court formed a Climate Change Commission to supervise and ensure the proper enforcement of these climate policies, underscoring the judiciary’s active role in environmental governance.
3. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007), United States
The U.S. Supreme Court made a significant ruling by recognizing greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Consequently, the Court instructed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate these emissions, expanding the federal government’s authority to address climate change.
4. Juliana v. United States
It involved young plaintiffs suing the federal government for failing to address climate change, claiming it violated their constitutional rights to life and safety. The district court allowed the case to proceed, recognizing a fundamental right to a stable climate. However, the Ninth Circuit later dismissed the case, ruling that courts lack authority to impose national climate policy. Despite dismissal, the case highlighted the legal challenges of climate litigation and inspired similar lawsuits worldwide. It remains a key example of youth-driven environmental activism in the courts.
5. MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987 onwards)
In a groundbreaking decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases fall within the category of air pollutants as defined by the Clean Air Act. This compelled the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate their emissions, thereby extending the federal government’s authority to address environmental and climate-related challenges.
6. Asghar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (2015)
In a related case involving the same petitioner, the ruling underscored that government failure to address climate change can violate constitutionally protected rights. The Court’s assertive position reinforced the duty of states to fulfill their climate promises, thereby expanding the judiciary’s role in ensuring policy implementation.
Together, these rulings highlight the powerful role that national courts can play in advancing climate governance by using legal and constitutional frameworks to hold governments accountable.
Conclusion
Climate change legislation has progressed significantly, shifting from non-binding recommendations to compulsory legal measures. Various actors including courts, parliaments, and international organizations have been instrumental in transforming climate commitments into enforceable duties. Despite this progress, many countries, especially those still developing, face difficulties in implementing these laws effectively. Challenges also persist globally in securing adequate climate funding, ensuring fairness, and overcoming technological inequalities. Nonetheless, the rise in climate-related legal actions and advocacy highlights growing global awareness. Moving forward, legal systems must adopt a proactive stance focusing on emission reduction, climate-resilient infrastructure, and fair treatment for future generations. Strengthening global environmental governance will require inclusive, forward-thinking laws that cross national borders and directly confront the urgency of climate change.
FAQs
1.what is the main goal of Paris Agreement ?
The Paris Agreement seeks to keep the global temperature rise well under 2°C compared to pre-industrial times, with an ambitious aim to limit warming to 1.5°C. To accomplish this, each country voluntarily outlines its own climate targets, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and agrees to track and report their progress regularly.
2. Does Indian law guarantee the right to a healthy environment?
Yes. The Indian Constitution’s Article 21 has been interpreted by courts to encompass the right to a clean and pollution-free environment, a right further reinforced by laws such as the Environment Protection Act.
3. How do courts contribute to combating climate change?
Courts enforce environmental laws, interpret constitutional rights in light of ecological concerns, and hold governments accountable for policy inaction.
4.What is the difference between mitigation and adaptation?
Mitigation addresses the root causes of climate change by reducing emissions, while adaptation involves strategies to manage its effects.
5. Are international climate commitments legally binding?
Most, like the Paris Agreement, rely on voluntary compliance and transparency rather than legal enforcement. Some countries, however, enact national laws to make such commitments binding.
6. What are key legal principles used in climate lawsuits?
Principles such as polluter pays, precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, and public trust doctrine are commonly invoked.
7. Can individuals challenge the government for not addressing climate change? Yes, there is a growing trend of citizens and non-governmental organizations turning to the courts to demand more robust climate action from their governments, often grounding their cases in constitutional provisions and human rights protections.
