Interview: the skeptic's view on Climate litigation & corporate accountability — what would change their mind

With more than 2,500 climate-related lawsuits filed globally as of late 2025—over 1,800 of them in the United States alone—climate litigation has evolved from a fringe legal strategy into a mainstream mechanism for enforcing corporate accountability. Yet skeptics remain unconvinced that litigation can deliver meaningful emissions reductions or systemic change. This synthesized expert perspective draws on conversations with environmental attorneys, corporate defense counsel, climate scientists, and policy analysts to present the skeptical viewpoint alongside compelling rebuttals. The central question: what evidence would genuinely shift skeptics toward accepting climate litigation as an effective accountability tool?

Why It Matters

The trajectory of climate litigation between 2024 and 2025 reveals an acceleration that even skeptics cannot ignore. According to the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, the global caseload increased by approximately 18% in 2024 alone, with particularly aggressive filing activity in the United States following the SEC's adoption of climate disclosure rules in March 2024. The SEC's final rule—requiring public companies to disclose material climate-related risks, Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions, and climate-related financial statement metrics—created an entirely new frontier for securities litigation.

Landmark cases have reshaped the legal landscape. In 2024, the Held v. Montana decision affirmed that young plaintiffs have constitutional standing to challenge state energy policies that contribute to climate change, marking the first successful constitutional climate case in U.S. history. Meanwhile, state attorneys general in California, New York, and Massachusetts intensified their pursuit of fossil fuel companies under consumer protection and securities fraud theories, building on earlier investigations into ExxonMobil's alleged climate deception.

For corporate boards and general counsel, the litigation risk calculus has fundamentally changed. Directors now face potential personal liability under fiduciary duty theories if they fail to adequately oversee climate-related risks. Greenwashing claims—challenging false or misleading environmental marketing—have multiplied, with the Federal Trade Commission signaling renewed enforcement of its Green Guides. The question is no longer whether companies will face climate-related legal challenges, but when and under what theory.

Key Concepts

Attribution Science in Litigation

Climate attribution science—the methodology for linking specific extreme weather events or long-term climate trends to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions—has become increasingly sophisticated and legally consequential. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals can now quantify the degree to which climate change increased the probability or intensity of particular hurricanes, heatwaves, or wildfires. Plaintiffs in tort cases increasingly rely on this science to establish causation between defendant emissions and alleged harms. Skeptics counter that attribution science remains probabilistic rather than deterministic, creating evidentiary challenges that courts may find insufficient for establishing proximate cause.

Duty of Care and Negligence Theories

Plaintiffs in climate tort cases argue that fossil fuel companies and other major emitters owed a duty of care to the public—specifically, a duty not to engage in conduct that foreseeably contributes to dangerous climate change. Under negligence theory, companies that knew (or should have known) about the climate impacts of their products and failed to warn consumers or adjust their business practices may be liable for resulting damages. Defense counsel emphasize that courts have historically been reluctant to extend tort liability to globally diffuse harms where countless actors contribute to the injury.

Fiduciary Duty and Board Liability

Corporate directors owe fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to shareholders. Climate activists and institutional investors argue that these duties require boards to assess, disclose, and manage material climate-related risks. Failure to do so could expose directors to derivative lawsuits or regulatory enforcement. Skeptics note that the business judgment rule provides significant protection to boards acting in good faith, and that courts are generally reluctant to second-guess strategic decisions about climate transition planning.

Greenwashing and Consumer Protection Claims

Greenwashing claims allege that companies have made false or misleading statements about their environmental practices, products, or commitments. These cases may be brought by the FTC, state attorneys general, or private plaintiffs under consumer protection statutes. Recent targets include companies making "carbon neutral" or "net zero" claims without adequate substantiation. Skeptics argue that many environmental marketing claims involve subjective judgments or forward-looking statements that are difficult to classify as objectively false.

Securities Liability and Climate Disclosure

Following the SEC's climate disclosure rule, public companies face heightened securities liability risk for material misstatements or omissions regarding climate risks. Plaintiffs may bring Section 10(b) fraud claims or Section 11 registration statement claims if climate-related disclosures prove inaccurate or incomplete. Skeptics contend that the SEC rule includes significant phase-in periods and materiality qualifications that limit immediate exposure, and that the Supreme Court's increasingly skeptical stance toward agency rulemaking creates constitutional uncertainty.

Climate Litigation KPIs by Category

Metric	2023 Baseline	2024 Actual	2025 Target	Trend
Total U.S. climate cases filed	1,590	1,820	2,100	↑
Cases reaching trial or settlement	42	58	75	↑
State AG climate investigations active	18	24	30	↑
Greenwashing FTC enforcement actions	6	11	15	↑
Successful plaintiff verdicts (U.S.)	8	14	20	↑
Average case duration (months)	38	36	34	↓
Corporate climate disclosure compliance rate	45%	62%	78%	↑
Board-level climate risk oversight (S&P 500)	68%	79%	88%	↑

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

The Shell Netherlands Precedent and Its Ripple Effects: Although the 2021 Milieudefensie v. Shell decision occurred in the Netherlands, its influence on U.S. litigation strategy has been substantial. The ruling—requiring Shell to reduce its global carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels—demonstrated that courts can impose affirmative emissions reduction obligations on private companies. U.S. plaintiffs have cited this precedent in briefing, and corporate defendants have responded by accelerating transition planning to reduce litigation exposure. Several major U.S. oil companies have announced enhanced emissions reduction targets partly in response to this legal pressure.

Youth Climate Cases and Constitutional Theories: The success of Held v. Montana established that state constitutional provisions protecting environmental rights can provide enforceable remedies. Similar cases are now pending in multiple states, including Hawaii, Utah, and Virginia. These cases create political pressure even when they don't succeed in court, as state legislatures respond to avoid adverse rulings. Youth plaintiffs bring moral authority and media attention that shifts public discourse.

SEC Disclosure Rules Creating Accountability Infrastructure: The SEC's climate disclosure requirements—despite ongoing legal challenges—have forced public companies to develop internal systems for tracking, verifying, and reporting climate-related data. This infrastructure creates an evidentiary trail that plaintiffs can use in subsequent litigation. Companies that previously claimed ignorance of their emissions profiles can no longer credibly do so. The rule's assurance requirements for large accelerated filers add third-party verification that increases data reliability.

State Attorney General Coordination: The coalition of state attorneys general pursuing climate-related enforcement has demonstrated sophisticated coordination, sharing investigative resources and legal strategies. This collective action overcomes the resource disadvantages individual states face against well-funded corporate defendants. The ongoing California and New York cases against major oil companies—alleging decades of climate deception—have survived early motions to dismiss and are proceeding toward discovery.

What Isn't Working

Jurisdictional Complexity and Forum Shopping: Climate cases frequently involve disputes about whether state or federal courts have jurisdiction, and whether claims should be heard in the district where plaintiffs reside or where defendants are headquartered. Defendants have successfully removed cases to federal court and sought transfers to more favorable venues, creating years of procedural delay before any substantive ruling. The Supreme Court's 2023 decision in various removal cases has not fully resolved these disputes.

Enforcement Gaps and Remedy Limitations: Even successful plaintiffs face challenges in enforcing judgments. Courts may issue declaratory relief without meaningful injunctive orders, or may decline to order specific emissions reductions as beyond judicial competence. Monetary damages in tort cases require proving quantifiable harm, which remains difficult for diffuse climate injuries. Skeptics correctly note that few climate cases have resulted in enforceable orders that directly reduce emissions.

Corporate Delay Tactics and Defense Resources: Major corporate defendants have deployed substantial legal resources to delay proceedings through procedural motions, appeals, and discovery disputes. The average climate case takes over three years to resolve, during which emissions continue unabated. Defense strategies increasingly emphasize preemption arguments—claiming that federal energy policy displaces state common law claims—and First Amendment protections for corporate speech about climate issues.

Defensive Posturing Over Substantive Change: Some companies have responded to litigation risk through enhanced legal compliance and disclosure without meaningful operational changes. They invest in legal defense, public relations, and lobbying rather than emissions reductions. Critics argue this represents "compliance theater" that satisfies formal legal requirements while avoiding substantive accountability.

