Filling the evidentiary gap in climate litigation
Filling the evidentiary gap in climate litigation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1038/s41558-021-01086-7
复制
发表时间：
2021-06-28
影响因子：
30.7
通讯作者：
Wetzer, Thom
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Stuart-Smith, Rupert F.;Otto, Friederike E. L.;Wetzer, Thom
关于气候变化影响的诉讼提出了关于被告温室气体(GHG)排放对原告的影响的因果索赔，并在世界各地激增。原告要求赔偿与气候有关的损失，并迫使各国政府减少温室气体排放。到目前为止，这些索赔中的大多数都没有成功。在这里，我们评估了确立因果关系的科学和法律基础，并评估了73起诉讼中对科学证据的司法处理。我们发现，在这些案件中提交和引用的证据远远落后于气候科学的最新水平，阻碍了因果关系的主张。我们的结论是，更多地欣赏和利用归因科学中的现有方法，可以消除因果关系的障碍，并改善诉讼的前景，作为寻求限制法律责任的被告赔偿损失、监管行动和减排的途径。迫使政府减少排放或为气候变化相关损失寻求赔偿的法律案件正在增加。在这类案件中使用的科学证据被发现落后于最先进的气候科学；使用最新的方法可以改善因果关系主张。
Lawsuits concerning the impacts of climate change make causal claims about the effect of defendants' greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on plaintiffs and have proliferated around the world. Plaintiffs have sought, inter alia, compensation for climate-related losses and to compel governments to reduce their GHG emissions. So far, most of these claims have been unsuccessful. Here we assess the scientific and legal bases for establishing causation and evaluate judicial treatment of scientific evidence in 73 lawsuits. We find that the evidence submitted and referenced in these cases lags considerably behind the state of the art in climate science, impeding causation claims. We conclude that greater appreciation and exploitation of existing methodologies in attribution science could address obstacles to causation and improve the prospects of litigation as a route to compensation for losses, regulatory action and emission reductions by defendants seeking to limit legal liability.Legal cases to force governments to reduce emissions or to pursue compensation for climate change-related losses are increasing. The scientific evidence used in such cases is found to be lagging behind state-of-the-art climate science; using up-to-date methodologies could improve causation claims.