The temperature isn’t the only thing that keeps rising as a result of climate change. On 22 July 2020 a class action was commenced against the Australian Governmentalleging that government failed to adequately disclose climate change risk in various materials provided to investors of Australian government bonds (Government Bonds).
The Class Action
The lead Plaintiff alleges that the failure to disclose information about Australia’s Climate Change risks amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of the Australian Investments and Securities Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (ASIC Act). A claim is also brought against the Secretary of the Department of Treasury and the CEO of the Australian Office of Financial Management for breach of the Public, Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (Cth). The Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief restraining the government from further promoting Government Bonds until it discloses climate change risk.
No longer a purely environmental issue – why Climate Change can hurt the bottom line
The lead Plaintiff is arguing that Australia’s susceptibility to the physical and transitional risks associated with climate change risk and government response to climate change effects how the financial markets view and value Government Bonds.
In terms of physical risk, climate change has been scientifically proven to increase the frequency and intensity of natural disasters. Natural disasters require significant government spending. In January 2020, credit rating agency Moodys issued a report that concluded that the increasing severity and frequency of natural disasters related to climate change will raise budget pressure on the NSW government to meet these costs. Rising government expenditure and debt levels could lead some investors to question the viability and/or stability of their investment in government bonds.
From a transitional risk perspective, investors and credit rating agencies consider the long-term security and financial growth trajectory of a country. This includes a country’s reliance on stranded assets such as fossil fuels as well as the value and growth of its low-carbon and renewable energy sector. Australia is overly reliant on coal, with coal accounting for approximately 75% of Australia’s electricity generation, followed by gas at 16%.Conversely, hydro and wind account for only 7% of Australia’s electricity generation.This means that Australia is particularly susceptible to risks associated with investment in stranded assets.
From a legal/regulatory perspective, Australian companies are currently required to disclose all information that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the value of its securities (ASX Listing rule 3.1). There is increasing guidance from the ASX, APRA and ASIC that ASX Listing rule 3.1 requires a consideration of the existence and management of environmental risks. For instance, the Fourth Edition of the ASX Corporate Governance Council’s Corporate Governance Principles recommends that companies disclose environmental and climate change risk by reference to the Task Force for Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TFCFD) recommendations.
There is jurisprudence that benchmark disclosure mechanisms such as TCFD recommendations may be relevant to assessing whether a company, trustee and/or its directors acted reasonably.
According to Noel Hutley SC and Sebastian Hartford Davis, directors who fail to consider climate change risk at present could be found liable for breaching their duty or care and diligence in the future.
The rise of climate change financial disclosure litigation
This is the first time in Australia that the government is being sued for failure to disclose climate change risk in investment documentation. However, there have already been two cases brought against companies for failing to disclose the financial impact of climate change risk.
The first case was brought in August 2016 by two shareholders of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) for failing to disclose climate change risk, including the impact of investment in the controversial Adani Carmichael Coal mine, in CBA’s 2016 Annual Report.Ultimately, the case was withdrawn when CBA agreed to disclose climate change risks in its 2017 Annual Report.
More recently a member of the Retail Employees Superannuation Trust (REST) brought proceedings against the fund for breach of the Superannuation Industry Supervision Act 1993(Cth) (SIS Act) by failing to adequately address and integrate climate change into the fund’s investment strategy.The Plaintiff argues that REST should have incorporated climate change in its investment framework by applying the TCFD recommendations. The case is listed for hearing before the Federal Court in November 2020 and is being run by the same law firm that filed the Government Bonds class action the subject of this article.
Takeaway for companies, governments and insurers
Both the REST and the Government Bonds class action indicate that there is increasing appetite for the bringing of climate change disclosure cases against governments and companies. This means that any company which is a laggard in climate change financial disclosure is vulnerable to litigation. This also has implications for insurers as those insureds who fail to take climate change disclosure seriously are more at risk from third-party claims, which in turn increases insurers’ exposure.
Super funds are particularly vulnerable to disclosure claims because of the long-term nature of investments which are more vulnerable to climate change. Further, many super fund members are passive and potentially more vulnerable investors, which potentially means that funds may be held to a higher standard of care which necessitates are more thorough consideration of the impact of climate change on investments.
What is overwhelmingly clear is that failure to take into account climate change risk is no longer a purely an environmental issue that can be comfortably relegated to the back pages of the annual Corporate Social Responsibility report. A failure to take into account and adequately disclose climate change risk could expose companies and governments to litigation which could significantly impact their (and insurers’) bottom lines.
 Kathleen O’Donell v The Commonwealth of Australia & Ors
 ASX Corporate Governance Council, Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations, 4th Edition, February 2019.
Noel Hutley SC and Sebastian Hartford Davis, Climate Change and Directors Duties, Memorandum of opinion, The Centre for Policy Development, 7 October 2016 and Supplementary Memorandum of Opinion, 26 March 2019.
 Abrahams v Commonwealth Bank of Australia
 McVeigh v Retail Employees Superannuation Trust
A failure to consider and disclose climate change risks can land your business in hot water
Demystifying the link between climate change and health and what it means for claims
COVID-19 has been described by Australia’s Prime Minister as our “greatest challenge since WWII.”Although there are other thoughts, the most widely-discussed theory is that COVID-19 originated in bats and was passed on to pangolins that were then illegally sold at the Wuhan wet market. What is less discussed, though, is the connection between environmental destruction, climate change and human disease.
Scientists have long warned that there is a connection between environmental destruction, climate change and the spread of disease. The link seems simple - rising temperatures, floods and extreme weather events, directly caused and/or exacerbated by climate change, create the perfect incubation hubs for infectious diseases and their hosts, which include mosquitos (malaria), birds (avian influenzas), rodents (plague) and bats (ebola and COVID-19). For example, there is evidence that habitat destruction, caused by urbanisation, is decreasing the length and seasonality of migration among bird species. Birds are a common disease host and disseminator. This phenomenon has been observed to lead to increased population densities, longer breeding seasons and an increase in the presence of parasites among these birds.
Another example is floods, which are projected to increase by 100% at the 1.5°C warming level or by 170% at the 2°C level, are often accompanied by an increase in rodent populations. Rodents, such as mice and rats, are carriers of disease and bacteria, having infamously been responsible for the spread of the Black Death. There is also concern that a warming population could lead to disease carriers, such as mosquitoes, being able to spread disease such as malaria into more temperate areas of the world, previously unaffected by more tropical diseases. Rising temperatures could of the themselves be detriment to human health. Japanese researchers found that mice exposed to warmer temperatures were less able to withstand viruses as a result of a weakened immune system.
Climate change also increases food insecurity, which can lead to populations turning to alternative sustenance sources, such as “bushmeat”, which includes fruit bats and other disease hosts. This is how ebola was first transferred to humans. Throw into this mix illegal animal poaching, the sale of exotic animals at crowded and poorly regulated markets with questionable hygiene practices, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Whilst COVID-19 has understandably taken global centre stage, it is merely indicative of the bigger picture. Ultimately, research suggests that if we continue in the direction of habitat destruction and climate change, epidemics like COVID-19 will happen more frequently, and when they strike, they may be more deadly. The World Health Organisation has estimated that the effects of habitat destruction and climate change in the period 2030 to 2050 could cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress. This could cost the global economy an estimated US$2 to 4billion per year by 2030.
What does this have to do with insurance risk and claims?
To date, plaintiffs in climate change litigation have most commonly claimed loss in the form of property damage or economic loss arising from the forced implementation of mitigation measures in responding to climate change. However, advances in attribution science have improved the ability to link particular emissions to a particular defendant, and therefore we expect that future plaintiffs will argue that a government’s failure to implement adequate climate change polices, or a company’s failure (by its directors) to curb its GHG emission has caused the Plaintiff personal injury, whether in the form of asthma from inhaling polluted air or as a result of falling ill to an infectious disease, or economic loss. It remains to be seen whether the chain of causation can be adequately made out so as to allow Courts to attribute liability, but about it is only a matter of time before this question is asked.
 Colarossi, Natalie (3 May 2020), How climate change could make infectious diseases even more difficult to combat in the future, Business Insider Australia. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-climate-change-could-impact-the-future-of-infectious-diseases-2020-5?r=US&IR=T
 Satterfield, Marra, Sillett and Altizer (2018), Responses of migratory species and their pathogens to supplemental feeding, Phil. Trans. R. Soc, B 373: 201780094 Available at: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2017.0094
 IPCC report, 2018, Global Warming of 1.5°C. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_Low_Res.pdf
 Colarossi, Natalie (3 May 2020), How climate change could make infectious diseases even more difficult to combat in the future, Business Insider Australia. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-climate-change-could-impact-the-future-of-infectious-diseases-2020-5?r=US&IR=T
 Kassie, Daouda & Bourgarel, Mathieu & Roger, François. (2015) Climate Change and Ebola Outbreaks: Are they connected?
 Ripper, Roberto Joao, FAO (5 April 2020), First person: COVID-19 is not a silver lining for the climate, says UN Environment chief, UN News. Available at: https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/04/1061082
The world is heating up - how are insurers responding?
As risk mitigators and responders, insurers have a fundamental role to
play in responding to climate change
Download my white paper here
which examines how insurers respond to climate change risk.
For the first time in the Global Risk Report's 15 year history, all five of the long-term risks by likelihood in 2020's Global Risk Report are environmental. With Australia experiencing one of the worst droughts and bushfire seasons on record, and scientists warning that this could well be the new normal, it is critical to consider how to mitigate and adapt against climate change.
The UK Court of Appeal recently handed down a judgment that the UK government was in breach of the Planning Act 2008 (UK) by failing to take into account the Paris Agreement and the effect of carbon emissions beyond 2050 when releasing its National Policy Statement in support of the construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport.
The court considered whether s 5(8) of the Planning Act, which stated that the reasons given for a National Policy Statement must include an explanation of “how the policy set out in the statement takes into account Government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change” (my emphasis), required that the Secretary take into account factors outside of the UK’s domestic legislation.
The Secretary of State argued that “government policy” was limited only to UK domestic law, namely the Climate Change Act, the obligations of which were less onerous than those under the Paris Agreement. The court did not accept the Secretary’s argument and held that “government policy” included a consideration of ratified international agreements and firm statements by relevant ministers re-iterating a government policy of adherence to the Paris Agreement.
The court also rejected an argument advanced by the Secretary of State that the effect of the runway’s carbon emissions beyond 2050 were not taken into account because of the lack of accurate scientific measurement of emissions. The court applied the precautionary principle which holds that scientific uncertainty is not a reason for not taking something into account at all, even if it cannot be precisely quantified at this stage.
However, unlike the UK, Australia currently has no explicit reference to climate change in planning legislation. This has meant that courts have had to imply an obligation to take into account climate change into broader environmental terms . For instance, in August 2019, the NSW Land and Environment Court in Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning  NSWLEC 7 held that a when considering a whether a development (in this case, a coal mine) is an ecologically sustainable development (ESD), a Planning Department should have regard to climate change impacts. The court concluded that there was a causal link between the proposed coal mine’s cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
Both the Heathrow decision and Gloucester reinforce the growing wiliness of courts to interpret legislation broadly so as to necessitate the consideration of broad climate change considerations into planning decisions. Recent legislation proposals in the Commonwealth Parliament may mean that the obligation to take into account climate change will shift from implicit to explicit.
The Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill which was introduced in February 2020, seeks to amend the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) to create penalties for a person undertaking mining operations, drilling exploration or land clearing that will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on the environment. Should this, and/or Zali Steggall’s Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2020 be passed by parliament, there will be a much more scope for high greenhouse gas omitting development projects to be refused on the basis of climate change impact.
An August 2019 report issued by the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI) into ESG Reporting by the ASX 200 revealed that whist there was an increase in the number of ‘detailed’ and ‘leading’ ESG reporters, companies struggled in the areas of workplace safety, consequence management and staff engagement.
The Good News
ACSI, which is comprises 38 Australian and international asset owners and institutional investors managing over $2.2 million in assets and owning approximately 10% of every ASX200 company, has revealed that 100% of the top 20 companies on the ASX are rated as ‘Detailed’ or ‘Leading’ ESG reporters and 76% of the ASX200 are rated as ‘moderate’ reporters or higher. The number of ‘no reporting’ companies is now only 16, down from 20 in 2017.
