Climate Change LiabilitySome issues from a London perspective
Richard Lord Q.C.
13 September 2012
Why might this be of interest ?
Looking backwards – analysis of rights and responsibilities for past actions
Looking forward – a key driver for future behaviour
A part of the matrix of scientific, political, economic and ethical considerations
What do we mean by liability
Determination of legal rights and obligations
But narrowed to leave out contractual obligations
Widened to include soft law No such thing as climate change
law
The ultimate cross cutting issue
Interlocks with security, food, water, all sorts of CPRs/ESCRs and economic issues
Not everything which may affect or be affected by CC
Still a broad mix of public/administrative law, private law, constitutional and trust law, criminal law, competition law
Law and Politics
Not here looking at liability under UNFCCC. But its provisions very relevant Driven by scientific imperatives But only so far – it is what is politically
possible and not what is necessary
Litigation is a blunt instrument – but more effective than a soft one.
Convergence of public and private law concepts (CBDR, Inter and intra generational equity, precautionary principle, “no harm”)
Effective Regulation
Ineffective Regulation
Limited effects of CC
Questions of liability - minor importance
Questions of liability - moderate importance
Significant effects of CC
Questions of liability - moderate importance
Questions of liability - major importance
THE RISK QUADRANT
Risk quadrant – further thoughts (1)
Iterative – effective regulation is often challenged but should lead to less damage
BUT in 2012 past that stage – UNFCCC framed round mitigation – now more and more focus on adaptation and even compensation within UNFCCC
Irony that “political question” and “pre-emption” doctrines rolled out in US which has done least to legislate at least at federal level.
Risk quadrant – further thoughts (2)
Also iterative because CREDIBLE THREAT of liability drives behaviour change
Business often has Longer time lines Less clouded vision
than Government
INSURANCE PERSEPCTIVE
Key roles of insurers - property and liability – (Steadfast v AES) so first and third party risks
Also significant costs exposure under “duty
to defend” Increase in liability claims for
“secondary liability” claims – architects, engineers, public authorities etc.
Insurers – not just “Business as Usual”
Significant opportunities for insurers who understand the market Conventional products (CGL/EIL)
adapted to Climate Change Risks New products – CAT bonds,
microinsurance
Leaders – Swiss Re:, Munich Re: Zurich, Geneva Association etc
Liability (1) - Public
Numerous Often unglamorous - though see
Platform, People and Planet v HM Treasury (2009)
FSM v Prunerov (2010)
Public law (continued)
Varied Pendulum swing or type of action
(claim by or against industry) swings with regulatory climate
Environmentalists shut down coal fired power stations
Civil society actions wider than traditional environmentalism
War of attrition ?
Business challenges to regulation. See Decision of 26 June by USCA (DC Circuit) –
Coalition for Responsible Regulation v EPA – EPA Rules upheld
Decision of 21 August 2012 by USCA (DC circuit) EME Homer v EPA. EPA Rules held to be invalid
Public International Law
Largely concerned with Treaty Rights but Question of invocation of “no harm”
principle at a state/state level (FIELD report October 2010)
September 2011 Palau called for an ICJ advisory opinion on the obligations and responsibilities of states under international law to avoid transboundary harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions
Liability (2) Private (primary)
Holy Grail of environmentalists Claims in negligence and nuisance Interesting and difficult questions of
causation, foreseeability, negligence.
US claims have actually run into the sands on questions of justiciability and standing – AEP, Comer, Kivalina
But for other problems see Gerrard (2011) Yale Law Journal 135
Liability (3) Information
Disclosure and information and risks (Client Earth invocation of Financial Review Reporting Panel, US S-K 101). Pressures from Regulators Environmentalists/Civil Society Shareholders
R2I (Right to Information) Art 10 ECHR Art 19 ICESCR
The wrong information
False information – advertising regulations
False information – conspiracy claims as advanced in Kivalina and Comer
Liability (4) – Secondary private liability
Failure to take account of effects. Primary target – public authorities, engineers, builders and professionals Dams Katrina Canal Breaches
Litigation (2009) Fire breaks Buildings
Liability (5) -Competition and anti-trust
Still in infancy But possible rise of liability in
relation to unfair competition by “high carbon” economies externalising cost
Liability (6) – Public Trust
An ancient doctrine Reinvigorated with US “Youth
Filings” May 2011 But no success yet – eg Montana
Supreme Court decision refuses to declare the atmosphere to be subject to a public trust (June 2011)
Liability (7) Soft law
Key driver “Who cares wins”
OECD Equator Principles Explosion of corporate conduct
charters
Lateral thinking – problems in Uganda, solutions in New York
Liability (8) Rights based
Constitutional New constitutions have express
environmental rights – Kenya, Ecuador (plus standing for “Pacha
Mama”)
Human Rights “Ubi ius.....” – BUT is this true ??? Climate change is a Human Rights
issue – but will this translate into remedies ?
Other possible trends
Convergence of private and public law standards
Incremental status of Human Rights standards such as Ruggie principles from guidelines to de facto benchmarks of reasonable conduct
Developing country muscularity
Frustration – Developing countries impacted, developed countries emissions
But lines blurred – many are both emitters and “victims” – India, China, etc. etc.
Judicial activism in India, Philippines etc (1993 Oposa v Factoran – Rights of future generations)
And more teeth ?
More damages ? Enforcement abroad ? Assets at home ? Chevron v Ecuador – the shape of
things to come ?
Top Related