A Case for Nepal: Suing Major Carbon Emitters for Floods

Context

• The catastrophic floods in Nepal in August 2026, which reportedly claimed thousands of lives, have highlighted the devastating consequences of climate change in South Asia.
• Similar to Pakistan's floods in 2022, the disaster demonstrates the growing vulnerability of communities to extreme weather events, glacier melting and changing precipitation patterns.
• Beyond disaster management, an important question arises: Can victims of climate-induced disasters seek compensation from major greenhouse gas emitters?

Legal Reasoning Behind Climate Litigation

• Establishing Causation and Responsibility
  • Climate litigation seeks to establish the legal responsibility of governments and corporations for contributing to global warming.
  • Plaintiffs have approached courts arguing that excessive emissions threaten their right to life, health, property, privacy and family life.
  • However, establishing a direct causal relationship between a particular corporation's emissions and a specific disaster is difficult.
  • Greenhouse gases mix in the atmosphere, producing cumulative and geographically widespread consequences.
  • Climate disasters are also influenced by exposure, vulnerability and resilience.
• Identifying Victims and Establishing Legal Standing
  • This distinction establishes legal standing, allowing affected individuals to approach courts and seek protection or compensation.
  • In Nepal, communities along the Tibet-Nepal border, particularly those living in the Trishuli and Bhote Koshi river basins, have experienced recurring threats from Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs) over three decades.
  • Research indicates that glacier retreat in the Tibetan Autonomous Region has accelerated since 2010.
  • Scientists warn that mountain glaciers could lose most of their volume by the end of the 21st century, threatening ecosystems and human settlements.
  • These developments increase the possibility of unstable glacial lakes and sudden floods.
  • The continuing exposure of vulnerable communities to such foreseeable dangers could help establish the imminence of catastrophe for seeking judicial intervention.

Holding Major Greenhouse Gas Emitters Accountable

• Lliuya vs RWE: Establishing Transboundary Corporate Liability
  • The Lliuya vs RWE case demonstrates the possibility of connecting corporate emissions with climate-related risks thousands of kilometres away.
  • Saúl Lliuya, a Peruvian national, sued German energy company RWE under German private nuisance law, arguing that its coal-fired power generation contributed to carbon dioxide emissions and increased glacier instability near his home.
  • On May 28, 2025, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm recognised that RWE could, in principle, be held legally responsible for its proportional contribution to climate risks.
  • However, the specific claim was dismissed because sufficient evidence of an imminent threat was lacking.
  • The judgment established three important principles: corporate emissions can contribute proportionally to climate risks; German civil law can apply to transboundary climate damage; and geographical distance does not automatically protect corporations from liability.
• Milieudefensie vs Royal Dutch Shell: Corporate Duty of Care
  • In Milieudefensie et al. vs Royal Dutch Shell (November 2024), the Dutch Court of Appeal examined corporate responsibilities towards climate protection.
  • The court recognised that companies significantly contributing to climate change and possessing the capacity to address it may have obligations under general duty of care principles and human rights standards.
  • This strengthened the argument that climate responsibility extends beyond governments to major corporations.
  • However, the judgment did not establish a universal emissions-reduction obligation applicable to every company.
• Asmania vs Holcim: Seeking Compensation for Climate Damage
  • Four Indonesian islanders filed a lawsuit against Holcim, a Swiss building-materials corporation, before the Swiss Cantonal Court of Zug.
  • They sought reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and compensation for present and future climate-related damages.
  • The case demonstrates the growing willingness of vulnerable communities to pursue corporate accountability through legal institutions.
  • Although foreign judgments are not automatically binding elsewhere, they contribute to the development of international climate jurisprudence.

Relevance for Nepal and the Way Forward

• Exploring Legal Remedies
  • The experiences of Peru, the Netherlands and Indonesia offer important lessons for Nepal.
  • Flood victims could explore litigation against major greenhouse gas emitters by establishing scientific connections between historical emissions and increased climate risks.
  • The proportional contribution principle could help determine responsibility among multiple emitters without requiring victims to prove that one defendant exclusively caused the disaster.
• Challenges and Institutional Requirements
  • Climate litigation faces several challenges:
    • Causation: Establishing connections between specific emissions and individual losses remains difficult.
    • Jurisdiction: Victims may encounter legal and procedural barriers in foreign courts.
    • Scientific evidence: Climate attribution studies and glacier assessments are essential.
    • Financial constraints: Vulnerable communities may lack resources for prolonged litigation.
    • Compensation: Calculating damages and distributing responsibility among multiple emitters remain complicated. 

Conclusion

• The catastrophic floods in Nepal demonstrate the unequal distribution of climate change consequences.
• Communities contributing relatively little to historical emissions often suffer disproportionate environmental and economic damage.
• Emerging climate litigation indicates that major corporations may face legal scrutiny for their contribution to global warming, even when affected communities are thousands of kilometres away.
• Addressing climate injustice requires moving beyond humanitarian relief towards polluter accountability, preventive action and protection of vulnerable communities.