Tort based climate change litigation : a comparative analysis from the perspectives of the legal systems of the United States, New Zealand and Germany

 Climate change is increasingly perceived as the greatest environmental  challenge facing the world today. Experts agree that it affects not only  ecological systems but also people and their property. Accordingly,  some are and will be paying for the costs of climate change harms.  Nevertheless, political discussions still focus on avoidance and  mitigation strategies; the question of compensation for climate change  harms has not been addressed yet. Litigation is therefore seen as one of  the most feasible approaches for victims of climate change to receive  compensation. The concept of tort based climate change litigation  combines basic tort principles with recent science on climate change.  This paper will explore the feasibility and desirability of such  litigation from the legal perspectives of the United States, New Zealand  and Germany. The thesis is that tort law in general and the particular  tort systems under consideration are inappropriate means to address the  global problems of climate change and associated harms. Cases of climate  change harms would raise fundamental doctrinal and policy questions.  The paper will show that climate change victims would be unable to  overcome doctrinal hurdles such as establishing actionable harms and  causation. Climate change litigation would further interfere with other  policy measures. Litigation would be particularly incompatible with the  current climate change governance system, which might be the best  available forum to tackle the problems of climate change, including  questions of compensation and liability.