Legal battles over climate change have occurred in recent years in many countries. They reflect a kind of moral consensus and the determination of citizens to ensure governments act on spoken recognition of the climate emergency.
In 2024 a group of elderly Swiss women won a ruling at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which established that the Swiss government had violated their rights by its “woefully inadequate” efforts to fight climate change. Perhaps this is another reason why we hear so much opposition to the ECHR in this country! BBC News Report 2024 - Swiss Women's Win at European Court of Human Rights
In 2025, domestic legal cases were heard in a number of countries against fossil fuel interests, and the Guardian noted that in that year there had been thirteen wins for the planet:
The UK government published a revised carbon budget and growth delivery plan in October 2025 after its previous plan was ruled unlawful by the high court. This followed a successful lawsuit by the Good Law Project, Friends of the Earth, and ClientEarth. After the striking down of the original net zero strategy in court in 2022, the trio argued that the “threadbare” revised version was still not good enough.
The Guardian article said “The new document reaffirms the UK’s commitment to decarbonise its electricity supply by 2030 and reduce greenhouse gas emissions drastically by 2037, with specific measures for energy, transport, agriculture, homes and industry. However, campaigners are planning another round of legal action challenging national climate strategy, this time at the European Court of Human Rights.”
These legal cases may be increasingly important since Reform warned energy companies not to bid for renewables funding which a Reform government would remove, including all subsidies for renewables. Richard Tice said, “Net Stupid Zero is ruining our countryside and economy. Reform intends to stop it.” However, a recent letter from a number of unions to the government argues that investment in renewables is the fastest path to cutting fuel bills and would reduce reliance on gas. It is the international gas price which currently dictates energy prices.
These legal cases highlight a growing understanding of the way that human survival and wellbeing depend on reducing the use of fossil fuels and the way this should impact public bodies’ and commercial decisions. The backlash is strong; the relevant laws and the European Court of Human Rights themselves deserve defence.
But perhaps, as caring human beings, it is in our everyday conversations as well as our online responses that we can bear witness to the moral standards enshrined in these legal precedents.
Gill Westcott