* By Juanita Gómez, Florencia Ortúzar, Gisselle García, Claudia Strambo and Elisa Arond
The ever-evolving field of climate science has not only deepened our understanding of changes in climate systems but has also redefined debates about responsibility and accountability for climate-related damages . By establishing causal links between greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their impacts—such as extreme weather events—scientific advances have become a key tool for advancing climate justice in the courts .
However, significant challenges remain in making scientific knowledge, and the technology needed to produce it, more accessible to those who practice law. This problem particularly affects low-income countries, where communities face the most intense effects of climate change .
In this context, climate litigation has emerged as a powerful tool for challenging the ambition of climate policies, holding both governments and corporations accountable for their contribution to the climate crisis. As of January 2025, more than 1,000 climate-related cases had been filed worldwide. Many of these seek to curb fossil fuel extraction and hold fossil fuel companies responsible for climate-related damages.
Based on a recent report prepared by experts from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), we analyze how science is transforming climate litigation: the challenges that Latin America and other low-income regions face in accessing scientific evidence, as well as the opportunities that arise to use this knowledge in the future of climate litigation.
How does science contribute to climate litigation?
Science plays a fundamental role in climate litigation by providing the basis for establishing states' responsibility for climate damage. It allows for the assessment of their direct or indirect contributions to such damage, as well as the coherence and ambition of national emissions reduction targets and policies. In cases related to climate change adaptation and the protection of human rights, scientific evidence offers crucial information on regional climate impacts and the adequacy of state responses.
One of the most influential sources of scientific evidence in climate litigation is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , which has provided a solid foundation for landmark cases demanding more ambitious climate policies in the face of climate change, such as Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands and Neubauer et al. v. Germany . The IPCC's reports on the remaining carbon budgets needed to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement have also enriched legal debates surrounding the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities , according to which all countries have a responsibility to act, although the type and level of action vary according to their circumstances and capabilities.
However, while IPCC reports represent a widely recognized scientific consensus, they often lack the specificity needed to meet the evidentiary standards required in courts and to guide concrete climate action. This underscores the need for more specific scientific knowledge tailored to litigation.
Historically, most climate litigation cases have been brought against governments. However, there is a growing trend of cases against corporations for their contribution to climate change, particularly in the oil and gas sector . A key turning point was the 2014 Carbon Majors study , which provided a solid scientific basis for attributing emissions to specific companies. By tracking the historical emissions of major oil, gas, coal, and cement producers, the study demonstrated the substantial role of corporations in increasing global emissions. An updated analysis found that 78 private and state-owned fossil fuel and cement companies are responsible for 70% of cumulative CO₂ emissions between 1854 and 2022.
How does science shape climate litigation in the oil and gas industry in Latin America?
In Latin America, climate litigation cases have focused on violations of constitutional rights, particularly the right to a healthy environment. Many of these cases challenge inconsistencies between national policies and international commitments, often relying on legal and human rights arguments rather than scientific evidence. However, the use of scientific information is becoming increasingly common to support claims related to the environmental impacts of oil and gas projects.
Scientific evidence is especially crucial for assessing environmental damage and socioeconomic impacts in sensitive ecosystems and Indigenous territories. Threats to biodiversityprofoundly affect the rights of Indigenous peoples , whose ways of life, traditions, and spiritual connections to the land are deeply intertwined with ecosystems. Therefore, it is essential to integrate climate science and biodiversity data into litigation cases to strengthen arguments for environmental protection and human rights.
While lawsuits against oil and gas companies for climate damages are still rare in Latin America, global trends indicate they could increase. In the U.S., for example, local governments have filed more than 26 lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, alleging consumer fraud and seeking compensation for damages associated with climate change. In 2023 , the Hawaii Supreme Court allowed Honolulu's lawsuit against major oil and gas companies to proceed, accusing them of deceptive advertising and failing to warn about the climate impacts of their products. Despite the companies' attempts to have the case dismissed, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected their appeal in January 2025, allowing the proceedings to continue. If successful, these cases could set influential precedents and encourage transnational litigation that holds corporations accountable for damages caused in lower-income regions.
