Tessa Khan

Last updated

Tessa Khan is an environmental lawyer who lives in the United Kingdom. She co-founded and is co-director of the Climate Litigation Network, which supports legal cases related to climate change mitigation and climate justice.

Khan has argued that national governments have knowingly profited from raising carbon dioxide levels and caused damage to the environment, including as part of the globally important precedent Climate Case Ireland. [1]

Biography

Supreme Court of the Netherlands, The Hague Supreme Court of the Netherlands, The Hague 06.jpg
Supreme Court of the Netherlands, The Hague

Tessa Khan has been involved in human rights law and advocacy campaigning. [2]

In Thailand she worked for a women's human-rights non-profit organization. [3] While there in 2015 she learnt of a court ruling at The Hague ordering the Netherlands to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions. Inspired by the case, Khan moved to London to join Urgenda Foundation's legal team in 2016. [3] [4]

Khan co-founded the Climate Litigation Network with Urgenda Foundation to support climate cases around the world. She serves as the Climate Litigation Network's co-director. Through the organization, she has successfully helped activist groups sue their own governments. [5] It handles cases around the world, including Canada, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, and South Korea. [5]

She supported cases in The Netherlands and Ireland that successfully challenged the adequacy of government plans to reduce emissions. [5] [6] In December 2019, in the State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation case, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ordered the government to scale back the capacity of coal power stations and oversee around €3 billion in investment for cutting carbon emissions. [5] The win has been described by the Guardian as "the most successful climate lawsuit to date." [7]

In August 2020, in what is known as Climate Case Ireland, the Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that its government must make a new and more ambitious plan to cut carbon. [5] [8] Ireland ranks third in greenhouse gas emissions per capita among European Union countries. [5]

Tessa Khan received the Climate Breakthrough Award in 2018. [9] Time included her in its 2019 list of 15 women leading the fight against climate change. [3]

Related Research Articles

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Massachusetts, along with eleven other states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey, brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented by Gregory G. Garre to force the federal agency to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that pollute the environment and contribute to climate change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy</span> Dutch Cabinet-level economic development agency

The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy is the Netherlands' ministry responsible for international trade, commercial, industrial, investment, technology, energy, nuclear, renewable energy, environmental, climate change, natural resource, mining, space policy, as well as tourism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paris Agreement</span> 2015 international treaty on climate change

The Paris Agreement is an international treaty on climate change that was adopted in 2015. The treaty covers climate change mitigation, adaptation, and finance. The Paris Agreement was negotiated by 196 parties at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference near Paris, France. As of February 2023, 195 members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are parties to the agreement. Of the three UNFCCC member states which have not ratified the agreement, the only major emitter is Iran. The United States withdrew from the agreement in 2020, but rejoined in 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change in Europe</span> Emissions, impacts and responses of Europe related to climate change

Climate change has resulted in an increase in temperature of 2.3 °C (2022) in Europe compared to pre-industrial levels. Europe is the fastest warming continent in the world. Europe's climate is getting warmer due to anthropogenic activity. According to international climate experts, global temperature rise should not exceed 2 °C to prevent the most dangerous consequences of climate change; without reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, this could happen before 2050. Climate change has implications for all regions of Europe, with the extent and nature of impacts varying across the continent.

<i>Juliana v. United States</i> 2015 lawsuit

Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. is a climate-related lawsuit filed in 2015 by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States and several executive branch officials. Filing their case in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, the plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization Our Children's Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the members of Martinez's organization Earth Guardians, and climatologist James Hansen as a "guardian for future generations". Some fossil fuel and industry groups initially intervened as defendants but later requested to be dropped following the 2016 presidential election, stating that the case would be well defended under the new administration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change litigation</span> Use of legal practice to further climate change mitigation

Climate change litigation, also known as climate litigation, is an emerging body of environmental law using legal practice to set case law precedent to further climate change mitigation efforts from public institutions, such as governments and companies. In the face of slow climate change politics delaying climate change mitigation, activists and lawyers have increased efforts to use national and international judiciary systems to advance the effort. Climate litigation typically engages in one of five types of legal claims: Constitutional law, administrative law, private law (challenging corporations or other organizations for negligence, nuisance, etc., fraud or consumer protection, or human rights.

Carbon pricing in Canada is implemented either as a regulatory fee or tax levied on the carbon content of fuels at the Canadian provincial, territorial or federal level. Provinces and territories of Canada are allowed to create their own system of carbon pricing as long as they comply with the minimum requirements set by the federal government; individual provinces and territories thus may have a higher tax than the federally mandated one but not a lower one. Currently, all provinces and territories are subject to a carbon pricing mechanism, either by an in-province program or by one of two federal programs. As of April 2023 the federal minimum tax is set at CA$65 per tonne of CO2 equivalent, set to increase to CA$170 in 2030.

