Talk:Climate change litigation

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bbcook808. Peer reviewers: EKingery.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello everyone! I just wanted to ask for a feedback on the paragraph I recently added to the article, in which I described two recent and notable lawsuits filed in Italy.

I think I've done my best in trying to collect essential information from the sources I retrieved, although the language barrier and pay-wall articles might be a problem while double-checking the first case...

Also, only after I finished the job, I realized that the sub-paragraph about the Eni lawsuit likely drags on for too long: should I work on a separate article, instead, and then do a sum-up on this page?

Oltrepier (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@William M. Connolley Hello, I'm tagging you here so we can keep the discussion thread in one piece!

Thank you for explaining your reverse-edit of the details I added about that lawsuit. I forgot The Guardian reported that "the groups intended to file the suit in the civil court of Rome by 19 May", so yes, I should have definitely been more clear. Another reliable source I've managed to retrieve reported that the plaintiffs "initiated legal proceedings against" Eni and its co-holders (hanno citato Eni in giudizio), but it doesn't mean they already filed the suit, does it?

The thing is, both The Guardian and la Repubblica reported that the initial hearings might take place in November, but considering the suit had not been officially filed yet, that sounds confusing to me...

Still, thank you for pointing it out! Oltrepier (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

My concern is that a number of such lawsuits are (IMHO) frivolous and filed for the publicitly that they generate more than any hope of obtaining a meaningful result. So I think that Wiki ought to winnow these a little, and at-least-bothered-to-file is some kind of bar to notability William M. Connolley (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@William M. Connolley To be honest, I wanted to include those lawsuits mainly because they were the very first examples of climate litigation in Italy, but yes, I understand what you said.

About the Eni lawsuit, given that the plaintiffs sued one of the most influential and important companies in the country, and they organized an extensive investigation in order to elaborate their accusations, I'd think they're quite serious about it. The problem is, I just can't find any updates on the suit's status, so I'm stuck at the moment... Oltrepier (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

And Oltrepier, added content must be as concise (brief) as appropriate. Long passages of text give more prominence to a subject, which is improper for subjects that are less notable in real life. A good guideline is to look at similar entries in the same article, and conform to standards that have evolved. —RCraig09 (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@RCraig09 You're right, sorry about it... These are my first contributions to the subject (I usually cover much lighter topics), and I'm still learning the various aspects of the editing process, so I appreciate any kind of advice. Oltrepier (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@William M. Connolley and RCraig09: Hello! Just so you know, I've decided to re-submit the paragraph about the Eni lawsuit: the first hearing took place on February 16, so the court case is officially open now. I understand many of those bits of information would be more suitable for a separate article about the lawsuit, but still, I'm looking forward to your feedback! Oltrepier (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Oltrepier I recommend moving this content to "Climate change in Italy" or seperate articles for the cases -- if you think they are going to reach international press in terms of prominence, I would create a new article for the specific case. A shorter summary for each of the cases (less than one paragraph) and a link would be better for this level of survey article, Sadads (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sadads Good point! To be fair, the original announcement of the lawsuit already gained some kind of international attention, having been reported on by The Guardian and DeSmog. Still, the court case has officially started just last week, and it will likely take months, or even years, to even get to the first verdict...

In the meantime, I agree that creating a new specific page would be a nice solution: the problem is, despite being very interested in climate change-related topics, I've got very little experience with these types of articles. Maybe starting a sandbox draft and then letting you all collaborate would be the right thing to do, wouldn't it? Oltrepier (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Oltrepier if you start something in a sandbox i am sure one og us could review, Sadads (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sadads Right, thank you! I don't know how much time I'll have in the next few weeks, but I'll try to lay down the basic structure, at the very least. Oltrepier (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@William M. Connolley, RCraig09, and Sadads: Right, I've prepared a sandbox draft specifically about the court case, although hearings are still in their earliest phases. What do you think about it? Oltrepier (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Oltrepier: I haven't compared the text to the references, but in my initial ten-minute review, I think your draft is well organized and well articulated. Would you object if I made small changes to your draft (probably this weekend)? —RCraig09 (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed: a standalone Eni article would make it feasible to reduce the large size of the Eni section here. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@RCraig09: I absolutely don't mind further edits: go for it!

Yes, I guess the case has already gained enough notability at this point, and it will likely gain even more attention with further developments. Oltrepier (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Adding some background material:

• Kaminski, Isabella (15 March 2024). "UK company directors may be liable for climate impacts, say lawyers". The Guardian. London, United Kingdom. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-03-15.
• Shivji, Sharif A; Stubbs, Rebecca; Burton, James; Anderson, Karl; Sharafi, Hossein (11 March 2024). Nature-related risks and directors' duties under the law of England and Wales — Opinion (PDF). London, United Kingdom: Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative (CCLI). Retrieved 2024-03-15.

I don't know the domain well enough to add this material. But it does look relevant. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The last lede para asserts that

There is a growing trend of activist cases successfully being won in global courts. The 2017 UN Litigation Report identified 884 cases in 24 countries, including 654 cases in the United States and 230 cases in all other countries combined. As of July 1, 2020, the number of cases has almost doubled to at least 1,550 climate change cases filed in 38 countries (39 including the courts of the European Union), with approximately 1,200 cases filed in the US and over 350 filed in all other countries combined. By December 2022, the number had grown to 2,180, including 1,522 in the U.S. The number of litigation cases is expected to continue rising in the 2020s.

I'm doubtful it is true: notice that all the numbers are about the increase in cases filed, not in cases won. Does anyone have the numbers for cases won? (not anecdotes) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is at least the UN Sources, and this 2023 Review. Additionally, this analysis by the BBC, Reuters, and Inside Climate News. The numbers are at least true, but the claims may be a bit off. Sadads (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

That pretty well supports what *I* said. Take your first, which leads to https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/43008/global_climate_litigation_report_2023.pdf?sequence=3, which contains lots of analysis of the raw number of cases files, but doesn't contain the words "won" or "lost". The Beeb does at least say "Globally, 55% of cases have had a climate-positive ruling, according to the LSE's latest annual report which studies 549 lawsuits outside the US where courts had so far made a decision. (Similar analysis for case outcomes within the US is sparse)" which has the weird implication that no-one has even counted the numbers won / lost in the US. Merely counting numbers is dubious obvs, but would at least be a start William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply