Two years ago, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed that a healthy environment is a human right. Though enshrined in a resolution nothing about the declaration was legally binding. The goal of this statement was to give campaigners a basis upon which they might challenge ecological destruction in their own jurisdictions. Data shows that these kinds of legal challenges are gathering pace. But whether they can lead to meaningful emissions reductions – or even adequate compensation for those most affected – remains to be seen.

According to the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, the total number of climate-related court cases more than doubled between 2017 and the end of 2022. At that time, some 2,200 cases had been filed in 65 jurisdictions worldwide – 70% were in the US. Nearly 90% of the non-US cases filed in the past two years were brought by non-governmental organisations, individuals or both working in tandem.

One of the most consequential rulings in recent memory concerned an association of 2,000 older Swiss women, known as KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. The group argued their government’s inaction on climate change constituted a threat to their health, as older people are more vulnerable during heatwaves. Ultimately, the ECHR found that Switzerland has a responsibility to protect its citizens and can, therefore, be held to account for failing to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.