How much evidence is enough?

Throughout the course Uncertain Climate Futures, we investigated different aspects within the topic of uncertainty. A question that popped up in my head several times was: how much evidence is enough to initiate the necessary climate action and to convince politicians and the population to finally act properly? Or in other words, how much uncertainty in climate change projections is acceptable to outweigh possible negative effects of mitigation?

I wondered if missing climate action can be seen as a crime, and if bringing polluters to court could be an option to enforce necessary climate protection measures. As an example, climate activists filed a lawsuit against the US government for not implementing necessary measures to reduce carbon emissions. The plaintiffs stated the government was therefore endangering their rights to life, liberty, and property (Tuhus-Dubrow 2013). Moreover, one news article raised the question: “If an individual breaks the law, we assume [litigation] can be used to make them change course, or at least stop the offender in their tracks. So why not our leaders – when their inactions can be deadliest of all?“ (Gallagher and Limb 2022). In this blogpost, I want to elaborate on this and find out, whether the lack of evidence about the magnitude of some risks climate change poses is a valid excuse to justify climate inaction.

In a trial, evidence is needed to convict someone of a crime, but evidence and uncertainty are closely linked, not only in science but also in the courtroom. Sometimes, evidence can be so striking that the conviction is obvious, but how much evidence is enough to make a judgement about climate inaction?

Climate change litigation, which is defined as any litigation raising an issue concerning climate change causes and impacts (Markell and Ruhl 2012), is becoming more and more popular because of inaction of governments and polluters. When considering climate change litigation cases, polluters, politicians, or even whole governments who do not act regarding climate change mitigation take on the role of the defendant, whereas the role of the plaintiff is often taken by climate activists (Gallagher and Limb 2022). In the role of the plaintiffs, environmental movements must rely on scientific evidence. However, as we also discussed in class, in science and especially in climate science, it is difficult to connect, for example, the defendant’s pollution to global climate change and possible negative effects affecting the plaintiffs in a causal chain (Varvaštian 2016). This makes it even harder to take the alleged causer of climate change to court. As mentioned in an article by Tuhus-Dobrow, one must keep in mind: “We can’t just sue our way to climate justice, but litigation is one tool that activists can use to sway public opinion and hold those in power to account.” Therefore, litigation should be used as an “Plan-B”, whereas it is more important to tackle the climate crisis with new legislation, e.g., measures to regulate emission as the cap-and-trade system (Tuhus-Dobrow 2015).

Moreover, in comparison with a trial, the true outcome of the crime that is currently happening on our planet is uncertain and many parts of the crime have not happened yet. So, is it possible to take someone to trial for a crime that is just about to happen, and whose effects are not certain yet? However, scientists are constantly evaluating climate models, and it is becoming clearer and clearer that future projections of rising temperatures are likely to be accurate (Hausfather et al. 2020). This should be enough reason and certainty to make a judgement in the courtroom, also given the, often quoted, fact that 97% of scientist agree that climate change is caused by human activity and that immediate action is necessary (Cook et al. 2013).

In my opinion, it is unhelpful to shift the blame back and forth between different actors. Of course, polluters who emit a lot need to reduce their emissions and be held accountable, and governments must implement policies and guidelines to facilitate this so that those responsible cannot avoid their duty to reduce emissions. Nevertheless, suing governments for inaction or for promoting fossil fuels draws attention to the severe risks of climate change, but we should be careful that this does not lead to a deviation from the path to our actual goal: mitigate climate change. Furthermore, the evidence of anthropogenic climate change is undeniable, and uncertainty does not justify inaction. I personally think we do not need to know the exact numbers of sea level and temperature rise or possible losses of life to act. If the lives of thousands of people are at stake, this is enough evidence to justify the necessity of climate action and it is the governments and the polluters task to tackle this. And if it is necessary to sue them to make them act, climate activists should make use of this tool.

References

Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R., Jacobs, P., & Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. In Environmental Research Letters (Vol. 8, Issue 2, p. 024024). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Gallagher, T. , Limb, L. (2022). Climate Change on trial: The European countries taking their governments to court. https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/06/17/climate-change-is-on-trial-all-the-countries-taking-their-governments-to-court

Hausfather, Z., Drake, H. F., Abbott, T., & Schmidt, G. A. (2020). Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections. In Geophysical Research Letters (Vol. 47, Issue 1). American Geophysical Union (AGU). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl085378

Markell, D. and Ruhl, J.B. (2012). An Empirical Assessment of Climate Change In the Courts: A New Jurisprudence Or Business As Usual? In Florida Law Review (Vol. 64, No 1, p.14)

Tuhus-Dubrow, R. (2015). Climate Change on Trial. In Dissent Magazine. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/climate-change-litigation-epa-obama

Varvaštian, S. (2016). Climate Change Litigation, Liability and Global Climate Governance – Can Judicial Policy-making Become a Game-changer? Berlin Conference “Transformative Global Climate Governance après Paris.