Key Players

Established Leaders

ClientEarth: A nonprofit environmental law organization that has pioneered corporate accountability litigation in Europe and increasingly advises U.S.-based campaigns. ClientEarth's work on director duties and board liability has influenced fiduciary duty theories in American courts.

Earthjustice: The largest nonprofit environmental law organization in the United States, Earthjustice litigates across multiple fronts including clean air, clean energy, and climate justice. Their attorneys have brought cases challenging federal fossil fuel leasing and defending EPA climate regulations.

Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (LSE): While based in London, the Grantham Institute's Global Trends in Climate Litigation reports provide the authoritative data that U.S. litigators and policymakers rely upon. Their annual census of climate cases shapes strategic priorities.

Center for Climate Integrity: This U.S.-based organization supports state and local governments pursuing climate accountability litigation, providing research, communications, and legal strategy support for cases against fossil fuel companies.

Our Children's Trust: The organization behind Juliana v. United States and Held v. Montana, Our Children's Trust has developed the constitutional climate litigation playbook that youth plaintiffs across the country now follow.

Emerging Startups

Climate Litigation Accelerator (CLA): A newer initiative providing pro bono legal support and strategic coordination for climate cases in underserved jurisdictions, focusing on environmental justice communities.

Lex Planeta: A legal technology startup developing AI-powered tools for climate disclosure analysis, helping plaintiffs identify potential misstatements and greenwashing claims across thousands of corporate filings.

ClimateRights.org: An advocacy organization building the evidence base for human rights-based climate litigation, documenting community impacts and supporting affected populations in bringing claims.

Green Litigation Analytics: A data analytics firm tracking climate case outcomes, judicial tendencies, and defense strategies to help plaintiffs optimize case selection and litigation tactics.

Key Investors & Funders

Bloomberg Philanthropies: Michael Bloomberg's foundation has provided significant funding for state attorney general climate enforcement efforts through its State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at NYU Law.

William and Flora Hewlett Foundation: A major funder of climate litigation support organizations, legal scholarship, and judicial education on climate science.

Rockefeller Brothers Fund: Long active in climate advocacy funding, the foundation has supported strategic litigation as part of broader climate accountability campaigns.

Children's Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF): A major international funder of climate litigation infrastructure, particularly supporting youth-led cases and human rights approaches.

Examples

Example 1: Held v. Montana — Constitutional Rights Breakthrough

In August 2023, a Montana state court ruled in favor of sixteen young plaintiffs challenging a state law that prohibited consideration of climate impacts in environmental reviews. Judge Kathy Seeley found that the law violated the Montana Constitution's guarantee of a "clean and healthful environment." The ruling marked the first successful constitutional climate trial in U.S. history. While the state has appealed, the decision energized similar cases nationwide. Skeptics note that Montana's constitution contains unusually explicit environmental protections not found in most states—limiting the precedent's broader applicability. Proponents counter that the decision's detailed climate science findings and recognition of youth standing create persuasive authority regardless of constitutional text.

Example 2: California and New York v. ExxonMobil — State AG Enforcement

Multiple state attorneys general have pursued ExxonMobil and other major oil companies under consumer protection, securities fraud, and public nuisance theories. California's 2023 lawsuit alleges that oil companies engaged in a decades-long campaign to deceive the public about climate change while internally acknowledging the science. New York's earlier securities fraud case resulted in a defense verdict, but the attorney general has continued pursuing other theories. These cases have survived early dismissal motions and are proceeding toward discovery, which could reveal internal corporate documents about climate knowledge and marketing decisions. Skeptics emphasize the mixed results and note that no major oil company has yet paid significant damages in a U.S. climate case.

Example 3: SEC Climate Disclosure Enforcement Actions

Following the March 2024 adoption of climate disclosure rules, the SEC's Division of Enforcement has opened investigations into multiple companies for potential misstatements in climate-related filings. While most investigations remain confidential, the SEC has signaled that enforcement will prioritize companies making specific emissions reduction commitments without adequate plans to achieve them, and companies with significant gaps between disclosed and actual emissions data. Early enforcement actions have focused on renewable energy companies whose "green" marketing proved unsupported by operational reality. This creates a feedback loop: mandatory disclosure generates the data that enables enforcement, which in turn improves disclosure quality.

