New Zealand’s Legislative Move to Curb Climate Change Lawsuits
In a significant development, the New Zealand government has unveiled a legislative proposal aimed at restricting individuals’ ability to sue companies for climate change impacts. This bill, which leans towards placing enforcement responsibility on the government, seems set to pass. Meanwhile, in the United States, similar legislative efforts are being eyed for state legislatures next year.
As climate change takes a backseat in U.S. political discourse, activists are increasingly turning to the courts. Despite the declining mention of climate change in political campaigns, New Zealand’s approach may soon inspire changes in U.S. law, particularly at the state level.
Political Shifts and Climate Change Agendas
In the U.S., climate change has notably receded from the political spotlight. Florida’s gubernatorial race shows little emphasis on the issue, with both Democrat David Jolly and Republican Byron Donalds offering vague references to environmental preservation without concrete plans. Similarly, California’s candidates, Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton, offer limited focus on climate policies, with Hilton advocating a rollback of existing measures.
The changing priorities reflect broader voter concerns, which now prioritize economic issues and immigration over climate change. Young voters, traditionally more focused on environmental issues, also show a shift in priorities, as observed in a recent Harvard poll. Even prominent activists like Greta Thunberg have expanded their focus to other issues.
Legal Battles: Governments vs. Industry
With legislative avenues narrowing, climate activists have increasingly pursued legal action against governments and industries. Suing governments for inadequate climate action has proven challenging due to issues of standing and sovereign immunity. However, a breakthrough came with Held v. Montana, where a state court recognized climate change protection as a constitutional right.
Internationally, the European Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have opened pathways to seek climate change damages, although the ICJ’s advisory opinions lack direct enforcement power.
Industry Facing Legal Scrutiny
As activists target industries, lawsuits against companies like Royal Dutch Shell and New Zealand’s Fonterra highlight the challenges and potential successes in holding businesses accountable. In Smith v. Fonterra, activists argue that greenhouse gas emissions constitute a public nuisance, but the case remains unresolved.
Future litigation may extend to sectors like fashion, shipping, and airlines, leveraging past sustainability reports.
Legislative Efforts to Prevent Litigation
In response to ongoing lawsuits, New Zealand’s proposed amendment to the Climate Change Response Act of 2002 aims to bar private litigation over greenhouse gas emissions, placing regulatory responsibility with the government. This measure, likely to pass, could preclude application of ICJ opinions in national courts.
In the U.S., the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026, introduced by Senator Ted Cruz, seeks similar protections for energy producers but remains stalled in Congress. State legislatures in Republican-controlled states are expected to propose similar bills in 2027, potentially igniting a red versus blue state battle over climate litigation.
Original Story at www.forbes.com