just hold off releasing their version until they've ironed out the audience that their boss alone and or monday you can always catch up with stories recovering by checking out our website as al jazeera dot com, you can also watches by clicking on the live icon details of russia being a nerves, it puts the by the drone attacks blamed on ukraine. ah, top stories are now to 0. at least 40 people had been killed in northern greece for a freight train. and the passenger train collided on tuesday night. the prime minister across me to attack is says the cause of the accident was 200 human error emergency workers the still at the see near the city of larissa. the passenger train was carrying 350 people at the time of the accident. the government is declared 3 days of national morning and the countries transport minister has

resigned. it's one of the worst rail accidents increases history. much our thoughts to day of 1st and foremost with the relatives of the victims, our obligations to treat the injured. and after that, to identify the bodies. beyond that, i can guarantee one thing we will find out what the causes of this tragedy were and do everything in our power to make sure it never happens again. one of the opposition party is defeated in nigeria is presidential election says it will launch a legal challenge against the result of the boat to bu is declared the winner. the former lego governor from the governing, apc party won the largest share of the vote. with 37 percent of the labor party says the election was fraudulent and the actual process, a sham voter turnout was very low. just 29 percent is really obvious. as is detained for palestinians over the killing of an israeli american. on monday, during a raid on the acrobat jabber refugee camp in the occupied west bank kirsten in

health ministry says a man also died of gunshot wounds. and the operation resulted in multiple other injuries. violence has been escalating across the occupied territories in recent days. is really police of crack down on hundreds of people in israel, protesting against prime minister benjamin netanyahu is planned judicial reforms. ah, major roads were blocked on reuben noses called for a national day of disruption. proposed changes would limit the power of the supreme court, while giving, giving greater powers to the government. critics call move anti democratic. the us house foreign affairs committee has approved a bill that would give president joe biden power to ban the chinese owned platform, tick tock. whitehouse had already asked federal agencies to remove the social media out from their systems because of security concerns. canada and the european parliament also announced plans to ban tick tock from government own phones. china

has criticized live, do say where the stream is coming up next, looking at climate law suits against major oil companies. and we're back out of that with all of this news. thanks very much for watching. see that i've enough ah, knowledge is here. with every oh, i hello and welcome to the stream i had shabby dean to day climate action through the courts as fossil fuel giants failed to deliver on climate pledges. environmentalists are turning to litigation, but can a new crop of climate lawsuits force big oil to change its ways?

we'll look at what's driving the latest wave of lawsuits aimed at holding polluters accountable for the climate emergency. and as always, you are more than welcome to be a part of today's conversation. share your thoughts right here in our live you to chat. aah! joining us from washington, d. c is nicki rice, director of the climate and energy program at the center for international environmental law in mexico city. astrid prentice, an independent consultant on climate change and human rights. and in the us state of maryland delta murder. lead scientist for the science hub for climate litigation at the union of concerned scientists. well, ladies welcome to the stream. we're all very concerned whether scientists are not and then that's why i want to start nicky by kind of asking you this seems like a global phenomenon that's accelerating this litigation. why is that? and why should people be concerned and paying attention?

that's absolutely right. it really is a global phenomenon in what climate litigation encompasses a really wide and rapidly growing number of cases that are being brought around the world in different countries, under different legal regimes and different types of court contribute. and those are cases, again, states and governments seeking governments that companies seeking to hold them accountable for their contributions to the climate crisis for their emissions. but also seeking to compel them to act urgently to address the crisis and the hall climate destructive activity. and it's really important to understand the accelerating trend is responding. i think 2 or 3 key developments. one is just the rapidly developing and severe climate impacts that we're witnessing around the world that are affecting a growing number of people across the planet and a growing number of people being harmed means a growing number of victims or potential claimants. second, scientific advances has made it more possible to connect those harms to their

causes chief among them, fossil fuels. and 3rd, there's a wide body of evidence in the public domain about what those fossil fuel companies and producers knew about the contributions of their products to the climate crisis when they knew it literally decades ago, and their failure to act on it. and so when people are harmed, they turn to the court, particularly when leaders are, are dragging their feet. and when politics break down, the law can help breakthrough. that's a lovely way of putting it and certainly helps us understand what's actually going on here. i want to dig a little deeper and ask you astrid, if you take a look i believe at this to eat. so i just let me close this out greenpeace international thing. the wave of global climate litigation continues. governments who refuse to take meaningful action to protect future generations must be held to account when you tried to identify astrid, what's happening here in terms of the increase in litigation, what do you attribute it to what, what started it?