<i>Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act</i> Canadian law

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is a Canadian federal law establishing a set of minimum national standards for carbon pricing in Canada to meet emission reduction targets under the Paris Agreement. It was passed as Part 5 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1 – an omnibus budget bill – during the 42nd Parliament of Canada. The law came into force immediately upon receiving royal assent on June 21, 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greenhouse gas emissions by China</span> Emissions of gases harmful to the climate from China

China's greenhouse gas emissions are the largest of any country in the world both in production and consumption terms, and stem mainly from coal burning, including coal power, coal mining, and blast furnaces producing iron and steel. When measuring production-based emissions, China emitted over 14 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2eq of greenhouse gases in 2019, 27% of the world total. When measuring in consumption-based terms, which adds emissions associated with imported goods and extracts those associated with exported goods, China accounts for 13 gigatonnes (Gt) or 25% of global emissions.

<i>State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation</i> Dutch court case about carbon dioxide emissions

State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation (2019) is climate change litigation heard by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands related to government efforts to curtail carbon dioxide emissions. The case was brought against the Dutch government in 2013, arguing the government, by not meeting a minimum carbon dioxide emission-reduction goal established by scientists to avert harmful climate change, was endangering the human rights of Dutch citizens as set by national and European Union laws.

Urgenda is a nonprofit foundation (stichting) in the Netherlands which aims to help enforce national, European and international environment treaties. In 2013, Urgenda filed a lawsuit against the state of the Netherlands – respectively also against the government – at the court of The Hague, to force them to make more effective policies that reduce the amount of emissions, with the aim to protect the people of the Netherlands against the effects of climate change and pollution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change in the Netherlands</span> Emissions, impacts and responses of the Netherlands related to climate change

The Netherlands is already affected by climate change. The average temperature in the Netherlands rose by more than 2 °C from 1901 to 2020. Climate change has resulted in increased frequency of droughts and heatwaves. Because significant portions of the Netherlands have been reclaimed from the sea or otherwise are very near sea level, the Netherlands is very vulnerable to sea level rise.

Friends of the Irish Environment v Government of Ireland was an important climate change case decided by the Irish Supreme Court in 2020. In the case, the Supreme Court quashed the Government of Ireland's 2017 National Mitigation Plan on the grounds that it lacked the specificity required by the Irish Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015. The Supreme Court ordered the government to create a new plan which was compliant with the 2015 Climate Act.

<i>Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell</i> Dutch legal case (2021)

Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell (2021) is a human rights law and tort law case heard by the district court of The Hague in the Netherlands in 2021 related to efforts by several NGO's to curtail carbon dioxide emissions by multinational corporations. It was brought by the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth and a group of other NGO's against the oil corporation, Shell plc. In May 2021, the court ordered Shell to reduce its global carbon emissions from its 2019 levels by 45% by 2030, relating not only to the emissions from its operations, but also those from the products it sells. It is considered to be the first major climate change litigation ruling against a corporation.

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court relating to the Clean Air Act, and the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate carbon dioxide emissions related to climate change.

The Oslo Principles, formally the Oslo Principles on Global Obligations to Reduce Climate Change, are a set of principles identifying the legal obligations of states to limit climate change, as well as means of meeting these obligations. Written by an international group of legal experts, the Principles’ goal is to limit the rise in average global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius. The Oslo Principles were presented on March 30 at King’s College London.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marjan Minnesma</span> Dutch activist

Marjan Minnesma is a Dutch activist.

<i>Lliuya v RWE AG</i>

Lliuya v RWE AG (2015) Case No. 2 O 285/15 is a German tort law and climate litigation case, concerning liability for climate damage in Peru from a melting glacier, against Germany's largest coal burning power company, RWE, which has caused approximately 0.47% of all historic greenhouse gas emissions. It is currently on appeal in the Upper State Court, Oberlandesgericht Hamm.

<i>Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd</i>

Smith v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd [2024] NZSC 5 is a landmark New Zealand tort law case, concerning liability of major fossil fuel polluters for climate damage. The NZ Supreme Court held that polluting companies could be liable in tort to pay damages from global warming and rising sea levels to people whose coastal property is damaged, overturning courts below.

<i>Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland</i> European Court of Human Rights case

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland (2024) was a landmark European Court of Human Rights case in which the court ruled that Switzerland violated the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to adequately address climate change. It is the first climate change litigation in which an international court has ruled that state inaction violates human rights.

References

  1. Harvey, Fiona (2020-06-12). "Climate crisis to blame for $67bn of Hurricane Harvey damage – study". the Guardian. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  2. "Tessa Khan". Climate Breakthrough Project. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  3. 1 2 3 "Meet 15 Women Leading the Fight Against Climate Change". Time. 12 September 2019. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  4. Timperley, Jocelyn (July 8, 2020). "The law that could make climate change illegal". BBC. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kusmer, Anna (August 13, 2020). "Activists took the Irish govt to court over its national climate plan — and won". The World from PRX. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  6. Khan, Tessa (2020-08-16). "Tessa Khan: 'Litigation is a powerful tool in the environmental crisis'". The Guardian. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  7. Watts, Jonathan (2020-04-24). "Dutch officials reveal measures to cut emissions after court ruling". The Guardian. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  8. Kaminski, Isabella (2020-07-31). "Ireland forced to strengthen climate plan, in supreme court win for campaigners". Climate Home News. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  9. "Climate Breakthrough Awardees". Climate Breakthrough Project. Retrieved 2021-03-14.