A landmark case is Lliuya v. RWE from 2015 , in which a Peruvian farmer sued Germany's largest energy company in a German court. The plaintiff alleged that RWE, as one of the world's leading greenhouse gas emitters, had significantly contributed to the accelerated retreat of a glacier near his property, increasing the risk of catastrophic flooding. The court dismissed the case in May 2015, finding that the evidence did not demonstrate that the melting glacier posed a concrete threat to the plaintiff's property. Even so, the ruling set an important precedent by recognizing that greenhouse gas-emitting companies can, in principle, be held liable for the climate risks they generate. This opens the door for future transnational litigation seeking to establish corporate responsibility for the impacts of climate change. However, plaintiffs face significant challenges in providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate actual or imminent damages.
Beyond establishing liability in cases of climate loss and damage, science can play a broader role in climate litigation if adapted to the specific context of Latin America. Strengthening climate research in the region would allow for a better understanding of how climate change affects the livelihoods, territorial rights, and cultural survival of Indigenous Peoples—fundamental aspects that can support litigation based on human rights and environmental justice.
Traditional knowledge in climate litigation in Latin America
In Latin America, approximately 35% of forests are inhabited by Indigenous peoples , whose traditional knowledge plays a vital role in understanding and responding to climate change. This knowledge, accumulated over generations, complements scientific data by offering regional and temporal precision, crucial for validating large-scale climate models. Although traditional knowledge has gained increasing recognition in climate policy, especially in adaptation strategies, its role in climate litigation remains largely unexplored.
In Ecuador, a lawsuit filed in 2020 by civil and Indigenous organizations against PetroOriental SA challenged the flaring of gas in the Amazon. In the absence of scientific studies, the plaintiffs presented the ancestral knowledge of the Waorani people as evidence that this practice altered carbon cycles and damaged the local environment. Although the traditional knowledge presented as evidence was analyzed in this case , the ruling ultimately determined that the Indigenous testimonies did not demonstrate measurable changes in terms of biodiversity or ecosystem stability.
This case highlights the need to implement collaborative methods that integrate scientific and traditional knowledge in the collection and presentation of evidence. Many Latin American countries still lack comprehensive information systems that allow for the accessible and applicable documentation and incorporation of Indigenous climate knowledge, which limits the joint generation of robust evidence for climate litigation. Furthermore, traditional knowledge is gradually being lost as Indigenous communities face the erosion of their social, economic, and political structures, particularly due to external pressures .
What challenges do Latin American courts face when using scientific evidence?
As in other lower-income regions, limited access to scientific knowledge remains a significant obstacle for lawyers and judges in Latin America, where legal practice is often less integrated with technical and scientific expertise . In addition to the associated economic costs, the predominance of English in academic research, databases, and analytical tools presents a further barrier for legal professionals in Spanish-speaking countries, making the use of scientific evidence in court even more difficult.
Another major challenge to strengthening climate litigation is the shortage of judges specializing in environmental matters. Although countries like Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, and Peru have made progress in establishing environmental courts, most countries in the region still lack these specialized judicial bodies. These courts are essential for addressing environmental disputes more efficiently and effectively .
Beyond the legal sphere, inequalities in the availability of scientific evidence also hinder climate litigation in Latin America. Most climate research and data production originates in the US and Europe , giving cases in those regions a stronger footing, while many lower-income countries struggle to build legal arguments due to research gaps. Data on the attribution of extreme events and climate impacts are particularly scarce in the region, due to a lack of historical records and limited access to high-quality climate models.
Furthermore, the dominance of high-income countries in climate science production has created a bias in research, often overlooking the realities of vulnerable regions and excluding them from climate knowledge . This not only limits their capacity to respond but also contributes to an underestimation of the climate crisis in low- and middle-income countries.
Local communities and NGOs, which are often at the forefront of these lawsuits, face serious resource limitations and are at a disadvantage compared to powerful actors, often aligned with the state. These asymmetries increase the pressure on plaintiffs, who must provide evidence with a level of detail and rigor that is difficult to match with the expertise that companies can hire. At the local level, plaintiffs often operate with limited budgets and depend on pro bono legal assistance, philanthropic support, and crowdfunding to develop their cases.
In contrast, corporations can prolong legal proceedings indefinitely, using procedural tactics to exhaust their counterparts, while affected communities often lack the resources to withstand prolonged litigation, increasing the risk of cases being dropped.