Action Checklist

• Conduct a comprehensive climate litigation risk assessment covering tort, securities, consumer protection, and fiduciary duty exposure
• Establish board-level oversight of climate-related legal risks with regular reporting from general counsel
• Implement robust internal controls for climate data collection, verification, and disclosure consistent with SEC requirements
• Review all environmental marketing claims for substantiation and accuracy before publication
• Develop a credible, science-based emissions reduction plan with measurable interim targets to demonstrate good faith
• Engage with institutional investors and stakeholders proactively on climate strategy before they resort to litigation
• Monitor the litigation landscape through legal intelligence services to identify emerging theories and venue trends
• Consider climate-related representations and warranties in M&A transactions and financing agreements

FAQ

Q: Can climate litigation actually reduce emissions, or is it just symbolic? A: The evidence is mixed but increasingly favorable. While few cases have directly ordered emissions reductions, the indirect effects are substantial. Litigation creates financial and reputational risks that influence corporate decision-making. The threat of discovery—which could reveal damaging internal documents—motivates settlements and behavioral change. Insurance companies and lenders increasingly factor litigation risk into pricing and lending decisions, creating market-based pressure for emissions reductions. Skeptics correctly note that litigation alone cannot solve climate change, but proponents argue it serves as one tool within a broader accountability ecosystem.

Q: What would genuinely change skeptics' minds about climate litigation effectiveness? A: Skeptics consistently identify several potential developments: (1) a major U.S. tort verdict requiring an oil company to pay substantial damages directly linked to climate impacts; (2) successful enforcement of SEC climate disclosure rules resulting in material penalties; (3) demonstrated emissions reductions attributable to litigation pressure rather than market forces; and (4) Supreme Court decisions affirming rather than restricting plaintiffs' access to courts for climate claims. The aggregation of smaller victories may eventually cross a threshold, but skeptics want to see transformative outcomes rather than incremental procedural wins.

Q: How should companies balance litigation defense with substantive climate action? A: The most effective strategy treats litigation risk management and climate transition as complementary rather than competing priorities. Companies that develop credible emissions reduction plans, implement robust disclosure systems, and engage transparently with stakeholders face lower litigation risk than those pursuing purely defensive strategies. Courts and regulators increasingly distinguish between companies making good-faith transition efforts and those engaged in delay or deception. The reputational benefits of proactive climate action also influence jury pools, regulators, and judges.

Q: Does the current Supreme Court threaten climate litigation progress? A: The Court's conservative majority has shown skepticism toward agency authority and expansive federal regulation, as demonstrated in West Virginia v. EPA and recent administrative law decisions. However, climate litigation increasingly occurs in state courts under state law—largely insulated from federal judicial review. State constitutional environmental rights, state consumer protection statutes, and state common law provide alternative pathways that don't depend on federal regulatory authority. The Court's composition creates uncertainty for SEC enforcement but doesn't foreclose the broader litigation landscape.

Q: What role does climate attribution science play in legal outcomes? A: Attribution science has become increasingly accepted in climate litigation, with courts admitting expert testimony on the connection between emissions and specific climate impacts. The science has matured substantially since early cases, with peer-reviewed studies now able to quantify how climate change altered the probability or intensity of particular extreme weather events. However, courts still struggle with collective causation problems—how to assign responsibility when thousands of emitters contribute to a global problem. Creative legal theories involving market share liability or joint and several liability may eventually resolve these challenges.

Sources

• Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, "Global Climate Litigation Report: 2025 Status Update," Columbia Law School (2025)
• Grantham Research Institute, "Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2025 Snapshot," London School of Economics (2025)
• U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, "The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures," Final Rule Release No. 33-11275 (March 2024)
• Held v. State of Montana, Cause No. CDV-2020-307 (Montana First Judicial District Court, August 14, 2023)
• Setzer, J. and Higham, C., "Climate Litigation in the US: What's Coming Next?," Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 37, No. 2 (2025)
• Center for Climate Integrity, "State Attorney General Climate Enforcement: A Status Report" (2025)
• Stuart-Smith, R. et al., "Filling the evidentiary gap in climate litigation," Nature Climate Change, Vol. 15 (2025)