so i think complimenting to at nick, he mentioned is out of frustration and the need for solutions as we know climate and negotiations internationally started in ah, more than 30 f 30 years ago. so they, you, united nations framework for climate change was signed in 92. and the 1st a document that scientists call attention internationally about climate change was from the ninety's. and so since then we have been negotiating for decades as i said . and although we have seen important agreements, solutions are not really ah, being delivered as we need. and so people and be all nate solutions. and that's one of the things that triggered this litigation at the same time. it's because misinformation. on the one side we're seeing science independent science, we have to as specific as specify that have showed the link between climate

change and fossil fuels and other activities such as the for a station. but we're seeing governments going on different directions and so we need governments and corporations to advance solutions. and because we're not seeing that, that's right. also triggered this litigation. i'm and you know, i don't think that's the perfect kind of a segue to you. i mean, i know that you are as a scientists focusing on the data. and i'm wondering, you know, we have this video coming from sarah, meet the co director of the climate litigation network in new zealand, who talks about a 2019 pivotal lawsuit. ah, by this dutch, an environmental group for those who don't know your agenda, take a lesson and i won't ask you about the science after the climate litigation is a really powerful tool to hold those most responsible for causing the climate crisis to account in the face of a rapidly worsening climate crisis. the agenda climate case against the dutch government shows what climate litigation can achieve in

a world fit the case. so the court order the government to slash its emissions in order to protect human rights, leading to an overhaul of climate policy and also inspiring the climate litigation movement. today we see fit to communities from all corners of the world, turning to the court to demand accountability, not just from government, but also big pollutants to protect their rights and those future generations. so i'm curious, hearing that and knowing what you've been predicting, as you can see here in this article 3 predictions for the climate litigation in 2023. i'm wondering what those predictions are and it's really based on new science, is it just granular data? what's going on here? yeah, so i want to take a step back because so there's a couple things that are going on here that are important to understand. so 1st of all can with her jenda and those pieces, a lot of what's happening is just the understanding that there's scientific

consensus on the causes and impacts of climate change that are being communicated now through the courts. because unfortunately, there have been failures for governments and corporations to adequately address climate change over the last 30 years as folks are saying. but there are really important advances that are happening as well in science. and there's 2 areas in particular that i think are important to mentioned here. so there's attribution science and then there's climate obstruction research which play really important roles. and i think why we see this advance and climate litigation, and also give us a lot of potential for where we see some of these core cases moving in the future as well. and where the new cases might come from. and if i may, when you talk about obstruction, for those who don't know, i me and i think there was new evidence if you will, that found that exxon accurately predicted global warming, dating back to the early 1970. so it's these kind of deflection and obstructive tactics that i think you know, people are trying to pinpoint and use to hold people accountable. i'm wondering

though astrid, like, you know, in the netherlands. we talked about that case in the, in the video comment that you saw there. it's been sort of held as a landmark case. what can we learn from that case, and what can you share with us about other cases maybe that are happening in the global south, which is maybe not always as focused on right, and thank you for that specific comment. so there again, the case is definitely a very important case because it was the 1st time as, ah, is what is it was mentioned that estate is obliged to, ah, reduce their emissions. and even before the, again, the case, ah, in columbia, the constitutional court, that is the highest court on human rights in 2016 declared that the government of colombia hat, the obligation to protect by demo that is a very key eco system in the and is specifically also because the, the importance of this echo system for the protection of the bio diversity, fresh water and also climate to we have seen already deficient in terms of climate