Additionally, fossil fuel companies have manipulated knowledge about climate change to influence public perception and political debates in their favor. This industry has funded disinformation campaigns through media publications aimed at sowing doubt about the scientific consensus surrounding climate change. One of their strategies has been to deliberately promote a narrative of scientific uncertainty, even when overwhelming evidence of the escalating climate crisis existed. Beyond their media influence, fossil fuel companies have also funded trade associations, think tanks, and academic institutions to shape research agendas and reinforce messages favorable to the industry.
In Latin America, this corporate capture of the oil sector allows economic elites to influence decision-making, prioritizing industry interests over human rights and environmental protection. This influence is reflected in the granting of licenses in conflict zones, the weakening of regulations, and the limitation of community control and participation. Oil companies also fund research that legitimizes extraction while minimizing its environmental and social risks. This control over information deepens the asymmetries in litigation and public policy debates, reinforcing industry dominance and marginalizing alternative perspectives that question the sustainability of fossil fuel expansion.
How can research strengthen climate litigation?
Some of the most urgent research priorities in climate litigation include advancing the tracing of climate impacts back to their specific sources, identifying the health impacts of climate change and quantifying the costs of those impacts, and developing mitigation and adaptation strategies. Plaintiffs also need more research demonstrating the specific damages resulting from climate change or from the actions of governments and corporations. Integrating knowledge from economics, law, the social sciences, and the natural sciences would help strengthen the foundations of climate litigation.
To close the climate data availability gap between low- and high-income regions, it is essential to ensure equitable access to scientific evidence. These gaps can be addressed through innovative approaches , such as the use of advanced statistical methods or comparative studies between regions with similar climatic conditions. Collective intelligence initiatives —collaborative efforts that leverage diverse knowledge, technology, and citizen participation to solve complex problems—are emerging as a valuable tool, mobilizing citizens to generate localized climate data that helps fill information gaps.
There is a valuable opportunity to strengthen traditional knowledge as evidence alongside scientific knowledge, especially to address local knowledge gaps with region-specific perspectives. However, this requires ethical research practices that integrate multiple knowledge systems, avoiding the extractive models that still predominate in Latin America—that is, those in which local communities receive little or no recognition or benefit for the use of their knowledge. Although traditional knowledge is increasingly recognized, much research continues to undervalue local contributions, reinforcing academic power structures and perpetuating colonial patterns of knowledge production.
In Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 , the Inter-American Court of Human Rights affirmed that the “right to science” encompasses access to both culture and local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge. The Court called for the establishment of a respectful and equitable dialogue among knowledge systems to co-produce climate knowledge, emphasizing that the results of such dialogue should guide decisions on climate change mitigation and adaptation to ensure their sustainability and effectiveness, as well as prevent cultural harm. It also highlighted good practices to support this approach, such as the creation and funding of intercultural research centers.
Even as new research emerges, its use in court remains a challenge. The gap between the latest advances in climate science and the evidence used in legal proceedings highlights the urgent need to improve legal professionals' access to up-to-date scientific information. Greater dissemination of existing data and tools beyond academia is essential. Open-source resources, multilingual translations, specialized scientific training for lawyers and judges, and clearer, more accessible language would all help to close this gap.
Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 establishes obligations for States to address these challenges, including the duty to produce accurate and relevant climate information; ensure that access to such information is affordable, effective and timely; and take measures to counter disinformation on climate change.
Overcoming carbon “tunnel vision” in climate litigation
Climate litigation in Latin America’s oil and gas sectors underscores the need for integrated approaches that connect climate, biodiversity, and human rights. Beyond climate science, further scientific development and innovative tools are required to hold these industries accountable for biodiversity loss and its impact on human rights, with particular attention to the rights of Indigenous peoples.
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework , and especially its goal of protecting 30% of the planet by 2030, could transform the landscape of environmental litigation . Just as the Paris Agreement became a key legal tool in climate litigation, this new framework could pave the way for stronger cases that connect biodiversity loss with human rights. The scientific community can play a critical role in overcoming “carbon tunnel vision ,” which prioritizes carbon neutrality while neglecting other sustainability and development goals. Latin America, like other lower-income regions, has much to contribute to these discussions, offering important perspectives on how litigation can integrate climate, biodiversity, and human rights frameworks.
* Juanita Gómez is an independent researcher; Florencia Ortúzar is the director of AIDA's Climate Program; Gisselle García is a lawyer at AIDA; Claudia Strambo and Elisa Arond are research fellows at the Stockholm Environment Institute .
