Climpact — Charting the Landscape of Climate Litigation Impacts

Climpact

Climate litigation, explained

Climate litigation in plain terms — what it is, the main kinds of cases, why it matters, and a glossary of the key terms.

Climate litigation, in plain terms

Courts are becoming a front line of climate action . This is a short, jargon-free guide to what climate litigation is, the kinds of cases being brought, and why they matter — the same landscape Climpact measures.

What is climate litigation?

Climate litigation is the use of courts and tribunals to press climate issues — cases that turn on climate law, policy or science. Researchers at the Grantham Research Institute (LSE) and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law have tracked the field for years: more than 3,600 cases have been filed worldwide since 1986 , across 62 countries, and over three quarters of them since the 2015 Paris Agreement . Some seek to make governments and companies act; others defend — or contest — climate measures. Together they are reshaping what the law asks of states and business, often well beyond the individual verdict .

Climate litigation today

  • 3,600+ — cases filed worldwide since 1986
  • 62 — countries — up from just 17 a decade ago
  • 249 — new cases filed in 2025
  • 75%+ — of all cases filed since the 2015 Paris Agreement

Figures: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (LSE), “Global trends in climate change litigation: 2026 snapshot” (Setzer & Higham, 2026), drawing on the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law databases.

The main kinds of cases

The Grantham Research Institute groups cases into recognisable families . These are among the most active .

  • Government framework cases — Challenge whether a government’s overall response to climate change is ambitious enough, or properly put into practice.
  • Human-rights cases — Frame climate change as a threat to fundamental rights — to life, health, a healthy environment, or the rights of children and future generations.
  • Corporate framework cases — Seek to establish standards that steer companies away from high-emitting activities and align them with climate goals.
  • Climate-washing cases — Challenge misleading claims by governments or companies about their climate progress — the most common type of case involving corporate defendants.
  • Transition-risk cases — Target companies, directors or financial actors for failing to manage — or disclose — the financial risks of the shift to a low-carbon economy.
  • “Polluter pays” cases — Seek compensation from major emitters for their contribution to climate harm — a fast-growing but, so far, largely untested strand.
  • Personal responsibility cases — Bring individual company directors or officers into the frame for their own role in managing, or mismanaging, climate risk.
  • Failure to adapt cases — Argue that a government or company has not done enough to prepare for climate impacts already unfolding — floods, heat, sea-level rise.
  • Just transition cases — Turn on the fairness of how the shift away from fossil fuels is carried out — for workers, communities and consumers.
  • Green v. green cases — Where a climate or clean-energy measure is challenged for its impact on other environmental values, such as biodiversity or landscape.
  • Backlash cases — Brought to challenge or roll back climate policies and measures — the counter-current to climate-aligned litigation.

Why watch the courts

  • It moves policy — A single ruling can force new laws, targets or enforcement — reaching far beyond the parties in the courtroom.
  • It moves markets — Litigation risk reshapes how companies disclose, invest and advertise, and how their financiers price climate exposure.
  • It moves the debate — Cases turn abstract science into concrete duties and rights, and give affected communities a voice on the record.

From verdicts to impact

Beyond who won or lost, Climpact measures what each case actually changes — across law, policy, business and society. A team of legal scholars, sociologists and economists codes the same cases together, turning scattered rulings into a clear, open-access picture of the landscape.

Key terms

The words that come up most, in plain language.

  • Climate litigation — Cases before courts and tribunals that turn on climate-change law, policy or science.
  • Mitigation — Action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions — the “cut the cause” side of climate policy.
  • Adaptation — Action to prepare for and cope with climate impacts that are already happening or unavoidable.
  • Loss and damage — The harms from climate change that go beyond what adaptation can prevent — and the question of who pays for them.
  • Framework case — A case challenging the overall ambition or implementation of a government’s (or company’s) response to climate change.
  • Climate-washing — Misleading claims by a government or company about its climate action or progress — a fast-growing ground for litigation.
  • “Polluter pays” — The principle — and the cases — seeking to make major emitters bear the cost of the climate harm they contribute to.
  • Just transition — Shifting away from fossil fuels in a way that is fair to workers, communities and consumers.
  • Strategic litigation — Cases brought not just to win, but to set a precedent, shift policy or change public understanding.
  • Standing — Whether a claimant is legally entitled to bring a case — a frequent threshold question in climate suits.
  • Attribution — The science and evidence linking specific emissions or actors to specific climate harms.
  • Apex court — A country’s (or an international) highest court — whose climate rulings and advisory opinions carry the widest weight.

See the evidence for yourself

Climpact is building an open-access database of climate cases and their impact . Follow Climpact Radar to be the first to explore it .