that industry looked for new launch option disclosure, but america's nasa and russia's ross cosmos struck a deal in the summer of 2022. that despite sanctions where they would border seat carrying one of the others, astronauts on every launch and promising to evacuate the others in case of emergency. sometimes people say no, we can like. there is no way like you like cutting your car in half. one half and the other half of the work, misfires and strikes have jostled the station over the past 2 years. europe when debris are incoming astronauts have limited options. the station can move or a crew can shelter for safety. there are no built in escape pods. crews have only what they came up and where on board science experiments continue in robotics. the human body and space cancer research and physics. the real output of the space station is maintaining this immense, complex engineering miracle for decades. and we need to know how to do that

if we're going to have settlements, or mars, or, or deep space human systems. and that depends on the people inside the leaking co operation has a long history. the life of people and space at the international space station is really sitting a very good example of how people should be living on this. all of this just a month before the release of the 1st feature film shot in orbit on the station by a director and actress from russia was about a fictional health emergency in space. collin baker, algebra ah no. again, i'm surely back to go with the headlines on our jazeera, a station master on duty during greece. his worst rail accident in history is you to appear in court. in the city of louisa. many want to know why

a passenger train was allowed to run on the same line as a freight train. 45 people were killed in the collision. israeli forces that detain 14 palestinians in the occupied west banking overnight. raids that comes after weeks of escalating violence in the area one palestinian was killed in a raid on the act by job by refugee camp in jericho on wednesday. and a nice really american was shot dead near jericho on tuesday. turkey 6 bonnie opposition alliance is said to me to discuss plan for the presidential election new to be held on may 14th. the vote will come about 3 months after 2 earthquakes kills more than $45000.00 people in turkey alone. india is prime minister, has g 20 members to find common ground on divisive issues. there in durham already made the comments at the thought of the g. 20 foreign ministers summit in new delhi, where the war in ukraine is taking center stage. iran government says it's investigating, after hundreds of school girls were poisoned by toxic gas,

local media, se the attacks have been happening since november and have been reported in more than 30 schools. none of the girls have died, but many has suffered from respiratory problems. those are the headlines on arches here. i'll have one use for you after the stream. stay with this. talk to al jazeera, we ask, but should they not be more oversight, perhaps, of foundations like yours? we listen when it comes to diversification, we don't do it in order to beat gets we don't the rational under do source. we meet with global news makers and talk about the stool, restock matter on al jazeera with hello and welcome to the stream. i'm at shabba, 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 with. joining us from washington d. c. is nicky rice, director of the climate and energy program at the center for international environmental law in mexico city. astrid prentice and 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 or 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 it 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 courts 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 trends 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 nick, he mentioned is out of frustration and the need for solutions, as we know climate as negotiations internationally started in ah, more than 30 f 30 years ago. so they, you, united nations framer for climate change was signed in 92. and the 1st a document that scientists called 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 we all need 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 government and corporations to advance solutions. and because we're not seeing that, that's right. also triggered this litigation. i'm and you know, the other, that's the perfect kind of a segue to you. i mean, i know that you're as a scientist 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 and environmental group for those who don't know your agenda, take a listen and i won't ask you about the science after this climate litigation is a really powerful told 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 communities from all corners of the world turning to the court to demand account authority. not just from governments, but also the 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 that 1st of all can with her jenda and those pieces, a lot of what's happening is just the understanding that they're saying to

a 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 in climate litigation and also give us a lot of potential for where we see some of these court 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 mean, 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, and used 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 hailed 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 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 columbia had their obligation to protect by demo that is a very key eco system in the and is specifically also because they, they important of this echo system for the protection of the, by your diversity fresh water and also climate to we have seen already decisions 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, highest courts in brazil, in mexico, at van st. the recognition of climate actions. so i'm curious, you know, we've talked now in our line, some of the things that are happening some of the trans i'm 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 flock climate strategies. and this is happening on this company or i should say this, this organization, the client earth say, but 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 hoping 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 department nikki, 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 different 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 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 the signal to

the 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 and for 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, in the visual 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 call out the financial folly of locking independence on oil and gas and prolonging the software . delta 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 those around 40000000000 and profit this year was 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, i'd 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 impacts and 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, also overs, 20 percent of emissions since the $1800.00 when scientists have have data is linked to about 90 companies to where 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 i think did very important in these, leading each no. and it's certainly an important part of this conversation i want to talk about that does 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 sort of 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 some, nearly 3 dozen cases that are what you're mentioned in there. these fraud cases i'm that are really based on disinformation 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 thought those were intentional decisions to actively down play and to store 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 expect in 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 in the i don't care. i know there's a lot about the role of these fossil fuel companies in misleading the public in down playing sorta 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, and that's some of this is a subtle messaging that's there. with that said, i, 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, delta i back, but yeah, give us the one sentence answer that you know that, cuz i know you could sit here and probably give us a 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 about 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 to get 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, 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 tech, no fixes magical solution, 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 names produced from fossil gas and fossil fuels. so these are actually ways of prolonging our reliance on oil and gas for decades in the future. and then 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 venue want to in, in the pacific islands, if i'm not mistaken, we mentioned there lens where there's a dutch court that ruled that shall, must cut its carbon emissions. we mentioned australia where a new coal, a 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 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 a 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 the documentation and conclude what are the obligation of states. and it's very important the lead for from one of our 2. 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 their attention and action of the states. and now it's a global movement. and now it staves are through, like the, the procedure is throw bay and un general assembly to make that this request to the highest gord internet and certainly inspiring to see, you know, youth driven initiative gain 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 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 where we talked 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. so i encourage if there are scientist 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 or any other, i'm sure i wanted to just lift that 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 jurisdictions 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 the court because we need policy processes that can actually make sure

justice and remedy. ringback 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 pass it in this out most certainly, and that's why we're so happy to have you after enjoying this 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 and with

how do you think controlled information? most school is one of the day of the case in the world. it has an incredible they feel, recognition technology. how does the narrative improve public opinion better know, walker asked, how is the to can, can they can leave flaming during the video spread like wildfire, they denied the passport in your brain. the listening post dissects the media. we don't cover the news. we cover the way the news is covered. 2002 was the 5th hottest year on global record stretching back more than

a century. government report says 2022 was a bad year for whether 2023 isn't shaping up to be much better already here in california series of severe storms has battered the coast line and the interior of the state buzzing a number of deaths and up to a $1000000000.00 in damages. climate scientists say the warming is caused by industrial age, heat trapping, gas emissions, which have been rising steeply since the $960.00. they say rapid reduction emissions are needed across the globe to slow or reverse the greenhouse effect. ah, calls for answers in greece after the worst trained accident in its history. 45 people were killed. the prime minister blames a tragic human error.