litigation even before you again the, the other case that i would like to highlight also is had the session from the entire american court on human rights in 2017, that concluded it's an advisory opinion that basically decided water and clarified the obligations of statements in terms of the environment. and it was the 1st time worldwide where a court, these high recognized that climate change actually exists. so that was important in terms of climate denial, but also that impact climate. i'm at altima, right? sorry. and that also that decision, even though it's not mandatory, it was used in there again the case. and so i wanted to also mention these 2 cases there. also, we have seen cases from higher, higher courts in brazil, in mexico, at van st. the recognition of climate actions. so i'm curious, you know, we've talked now and outlined some of the things that are happening some of the

trends. but what really stands out to me if i may kind of bring this up to you nikki, is like, if you look at this right here, shall directors personally sued over flawed climate strategies. and this is happening on this company, or i should say this, this organization, the client earth, say that the oil companies plans put the company at financial risk. now we have also a comment from the ceo of that law firm. and i would love to hear what you think about this trend nikki. she's, let's listen to what laura clark, how to say about it. i'll recent lucy again. shells, board of directors is exciting and significant because it's the 1st time that co put direct is helping help personally liable for failing to manage climate risk. so we argue that the directors of shell are failing to prepare the company for the net 0 transition. and in doing so,

they're risking the long term commercial viability of the company. so we're bringing this case as shareholders, in the interests of the company. it shareholders and the permit mickey, maybe i can ask you to speculate. maybe it's not fair, but, but what's the defense here? i mean, how has the response been and is there a defense strategy that's viable for these big oil companies? well, i think the principle defense strategy that we've seen is the oil companies trying to re position themselves as part of the solution rather than the critical source of the problem that they are. but before we come to that, i think that's exactly why we're seeing such an uptick in cases that are really probing greenwashing. and the way in which, using the stamp of, of net 0 and, and the label of cleaner green companies are trying to dress that business as usual as something that's compatible with with the state climate. but on this showcase in the, in the u. k, which i think is a really a critical harbingers things that come in. it's a critical 1st attempt to personalize liability and to really send

a signal to decision makers. those individuals who are making financial and economic decision or companies for banks, investments for retirement funds. that they will be on the hook for downplaying climate risk inter failing to align business practices with what the science clearly shows is needed to prevent climate catastrophe. because as astrid said, there is a consensus now that climate change is clearly a human rights issue would affect all human rights across the board. but it's not just about human rights and the environment. it also is one of the greatest threats to economic and financial stability. and so, you know, individual decision makers, if they failed to close this disconnect between what companies are doing, where they're putting their money in continuing oil and gas production. and what we know is needed to avoid climate catastrophe, and the costs that come with it are going to be facing increasing numbers of

students like this one. i predict, we're going to see more investors in shareholders seeking recourse to, you know, call out the financial folly of locking in dependence on oil and gas and prolonging the software data. you are going to jump. yeah, well jump in and so yeah, so just so we understand kind of the context, right, so shell, this year had record profits and i believe it was around $40000000000.00 and profit this year is also one of the hottest on records and one of the costliest as far as whether damages that we saw from, from any year. so we're looking at, you know, 40000000000 and profits from this company. but there was data that was released from an insurance broker at the end of january. that categorized over $3313000000000.00 of economic loss that came from whether disasters in, in last year alone. so not all of this is climate change, but it's also only one year. and then just to say, kind of where some of the next steps of sciences and how it can really help to inform these discussions. there is

a study that was released the last bay that looked specifically at economic damage from, from climate change. so they were looking at one event, so they looked at hurricane sandy and they were isolate in their records to just look at additional economic damage from sea level rise from climate change. so climate change is impacting hurricanes and a number of different ways. so just from sea level rise, and just from this one storm, there is approximately $8100000000.00 of additional damage that can be attributed through science, through this attribution work to climate change, and specifically to sea level rise from climate change. so i think these types of studies and as they grow and we see them more across the world, they really help to inform these discussions. and astrid, i know you wanted to jump and go ahead. yeah, and so as you can see, i mean these litigation brings a lot of aspects and the element that i wanted to add also is about inequalities and justice. because as we have seen in both the can,

delta have mentioned that there is a huge inequality in terms of impact on responsibilities that we're not seeing today. so science science has con, also measured that about 10 percent of the population globally is responsible for about 15 percent of carbon emissions and historically old. so, oh, worse, 20 percent of emissions since the $1800.00 when scientists have have data is linked to about 90 companies. so we're, we're talking about climate make as he, when we're talking about climate change. we're also talking about inequalities, and that is one of the elements that and they did very important in these lean each no. and it's certainly an important part of this conversation. i want to talk about that just to take a step back. you know, we're talking about the global south here. we gave several examples for our audience, but delta in the u. s. content context, if i'm not mistaken. most of the cases when it comes to the fossil fuel industry, trying to hold them accountable are actually now about fraud, right?

about deceiving the public as we've mentioned. and i just think that's interesting in the context of greenwashing, which we've covered here at the stream. but it's also interesting in terms of how long they've known soard about their consequences and how long they've been able to deflect. so am i right in understanding delta that, that in the u. s. context, a lot of these companies are no longer able to continue appealing their on their last round of appeals. i mean, what does that actually mean in terms of what's likely to happen in the u. s. context here? yeah. so there's nearly 3 dozen cases that are what you're mentioning. there are these fraud cases that are really based on just information and based on consumer fraud. the fact that the companies have known for more than 5 decades about the impacts of their products and have lied to consumers about that. and that those were intentional decisions to actively downplay and distort the mounting evidence of climate change from,

from their products. so that's kind of the basis of that these suits have been filed, it's been about a 5 year process for a number of them, but we are seen movement. so last year there are 2 of those cases that did start to move forward and moved into discovery. and we're expecting a lot more of the cases to move into discovery this year, which is a really exciting moment for the legal cases. and then also as scientists for the potential of new documentation that comes out, that we can further understand what the industry knew and when most certainly and you know, and again, i know there's a lot about the role of these fossil fuel companies in misleading the public in downplaying, sort of climate emergency but also deflecting, you know, forcing us to be somewhat obsessed with our own carbon footprint, as individuals in a way to flex away from these big corporations and their, their carbon footprints. right? and that's some of the subtle messaging that's there. with that said,

i want to share with you what's being discussed here on youtube. we have, for example, take magnet, asking interesting name, can you prove oil is causing climate change beyond a reasonable doubt? ladies, can you? yes, yes, exactly. yeah, give us the one sentence answer because i know you can sit here and probably give it the sermon about all the different ways in which that's true. yeah, so just to be really clear with georgia source attribution one form of science climate source attribution allows us to identify the pollutants that cause climate change and allow us to go back to the source so we can understand the contribution of fossil fuels, deforestation, agriculture, industrial processes, all of that is possible to track through to see what is happening with the concentrations of greenhouse gases and the atmosphere. and then we can connect that to various events that was mentioned before. so we have studies that very clearly

show that you know, emissions from just 90 of the largest carbon producers contributed over half of the observed temperature rises are the half of the carbon dioxide that we see in the atmosphere. nearly half of the temperature rises. a 3rd of all sea level rise, half of ocean is that if occasion. and again, we can directly connected back to those companies nikki, is there anything you wanted to add? i mean, i know we talked about a couple landmark cases, but something to share. sure. i mean, just in response to that question, you know, don't take it from, from me as a lawyer, take it from the intergovernmental panel on climate change, the world's preeminent climate authority. that says quite clearly in its latest reports, that fossil fuels are unequivocally the primary cause of global warming. if you look just at the past decade, i think it's something like plus or minus 86 percent of emissions, carbon dioxide emissions have come from the fossil fuel and industry sector. so that, that is an undeniable and unequivocal at this point. what i do want to come back to

is just to say that these cases that are going on across the united states are really significant. they do involve a consumer fraud and deception claims around the pivot that companies. fossil fuel companies have made from the past denial of their contribution to climate change to a rebranding of themselves as part of the solution and deceptive practices to call fossil gas clean or green, or to promote new techno fixes magical solutions, but somehow make it seem like we can continue using oil and gas indefinitely in the future without the climate consequences because we have this new technology, carbon capture and storage, which is certainly not new, but it's been used to pump more oil out of the ground for decades. or hydrogen, which is this, you know, supposedly magical fuel for the future, but it's actually 99 percent of hydrogen's. they've produced from fossil gas and fossil fuel. so these are actually ways of prolonging our reliance on oil and gas for decades in the future. and when we try to predict, you know,

