The Research On The Types Of Climate Change Litigation

With the wide spread concern of climate change in the world,litigation is important to cope with climate change.However,in China,the judicial practice of climate change litigation is rarely reported.Therefore,it is of great significance to learn from other countries and explore a suitable litigation path in China.This article first analyzes three types of climate change litigation cases and analyzes the possible types of climate change-related litigation in China.The typical cases of climate change litigation include Massachusetts v.EPA in the United States,Connecticut v.AEP in the United States and Urgenda v.Netherland in the Netherlands.Massachusetts v.EPA is a typical administrative lawsuit on climate change.The case established CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.In addition,the issues in this case include plaintiff’s eligibility,the nature of greenhouse gases,and the administrative discretion to regulate greenhouse gases.In the end,the U.S.Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs were eligible,greenhouse gases are air pollutants and EPA should regulate greenhouse gases such as CO2.Connecticut v.AEP is a representative of climate change tort litigation.The main focuses of this case are the plaintiff’s qualification,the interest of the suit and the application of the law.The U.S.Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff are qualified for prosecution,the greenhouse gases defendant discharged constituted the damage to private and public.However,the Supreme Court decided a suitable infringement should base on the Clean Air Act,and EPA should manage the related issues.Urgenda v.Netherland is a public interest lawsuit on climate change brought by Urgenda,a Dutch environmental NGO.The disputes in this case focus on the plaintiff’s qualification,the interest of the suit and the substance of the civil public interest lawsuit on climate change.The court holds that the plaintiff is qualified for the lawsuit and the Netherlands has violated its duty of care on greenhouse gas emissions.The above cases have inspired the analysis of China’s climate change litigation.In combination with China’s legal system,five types of litigation need to be analyzed.First,climate change administrative litigation.The enlightenment of the case of Massachusetts v.EPA to China are urging the government to deal with the problem of climate change through judicial supervision and relaxing the plaintiff’s standing.Second,climate change tort litigation.The enlightenments of Connecticut v.AEP case are the plaintiff proposed the emission and the harm of greenhouse gases but did not bear the burden of proof,which also improved the possibility of litigation to some extent.Third,public interest litigation on climate change.The enlightenments of Urgenda v.Netherland to China are to explore the possibility of the country as the defendant of climate change and the application of the duty of care.Fourth,the air pollution public interest litigation.Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act（2015）promotes the discussion of air pollutants and greenhouse gases at the same level.The litigation against air pollutants can fill the gap of China’s non-climate change litigation to a some extent.Fifth,ecological damage compensation litigation.The law specify the specific circumstances which could file a law suit for ecological environment damage.In accordance with the other circumstances stipulated in the law,which seriously affect the ecological environment,providing solutions to the problems related to climate change.In conclusion,there are three kinds of climate change litigation,which all have some limitations on practicing in China.Including the lack of climate change legislation and the limited standing of plaintiffs in lawsuits.To solve these problems,judicial interpretation could expand the scope of application of laws and solve the problem of lacking legal basis.Besides,the experience from outside China shows relaxing the plaintiff’s litigation qualification could encourage the development of climate change litigation.In addition,the existence of public interest litigation on air pollution and ecological damages litigation have,to some extent,filled the gap without climate change litigation.