In terms of climate risk, more than 50% of the ASX200 disclose greenhouse gas emissions data and 52 companies have adopted/committed to disclose against the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework.
So where are the gaps?
First, 21 companies provided less information in 2018 than in 2017, meaning the number of ‘downgrades’ was higher in 2018 than in the previous year.
Second, there is disproportionate number of under-performers in the ASX100-200 category, including almost all of the ‘non-reporting’ companies.
Third, there were a number of gaps in the type of reporting undertaken by companies. More specifically:
Where to next?
Whilst ESG reporting has made significant progress, there is still a considerable way to go, particularly in terms of engaging the ASX 101 – 200 sub-group. Perhaps the focus needs to be on making ESG reporting more accessible and standardised, which can be achieved through a combination of legislative action, regulator guidance and shareholder pressure.
Disclaimer - Nothing on this page or on this website (www.esglawyer.com)constitutes or should be construed as constituting legal advice.
· Australian Council of superannuation Investors, August 2019, ‘ESG Reporting by the ASX200’. Access the full report here: https://www.acsi.org.au/images/stories/ACSIDocuments/generalresearchpublic/2019-ACSI-ESG-Report---FINAL.pdf
3 of the top 5 global risks by likelihood and 4 of the top 5 global risks by impact are environmental, according to the World Economic Forum's 2019 Global Risks Report. The failure of climate-change mitigation and adaptation has jumped 3 spots in terms of likelihood and 2 spots in terms of impact in a year, and is now the second biggest global risk by likelihood and impact.
Climate Change – the Risks
This is hardly surprising, given the latest (October 2018) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that that atmospheric temperatures will increase by 1.5 degrees within the next 35 years if global warming continues at its current rate.
This would expose an estimated 35 million people to crop yield changes. For a country which produced over $32 million of crops in the 2016/2017 financial year, the impact is significant. Rising temperatures will also mean rising sea-levels which will put a strain on societies, governments and insurers. It is estimated that 800 million people in more than 570 coastal cities will be vulnerable to a sea level rise of 0.5m by 2050. Asia is predicted to be the hardest hit, with China bearing the brunt of the cost of rising sea levels in absolute terms, and Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE and Vietnam facing the highest impact as a proportion of GDP.
As well as the more obvious physical and agriculture impacts, studies show that climate change has a real economic impact on financial markets. Investments into fossil fuels and natural resources vulnerable to rising temperatures and sea levels are likely to suffer from low long term returns. Companies will need to adopt to changes in climate policy and the disruptive competitive impact of new low-carbon and renewable energy technologies. The cost of failing to adapt is high. The Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures’ June 2017 final report noted that a 2015 study by the Economist concluded climate change presented a risk of loss of $4.2 trillion to $43 trillion between 2015 and the end of the century.
As the global community resolves to deal with climate change risk through the signing of international agreements such as the Paris Agreement, there is pressure on governments and companies to respond to climate change risks in a meaningful way. Whilst previously governments and companies could get away with paying lip service to climate change risks, in today’s age of user-generated content, social media and rising shareholder activism, governments and companies are increasingly being held to account.
The rise of Climate Change litigation
Columbia Law School’s Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law has identified 1144 climate change cases in the US and 289 outside of the US. The last three years has seen an exponential increase in the number of climate change cases being brought – 120 commenced in 2016, 115 in 2017 and 86 in 2018. According to the Centre, in Australia, there have been 97 climate changes cases.
Recent years has seen an increase in three broad types of climate change claims: (1) constitutional and human rights claims brought against governments for failure to act on climate change (2) private law claims brought against companies (particularly energy companies) in relation to failure to mitigate and/or act on climate change; and (3) claims brought by shareholders against companies for failure to disclose climate change risk.
(1) Constitutional and Human Rights Claims
The “mothership” of this category of claims seems to be the Dutch case of Urgenda Foundation v the State of Netherlands and the US case of Juliiana v United States of America.