the next decade or the next few years in terms of climate litigation, you know, lots of these cases are driven by grassroots action. as we've said in the global south, especially astrid. and then the example that i want to talk about a venue to an in the pacific island, if i'm not mistaken. we mentioned netherlands where there's a dutch court that ruled that shell must cut its carbon emissions. we mentioned australia where a new coal project was rejected due to emissions and human rights concerns. so centering this debate, this small island, you know, what is the significance of, i don't want to if i'm not mistaken. it also involves the international court of justice, which could be critical here. astrid? yes. so one of say what the dead you effort that you're mentioning is that when a want to, as a state is leading with other a pacific island states and to day, literally we're saying you are p and states. also joining our request for their international court of justice in the hague act to take this climate,

climate change question and ah, analyze and conclude, what are the states obligations in regard to climate action? and this is very important. it will be done through an advisory opinion where there this air, international court of justice in the hate will be able to analyze, receive documentation and conclude what are the obligation of states. and it's very important the lead for, from one of our to and it's important to, to say that it started with the youth from one at what, by an iwatsu and the pacific islands, and calling the attention and action of the states. and now it's a global movement, and now it staves through like the, the procedure is through bay and un general assembly to make that this request to the highest court, the internet. and it certainly inspiring to see, you know, youth driven initiative gained that much attention and support on the global level, hundreds of countries or over a 100 countries indicating that id supported on anything,

anything to share with us about maybe limitations, some challenges moving forward. i'm curious at delta, i know i know from a science perspective you've probably you've probably seen how it's taken this long to get to this point. so any, any sort of challenges about i guess one thing just to mention is there is an incredible need for new research in this area as well. we did a study last year that where we talk to litigators about the gaps that they see, the needs that they have for future litigation moving forward. and we identified over a 100 research questions that need to be answered now to help inform these cases. so we really need the scientific community to step up to understand the importance of the role of science in this work, to understand litigation, the role that it has in climate action right now. and there's a lot of resources for doing that are in courage. if there are scientists and experts to reach out, and then i think especially in

a context with the folks we're talking to today, it's critical that the scientific community in the legal community are really coming together and talking through these pieces so that there's strategic cases that are able to move forward certainly. and if i could go ahead very quickly, were any other, i'm sure i wanted to just lift up that i think it's the social movements are in the central part of the success of any strategy for climate justice. it's never going to be one in the court room alone. and what's so exciting and encouraging about the accelerating piece of litigation in different sections across the world is that it is indeed supported by and being generated and amplified by a massive climate, justice movement and environmental justice moving around the world. and there are critical cases, the united states, those cases going through the courts in different states around the country are not just important here, but the, the laws that they are based on consumer protection laws are very similar to laws and other countries. so those precedents are going to be important elsewhere. but one of the key things we as advocates need to do is to ensure that the fight

doesn't stop at the court because we need policy processes that can actually make sure justice and remedy is meet it out. not just to those who have access to the courtroom door, but to those who are most effective and addressing inequalities is key to my friend most acid in this that most certainly, and that's why we're so happy to have you after join the conversation ladies, that all the time we have for today's conference, thanks for being with us. and for those of you watching you next time, ah ah, a lot. well,

the law with neither side, willing to negotiate is the ukraine war becoming a forever war. is america's global leadership, increasingly fragile. what we'll us politics look like as we had to the presidential election of 2024. the critical look us politics, the bottom line, talk to al jazeera, we are. but should they not be more responsive, perhaps so foundations like yours? we listen when it comes to diversification, we don't do it in order to get through the rational energy sources. we meet with global news makers. i'm talk about the store restock matter on al jazeera. mm. a. ready ready a

with ah, wherever you go in the world, one airline going to make it for you. exceptional katara going places to go. and i will learn taylor not in the top stories on al jazeera, the greek premieres to korea caused me to attack his says the cause of a major train accident that killed at least 40 people was tried to.