* By Juanita Gómez, Florencia Ortúzar, Gisselle García, Claudia Strambo and Elisa Arond
The ever-evolving field of climate science has not only deepened our understanding of changes in climate systems but has also redefined debates about responsibility and accountability for climate-related damages . By establishing causal links between greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their impacts—such as extreme weather events—scientific advances have become a key tool for advancing climate justice in the courts .
However, significant challenges remain in making scientific knowledge, and the technology needed to produce it, more accessible to those who practice law. This problem particularly affects low-income countries, where communities face the most intense effects of climate change .
In this context, climate litigation has emerged as a powerful tool for challenging the ambition of climate policies, holding both governments and corporations accountable for their contribution to the climate crisis. As of January 2025, more than 1,000 climate-related cases had been filed worldwide. Many of these seek to curb fossil fuel extraction and hold fossil fuel companies responsible for climate-related damages.
Based on a recent report prepared by experts from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), we analyze how science is transforming climate litigation: the challenges that Latin America and other low-income regions face in accessing scientific evidence, as well as the opportunities that arise to use this knowledge in the future of climate litigation.
How does science contribute to climate litigation?
Science plays a fundamental role in climate litigation by providing the basis for establishing states' responsibility for climate damage. It allows for the assessment of their direct or indirect contributions to such damage, as well as the coherence and ambition of national emissions reduction targets and policies. In cases related to climate change adaptation and the protection of human rights, scientific evidence offers crucial information on regional climate impacts and the adequacy of state responses.
One of the most influential sources of scientific evidence in climate litigation is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , which has provided a solid foundation for landmark cases demanding more ambitious climate policies in the face of climate change, such as Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands and Neubauer et al. v. Germany . The IPCC's reports on the remaining carbon budgets needed to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement have also enriched legal debates surrounding the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities , according to which all countries have a responsibility to act, although the type and level of action vary according to their circumstances and capabilities.
However, while IPCC reports represent a widely recognized scientific consensus, they often lack the specificity needed to meet the evidentiary standards required in courts and to guide concrete climate action. This underscores the need for more specific scientific knowledge tailored to litigation.
Historically, most climate litigation cases have been brought against governments. However, there is a growing trend of cases against corporations for their contribution to climate change, particularly in the oil and gas sector . A key turning point was the 2014 Carbon Majors study , which provided a solid scientific basis for attributing emissions to specific companies. By tracking the historical emissions of major oil, gas, coal, and cement producers, the study demonstrated the substantial role of corporations in increasing global emissions. An updated analysis found that 78 private and state-owned fossil fuel and cement companies are responsible for 70% of cumulative CO₂ emissions between 1854 and 2022.
How does science shape climate litigation in the oil and gas industry in Latin America?
In Latin America, climate litigation cases have focused on violations of constitutional rights, particularly the right to a healthy environment. Many of these cases challenge inconsistencies between national policies and international commitments, often relying on legal and human rights arguments rather than scientific evidence. However, the use of scientific information is becoming increasingly common to support claims related to the environmental impacts of oil and gas projects.
Scientific evidence is especially crucial for assessing environmental damage and socioeconomic impacts in sensitive ecosystems and Indigenous territories. Threats to biodiversityprofoundly affect the rights of Indigenous peoples , whose ways of life, traditions, and spiritual connections to the land are deeply intertwined with ecosystems. Therefore, it is essential to integrate climate science and biodiversity data into litigation cases to strengthen arguments for environmental protection and human rights.
While lawsuits against oil and gas companies for climate damages are still rare in Latin America, global trends indicate they could increase. In the U.S., for example, local governments have filed more than 26 lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, alleging consumer fraud and seeking compensation for damages associated with climate change. In 2023 , the Hawaii Supreme Court allowed Honolulu's lawsuit against major oil and gas companies to proceed, accusing them of deceptive advertising and failing to warn about the climate impacts of their products. Despite the companies' attempts to have the case dismissed, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected their appeal in January 2025, allowing the proceedings to continue. If successful, these cases could set influential precedents and encourage transnational litigation that holds corporations accountable for damages caused in lower-income regions.
A landmark case is Lliuya v. RWE from 2015 , in which a Peruvian farmer sued Germany's largest energy company in a German court. The plaintiff alleged that RWE, as one of the world's leading greenhouse gas emitters, had significantly contributed to the accelerated retreat of a glacier near his property, increasing the risk of catastrophic flooding. The court dismissed the case in May 2015, finding that the evidence did not demonstrate that the melting glacier posed a concrete threat to the plaintiff's property. Even so, the ruling set an important precedent by recognizing that greenhouse gas-emitting companies can, in principle, be held liable for the climate risks they generate. This opens the door for future transnational litigation seeking to establish corporate responsibility for the impacts of climate change. However, plaintiffs face significant challenges in providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate actual or imminent damages.
Beyond establishing liability in cases of climate loss and damage, science can play a broader role in climate litigation if adapted to the specific context of Latin America. Strengthening climate research in the region would allow for a better understanding of how climate change affects the livelihoods, territorial rights, and cultural survival of Indigenous Peoples—fundamental aspects that can support litigation based on human rights and environmental justice.
Traditional knowledge in climate litigation in Latin America
In Latin America, approximately 35% of forests are inhabited by Indigenous peoples , whose traditional knowledge plays a vital role in understanding and responding to climate change. This knowledge, accumulated over generations, complements scientific data by offering regional and temporal precision, crucial for validating large-scale climate models. Although traditional knowledge has gained increasing recognition in climate policy, especially in adaptation strategies, its role in climate litigation remains largely unexplored.
In Ecuador, a lawsuit filed in 2020 by civil and Indigenous organizations against PetroOriental SA challenged the flaring of gas in the Amazon. In the absence of scientific studies, the plaintiffs presented the ancestral knowledge of the Waorani people as evidence that this practice altered carbon cycles and damaged the local environment. Although the traditional knowledge presented as evidence was analyzed in this case , the ruling ultimately determined that the Indigenous testimonies did not demonstrate measurable changes in terms of biodiversity or ecosystem stability.
This case highlights the need to implement collaborative methods that integrate scientific and traditional knowledge in the collection and presentation of evidence. Many Latin American countries still lack comprehensive information systems that allow for the accessible and applicable documentation and incorporation of Indigenous climate knowledge, which limits the joint generation of robust evidence for climate litigation. Furthermore, traditional knowledge is gradually being lost as Indigenous communities face the erosion of their social, economic, and political structures, particularly due to external pressures .
What challenges do Latin American courts face when using scientific evidence?
As in other lower-income regions, limited access to scientific knowledge remains a significant obstacle for lawyers and judges in Latin America, where legal practice is often less integrated with technical and scientific expertise . In addition to the associated economic costs, the predominance of English in academic research, databases, and analytical tools presents a further barrier for legal professionals in Spanish-speaking countries, making the use of scientific evidence in court even more difficult.
Another major challenge to strengthening climate litigation is the shortage of judges specializing in environmental matters. Although countries like Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, and Peru have made progress in establishing environmental courts, most countries in the region still lack these specialized judicial bodies. These courts are essential for addressing environmental disputes more efficiently and effectively .
Beyond the legal sphere, inequalities in the availability of scientific evidence also hinder climate litigation in Latin America. Most climate research and data production originates in the US and Europe , giving cases in those regions a stronger footing, while many lower-income countries struggle to build legal arguments due to research gaps. Data on the attribution of extreme events and climate impacts are particularly scarce in the region, due to a lack of historical records and limited access to high-quality climate models.
Furthermore, the dominance of high-income countries in climate science production has created a bias in research, often overlooking the realities of vulnerable regions and excluding them from climate knowledge . This not only limits their capacity to respond but also contributes to an underestimation of the climate crisis in low- and middle-income countries.
Local communities and NGOs, which are often at the forefront of these lawsuits, face serious resource limitations and are at a disadvantage compared to powerful actors, often aligned with the state. These asymmetries increase the pressure on plaintiffs, who must provide evidence with a level of detail and rigor that is difficult to match with the expertise that companies can hire. At the local level, plaintiffs often operate with limited budgets and depend on pro bono legal assistance, philanthropic support, and crowdfunding to develop their cases.
In contrast, corporations can prolong legal proceedings indefinitely, using procedural tactics to exhaust their counterparts, while affected communities often lack the resources to withstand prolonged litigation, increasing the risk of cases being dropped.
Additionally, fossil fuel companies have manipulated knowledge about climate change to influence public perception and political debates in their favor. This industry has funded disinformation campaigns through media publications aimed at sowing doubt about the scientific consensus surrounding climate change. One of their strategies has been to deliberately promote a narrative of scientific uncertainty, even when overwhelming evidence of the escalating climate crisis existed. Beyond their media influence, fossil fuel companies have also funded trade associations, think tanks, and academic institutions to shape research agendas and reinforce messages favorable to the industry.
In Latin America, this corporate capture of the oil sector allows economic elites to influence decision-making, prioritizing industry interests over human rights and environmental protection. This influence is reflected in the granting of licenses in conflict zones, the weakening of regulations, and the limitation of community control and participation. Oil companies also fund research that legitimizes extraction while minimizing its environmental and social risks. This control over information deepens the asymmetries in litigation and public policy debates, reinforcing industry dominance and marginalizing alternative perspectives that question the sustainability of fossil fuel expansion.
How can research strengthen climate litigation?
Some of the most urgent research priorities in climate litigation include advancing the tracing of climate impacts back to their specific sources, identifying the health impacts of climate change and quantifying the costs of those impacts, and developing mitigation and adaptation strategies. Plaintiffs also need more research demonstrating the specific damages resulting from climate change or from the actions of governments and corporations. Integrating knowledge from economics, law, the social sciences, and the natural sciences would help strengthen the foundations of climate litigation.
To close the climate data availability gap between low- and high-income regions, it is essential to ensure equitable access to scientific evidence. These gaps can be addressed through innovative approaches , such as the use of advanced statistical methods or comparative studies between regions with similar climatic conditions. Collective intelligence initiatives —collaborative efforts that leverage diverse knowledge, technology, and citizen participation to solve complex problems—are emerging as a valuable tool, mobilizing citizens to generate localized climate data that helps fill information gaps.
There is a valuable opportunity to strengthen traditional knowledge as evidence alongside scientific knowledge, especially to address local knowledge gaps with region-specific perspectives. However, this requires ethical research practices that integrate multiple knowledge systems, avoiding the extractive models that still predominate in Latin America—that is, those in which local communities receive little or no recognition or benefit for the use of their knowledge. Although traditional knowledge is increasingly recognized, much research continues to undervalue local contributions, reinforcing academic power structures and perpetuating colonial patterns of knowledge production.
In Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 , the Inter-American Court of Human Rights affirmed that the “right to science” encompasses access to both culture and local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge. The Court called for the establishment of a respectful and equitable dialogue among knowledge systems to co-produce climate knowledge, emphasizing that the results of such dialogue should guide decisions on climate change mitigation and adaptation to ensure their sustainability and effectiveness, as well as prevent cultural harm. It also highlighted good practices to support this approach, such as the creation and funding of intercultural research centers.
Even as new research emerges, its use in court remains a challenge. The gap between the latest advances in climate science and the evidence used in legal proceedings highlights the urgent need to improve legal professionals' access to up-to-date scientific information. Greater dissemination of existing data and tools beyond academia is essential. Open-source resources, multilingual translations, specialized scientific training for lawyers and judges, and clearer, more accessible language would all help to close this gap.
Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 establishes obligations for States to address these challenges, including the duty to produce accurate and relevant climate information; ensure that access to such information is affordable, effective and timely; and take measures to counter disinformation on climate change.
Overcoming carbon “tunnel vision” in climate litigation
Climate litigation in Latin America’s oil and gas sectors underscores the need for integrated approaches that connect climate, biodiversity, and human rights. Beyond climate science, further scientific development and innovative tools are required to hold these industries accountable for biodiversity loss and its impact on human rights, with particular attention to the rights of Indigenous peoples.
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework , and especially its goal of protecting 30% of the planet by 2030, could transform the landscape of environmental litigation . Just as the Paris Agreement became a key legal tool in climate litigation, this new framework could pave the way for stronger cases that connect biodiversity loss with human rights. The scientific community can play a critical role in overcoming “carbon tunnel vision ,” which prioritizes carbon neutrality while neglecting other sustainability and development goals. Latin America, like other lower-income regions, has much to contribute to these discussions, offering important perspectives on how litigation can integrate climate, biodiversity, and human rights frameworks.
* Juanita Gómez is an independent researcher; Florencia Ortúzar is the director of AIDA's Climate Program; Gisselle García is a lawyer at AIDA; Claudia Strambo and Elisa Arond are research fellows at the Stockholm Environment Institute .