Summary of Key Points
The "China Environmental Justice Development Report (2025)" released by the Supreme People's Court indicates that the issue of climate change has gradually moved from scientific warnings and policy objectives to judicial processes. While relevant legal norms have begun to take shape, they are currently scattered, with most cases being indirectly related to climate change (such as public interest litigation regarding air pollution). There have also been direct lawsuits, such as the "First Case on Abandonment of Wind and Solar Energy." The upcoming "Ecological Environment Code" elevates the "dual carbon" goals to mandatory legal requirements. The report recommends establishing systematic rules in areas such as carbon market disputes, burden of proof for climate-related infringements, and adaptive litigation to shift climate governance from policy-driven to rule-of-law-driven.
Detailed Analysis
1. Why can climate change be the subject of lawsuits? – From warnings to actual damage, judicial intervention is necessary
Climate change was once considered a potential risk in the future; now it has become a source of tangible harm (for example, extreme heat and heavy rains causing property damage). The policy goal of achieving carbon neutrality has also transformed into governance responsibilities for both businesses and governments. This means that climate change is no longer just an environmental slogan but involves specific disputes regarding rights and obligations (such as whether companies should reduce emissions) and the public interest (everyone's living environment), which require judicial resolution. The report emphasizes that climate change litigation serves as a window to observe the legalization of climate governance and represents a practical means to implement the dual carbon goals through the legal system.
2. What do current climate change lawsuits look like? – Scattered regulations and indirectly related cases, but with progress
- Regulatory framework: China already has a basic structure in place (e.g., judicial policies recognizing climate change as a relevant issue, environmental protection laws providing some legal support, and the use of public interest litigation). However, the legal basis is dispersed, and there is no dedicated law for climate change litigation.
- Case patterns: Most cases are indirectly related to climate change (for example, suing companies for air pollution). The number of such cases is increasing year by year. There have also been direct lawsuits, such as "Friends of Nature v. State Grid Gansu Branch," where an environmental organization sued the company for not utilizing wind and solar energy and instead relying on fossil fuels for power generation. After seven years, a settlement was reached; this marks the first case in China directly targeting climate change.
- Challenges: Cases have not yet developed into a distinct legal category, with new claims (such as requiring companies to reduce emissions) mixed with traditional disputes (such as compensation for pollution). Courts are responding cautiously, and specific judgment criteria are still unclear.
3. The arrival of the "Ecological Environment Code" – Turning dual carbon goals from soft commitments into hard laws
The "Ecological Environment Code," implemented on August 15th this year, includes a dedicated chapter on addressing climate change, emphasizing that dual carbon goals must be integrated into national planning and implementing both total and intensity controls on carbon emissions. This means that:
- Companies that fail to meet the standards (e.g., exceed emission limits) will face fines and potential legal action.
- Governments that do not implement dual carbon policies may also be held accountable.
The transformation of dual carbon goals from a policy slogan into mandatory law is a crucial step towards the legalization of climate governance.
4. How will courts handle climate change cases in the future? – The report provides three practical directions
- Clarify rules for carbon market disputes: Standards need to be established for issues such as corporate carbon emission quotas (emission reduction targets assigned by the government), voluntary emissions reductions, and disputes related to not meeting quotas, fraudulent carbon transactions, and errors in carbon asset management.
- Lower the burden of proof for climate-related infringements: It is difficult for individuals to prove a 100% causal relationship between high-carbon emissions and extreme weather events (e.g., heavy rains causing damage). The report suggests using a "probable causation" standard, meaning that if it can be demonstrated that there is a high likelihood that the company's emissions caused the damage, a lawsuit can be successful.
- Promote adaptive litigation: For example, in cases where coastal houses are damaged by erosion or residential areas are flooded due to inadequate drainage systems designed for extreme weather, courts should review whether buildings and planning meet "climate adaptability standards" to ensure that measures match potential risks (e.g., coastal structures need to be resistant to erosion, and urban drainage systems must withstand heavy rains), balancing environmental protection with economic development.
5. Does this affect ordinary people? – Definitely!
- In the future, individuals affected by climate-related damage (such as houses destroyed by floods due to inadequate construction) can seek legal redress through litigation.
- Companies will be more cautious about abandoning wind and solar energy or exceeding emission limits, which will promote a transition towards greener practices and improve our environment.
- With legal support for dual carbon goals, their implementation will be more robust, potentially reducing the frequency of extreme weather events.
In summary, climate change is no longer an issue that only affects others; the judiciary will help us protect our environmental foundations.