Who Pays for Climate Change?

Global warming and humanity’s role in accelerating it have become one of the most contested issues in modern law and politics.

While everyone contributes to environmental harm in some way, certain actors bear a far greater share of responsibility. Long‑term collective action is essential, but recent cases suggest that courts may also compel more immediate financial accountability.

One such example is State of Rhode Island v Chevron Corp et al, a 2019 decision that offered a small coastal state a chance to challenge some of the world’s largest oil and gas companies for climate‑related damage.

This article examines the case and explores how it could shape the future of climate‑change litigation.

The Facts

In 2018, Rhode Island’s Attorney General and Governor filed a lawsuit against 21 major oil and gas companies, including BP, Shell and ExxonMobil, alleging that their activities significantly contributed to rising sea levels and coastal destruction.

The state argued that these companies had long rejected scientific evidence linking fossil‑fuel production to greenhouse‑gas emissions and had failed to warn consumers about the environmental consequences of their products.

Rhode Island officials announced the claim from a vulnerable stretch of coastline, warning that continued sea‑level rise could leave the area submerged after a major storm.

The lawsuit framed the companies’ conduct as a public nuisance and sought damages to cover future costs associated with climate change, including relocating residents from flood‑prone areas.

Why the US Court System Matters

The suit was initially filed in Rhode Island’s state courts under the state’s Environmental Rights Act. The defendants immediately attempted to move the case into federal court, arguing that the issues were national in scope.

Understanding the US system is crucial. Each state has its own court hierarchy, but federal courts handle cases involving federal law, interstate disputes and claims against the US government.

The location of a trial can dramatically influence its outcome. State courts have historically been more receptive to claims against manufacturers, the most famous example being the 1998 tobacco settlement, where four major tobacco companies were ordered to pay $246 billion to US states. Federal courts, by contrast, are more likely to dismiss such claims.

Rhode Island therefore fought to keep the case in state court, where precedent was more favourable.

The July 2019 Decision

In July 2019, a US District Court judge ruled in Rhode Island’s favour, not by awarding damages, but by remanding the case back to state court, allowing the claim to proceed.

The judge rejected the defendants’ argument that the matter belonged in federal court, finding no valid basis for federal jurisdiction. He noted that the companies “understood” the environmental consequences of their “immense” greenhouse‑gas emissions and suggested that a shift to renewable energy “would have saved a world of trouble.”

The ruling recognised Rhode Island’s need for assistance in managing the future costs of climate change.

The decision stood in stark contrast to a ruling just one week earlier, when a federal judge dismissed similar claims brought by California authorities. In that case, the judge emphasised the “positives” of fossil fuels and argued that regulating emissions was a matter for the political branches, not the courts.

Climate Litigation Beyond Rhode Island

Rhode Island’s victory is part of a broader global trend of citizens and governments using courts to hold powerful institutions accountable for environmental harm.

United States

• Massachusetts v EPA (2007): Several states successfully compelled the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act.
• Juliana v United States (2015–): A group of young plaintiffs argue that the government’s support for environmentally harmful activities violates their constitutional rights to life and liberty. The case remains ongoing.

Europe

• Urgenda Foundation v Netherlands (2015): Dutch campaigners forced the government to adopt a stronger national emissions‑reduction target.
• Lliuya v RWE (2015–): A Peruvian farmer sued German energy giant RWE for contributing to glacial melt that threatens his hometown. In 2017, a German court ruled the case had merit, allowing it to proceed.

These cases show a growing willingness to test the boundaries of environmental responsibility.

Could Similar Claims Succeed in the UK?

The UK has not yet seen a climate‑change lawsuit comparable to Rhode Island’s, but the legal framework does not rule it out.

Public nuisance, the basis of Rhode Island’s claim, exists in English common law. It applies when a defendant’s actions interfere with public health, comfort or rights.

A classic example is Attorney General v PYA Quarries (1957), where quarry operations emitting dust and noise were found capable of constituting a public nuisance affecting a “class of Her Majesty’s subjects.” What counts as a “class” depends on the facts but typically involves a group living in proximity.

With movements like Extinction Rebellion demonstrating public appetite for climate action, litigation against UK companies with poor environmental records is not unthinkable.

Critics argue that climate change is too vast and diffuse to fit within traditional nuisance law, which usually deals with localised harms.

Others counter that the urgency of climate protection demands innovative legal approaches, and that a single successful case could set a powerful precedent for future claims.

Conclusion

Rhode Island v Chevron marks a significant moment in climate‑change litigation.

It signals that courts may be willing to hold major emitters financially accountable for environmental damage, and that state‑level claims may be the most promising route.

As climate change continues to dominate political and legal debate, the question is no longer whether litigation will play a role, but how far courts will go in shaping the future of environmental responsibility.