In Uganda, hundreds of Dutch citizens and the Urgenda Foundation sued the Dutch government for breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. The Plaintiffs argued that the Dutch Government’s commitment of reducing emissions by 17% was insufficient to meet the UN goal of keeping global temperature increases within 2 degrees of pre-industrial levels. The court held in favour of the Plaintiffs and ordered the Dutch Government to limit emissions to 25% of pre-industrial levels. In coming to this determination the court referred to the Dutch Constitution, EU emissions reduction targets, the EU Convention on Human Rights, principles of international law and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The decision was upheld on appeal.
In Juliana 21 plaintiffs aged 19 and younger sued the US, the President of the USA and various federal officials and agencies for breach of the government of the US constitution’s ninth amendment, breach by the government of its obligation as trustee over “important natural resources” (breach of the public trust doctrine), breach of the plaintiffs’ rights to life, liberty and property, and breach of the plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights. The case is ongoing.
In Union of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v Swiss Federal Council and Others a group of elderly Swiss women filed proceedings against the Swiss government alleging that the government had breached the Swiss Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights by failing to do enough to combat climate change. The women argued that their demographic group was particularly vulnerable to the rising temperatures. The case was dismissed in November 2018 on the basis that Swiss women over the age of 75 were not the only sector of the population effected by climate change and that the alleged injury and remedy were not sufficiently proximate to the plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have appealed.
In Plan B Earth and Others v The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy the Plaintiff argued that the UK Secretary of State violated the Climate Change Act 20008 by failing to revise a 2050 reduction target to reflect scientific developments since 2008 and developments in international law. The High Court dismissed the claim in July 2018 on the basis that the claims were not arguable. The Plaintiff has appealed the decision.
In May 2018 ten families from Portugal, Germany, France, Italy, Romania, Kenya, Fiji and Sweden commenced proceedings against the EU alleging that the EU’s existing targets to reduce emissions by 40% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels are not enough to avoid climate change which threatens the plaintiffs’ rights of life, health, occupation and property which are protected by various EU statutes. The Plaintiffs also allege that the targets are a breach of EU acts on climate change.
In late November 2018 a German Environmental group lodged a constitutional complaint against the German Government alleging that the government was in breach of national and EU laws on emission reduction.
From 22 to 25 January 2019 the Irish environmental group ‘Friends of the Irish Environment’s case against the Irish government for the failure of its National Mitigation Plan to meet the standards imposed by various national, European and international instruments was heard before the Irish High Court.
It is important to recognise that such cases are not confined to Western countries. In April 2018 the Supreme Court of Columbia held that the Colombian government had not done enough to curb deforestation in the Amazon, and that this breached the plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to water, air, dignified life and health, and that the Amazon was itself a “subject of rights” which was entitled to protection, conservation, maintenance and restoration. Similarly, the Lahore High Court Green Bench in Pakistan in Leghari v Federation of Pakistan concluded the government’s failure to implement national legislation to mitigate climate change “offends the fundamental rights of the citizens which need to be safeguarded” and ordered (amongst other things), the creation of a Climate change Commission.
(2)Private law claims
The second category of climate change claims are those brought against private corporations. There is a trend in the US whereby local and state governments are taking it upon themselves to sue corporations, generally fossil fuel corporations, for failure to disclose climate change risk.
In May 2018 a county in Washington State filed a public nuisance and trespass claim against five of the world’s largest investor-owned fossil fuel companies, alleging that the production and promotion of fossil fuels created a public nuisance of global warming-induced sea level rise and other climate change hazards.
In July 2018 the State of Rhode Island filed proceedings against 21 fossil fuel companies alleging that they were directly responsible for 182.9 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions between 1965 and 2015, and that the defendants’ production, promotion and marketing of their fossil fuel products and concealment of the known hazard of those products caused damage to Rhode Island in the form of substantial seal level rise, more frequent and severe flooding, extreme precipitation events, drought and a warmer and more acidic ocean.
Away from the US, in Lliya v RWE AG a Peruvian farmer commenced proceedings against a German electricity producer. The Plaintiff argued that the utility’s production of green house emissions caused melting glaciers which affected his home town in Peru. The court dismissed the complaint on the basis that it was impossible to link the defendants’ conduct with the plaintiff’s injuries - there were many emitters who contributed to the problem and created the risk of flooding.
(3) Financial disclosure claims
The third category of claims are those brought against corporations and directors for failure to disclose climate change risk and/or misrepresentations of this risk.
Exxon Mobile Corp has been on the receiving end of a number of these actions in the US. In 2017 a class action was brought against Exxon alleging that Exxon engaged in misleading the general and investing public by misrepresenting the impact of climate change on its reserve values and long-term business prospects. In particular, the allegations were that Exxon made false and misleading statements regarding the value and amount of Exxon’s oil and gas reserves by failing to incorporate carbon or greenhouse gas proxy costs into the investment and valuation process. A proceeding with similar allegations was filed against Exxon by the State of New York in October 2018. A third class action for breach of Exxon officers’ duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by failing to disclose climate change risk was dismissed by the Texas Federal Court in March 2018.
The Australian experience
The majority of Australia’s 97 climate change cases are Environmental and Planning cases. However, in line with global trends, there have been two cases brought in the last 2 years in Australia that are of particular interest to insurers as they traverse into the PI and D&O fields.
The first case, Abrahams v Commonwealth Bank of Australia was brought in August 2017 by two shareholders of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) who alleged that CBA breached the Corporations Act by failing to disclose climate change-related business risk (specifically the possible investment into the Adani Carmichael coal mine) in its 2016 annual report. The proceeding was ultimately withdrawn after CBA made climate change disclosures in their 2017 annual report.
More recently, in July 2018 an Australian pension fund member filed proceedings in the Federal Court against his Superannuation Fund, the Retail Employees Superannuation Trust (REST) alleging that REST and its directors breached the Corporations Act by failing to provide information related to climate change business risk and plans to address those risks.
What does this mean for insurers?
It appears that the Australian experience has seized on to the third category of climate change cases. The potential that companies and directors are sued for failure to disclose climate change risk and/or failure to adequately address climate change risk and mitigate its harm has been a live issue for many years now. In October 2016 Noel Hutley SC and Sebastian Hartford-Davis issued a memorandum of opinion which concluded that climate change risk may be relevant to a directors’ duty of care and diligence under the Corporations Act. Whether more of these cases will be brought is likely to depend on the outcome of McVeigh, which will serve as a test case.
It remains to be seen whether cases falling within categories one and two are brought and/or are successful in Australia. One of the prohibiting factors to success is likely to be the lack of any Federal bill of right and any express rights to life, clean air, etc. under the Australian constitution (only a number of limited, mostly political rights have been implied into the constitution). Given the ACT and Victoria are the only two states which have a state bill of rights, there is a possibility that such cases may be brought in those jurisdictions, although the implementation of Climate Change law remains a federal matter and it is difficult to see how a claim against a state government could succeed. There are also other barriers to success. Like the court in Lliuya v RWE Ag, Australian courts may struggle to find that a chain of causation exists between the plaintiff’s injury and the actions of the government and corporation.
Insurers should watch McVeigh with great interest as it could inform the proliferation of future climate change cases. At the very least, it is clear that insurers now have to factor the likely increase in climate change litigation into their books.
Disclaimer - Nothing on this page or on this website (www.esglawyer.com) constitutes or should be construed as constituting legal advice.
· Sabin Centre of Climate Change Law – Climate Change Litigation database: http://climatecasechart.com/
· ‘Climate change litigation: A new class of action,’ Mark Clarke, Tallat Hussain, Markus Lengen and Dr. Peter Rosin, White & Case (13 November 2018) https://www.whitecase.com/publications/insight/climate-change-litigation-new-class-action
· ‘The Status of Climate Change Litigation – a global review,’ United Nations Environment Programme, May 2017 http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/20767/climate-change-litigation.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
· ‘The Global Risks Report,’ World Economic Forum, 15 January 2019 http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2019.pdf
· ‘Climate Change and Directors’ Duties – Memorandum of Opinion,’ Noel Hutley SC and Sebastian Hartford-Davis (7 October 2016) http://cpd.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Legal-Opinion-on-Climate-Change-and-Directors-Duties.pdf