The oceans absorb approximately 90% of the excess heat trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere due to greenhouse gas emissions, yet marine issues don’t receive much attention. — Pexels
Scenes in shows like Suits and – if you’re old enough – LA Law, rarely feature courtroom drama on climate change.
However, citizens across jurisdictions in the real world are suing their governments and corporations for failing to curb climate change.
These lawsuits are symptoms of a deeper malaise in global climate governance – a widening chasm between what science demands and what governments deliver.
A case filed in Japan on December 18, 2025 illustrates this trend.
Around 450 plaintiffs sued the central government, alleging that its climate policies are “grossly inadequate,” jeopardising their health and livelihoods, and even violating constitutional rights.
This is Japan’s first such litigation, and it comes as lawsuits over climate inaction multiply worldwide.
The plaintiffs include youth and workers – groups acutely aware that climate change will shape their futures.
That alignment is now common: climate litigation increasingly channels the voice of younger generations, frustrated by the inertia of elected governments.
In the United States, youth plaintiffs have repeatedly brought cases against federal policies.
For example, Lighthiser v. Trump sought to revoke orders that prioritised fossil fuels, though it was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
Worldwide, climate litigation has surged.
By mid-2025 there were around 3,000 cases in 60 countries, spanning claims against states and corporations, and encompassing issues from floods to human rights.
These legal actions reach beyond abstract grievances: they question whether governments are fulfilling their obligations under international agreements and domestic laws, especially when scientific evidence shows accelerating warming and intensifying extreme weather.
This judicial surge highlights a stark truth: multilateral diplomacy is struggling to match the urgency of the crisis.
Countries argue and debate with each other as our only home burns, quite literally.
The Paris Agreement’s framework relies on voluntary, nationally determined contributions but current pledges fall well short of the emissions cuts needed to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
Under the Paris Agreement, the US had previously committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by around 61-66% below 2,005 levels by 2035.
Yet, domestic politics under the second Trump administration have swung sharply against climate action: the White House withdrew from the Paris Agreement again in 2025, and key federal climate research institutions are being dismantled, raising concerns about America’s role in scientific leadership and preparedness.
Meanwhile, independent projections show that US emissions declines are slowing and could be hundreds of millions of tonnes higher in 2030 than under robust climate policy.
An ambitious China
China, the world’s largest emitter, offers another paradox.
It has become the engine of renewable energy deployment and industrial decarbonisation – installing vast solar and wind capacity, often outpacing global rivals.
Beijing’s 2025 climate plan marks a milestone by pledging to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to seven to 10 % below peak levels by 2035 – its first absolute reduction target.
But analysts warn this ambition is still well short of what is needed to align with Paris goals; a reduction of around 30% by 2035 might be required for a credible 1.5°C pathway.
At COP30 in Belem, Brazil, negotiations underscored this policy gap.
Despite pressure from civil society and many developing nations for a fossil fuel phase-out timeline, heads of state failed to agree on binding global commitments to accelerate decarbonisation.
The absence of consensus highlights persistent geopolitical tensions – especially between major powers unwilling or unable to align long-term climate strategy with scientific imperatives.
Youth, science and civil society are not waiting.
They are going to court because democratic politics is perceived as too slow or too compromised.
Courts, often more insulated from short electoral cycles, are being asked to interpret constitutions and human rights in light of climate science – effectively converting scientific risk into legal rights and state duties.
This trend poses challenges: litigation can reshape legal norms but may also provoke backlash from executives who see climate policy as the prerogative of elected governments.
Yet, the sheer volume of cases, and their spread into apex and human-rights courts, signals that judicial pressure will remain a central axis of climate governance in 2026 and beyond.
What can governments do to bridge the gap between expectations and action – especially in smaller or middle-income countries?
For Datuk Seri Arthur Joseph Kurup, a lawyer and economist who was recently appointed Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability minister, the policy landscape presents both challenges and low-hanging fruits:
1) Strengthen climate legislation with clear targets
Litigation thrives on ambiguity.
Countries such as Germany that faced constitutional rulings requiring clearer pathways for emissions cuts show the importance of well-defined, legally backed climate targets that align with science.
Malaysia should legislate net-zero targets with interim milestones and enforcement mechanisms to reduce legal risk and signal seriousness.
2) Invest in climate transparency and data platforms
The Paris Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency Framework is now maturing, with 2025 marking completion of initial reporting cycles.
Adopting similar transparency tools domestically (robust data on emissions, adaptation needs and progress) empowers policy-making and public accountability, and preempts litigation rooted in claims of insufficient action.
3) Prioritise just transition and youth engagement
Youth are disproportionately represented in climate lawsuits and activism.
Policies that explicitly create green jobs, education pathways and transition funds (especially in energy sectors) can both deliver economic benefits and address intergenerational equity concerns.
4) Rapid deployment of near-term mitigation
There are practical, affordable actions that yield early wins e.g. energy efficiency standards for buildings and transport.
Such measures not only cut emissions but show responsiveness to civil and legal expectations.
5) Strengthen climate resilience and adaptation funding
Extreme weather events, as analysed by the Climate Risk Index, continue to inflict economic and human costs.
Investing in climate-resilient infrastructure and nature-based solutions – from flood-plains to mangroves – reduces vulnerability and aligns national strategies with human-rights expectations implicit in lawsuits.
In the coming decade, collective effort will be required to mitigate the impact of climate change.
Policy may be shaped as much by lawsuits and courts as by international diplomacy and carbon budgets.
Countries that anticipate this reality, and close the gap between rhetoric and substantive action, will not only avert legal risks but shape a more resilient, equitable future.
Together with various stakeholders, Malaysia’s new minister has the opportunity to demonstrate that purposeful climate policy is not a cost – it’s governance-fit for an era when citizens no longer tolerate delay.
Dr Helmy Haja Mydin is a consultant respiratory physician and Social & Economic Research Initiative chairman. For further information, email starhealth@thestar.com.my. The information provided is for educational and communication purposes only. The Star does not give any warranty on accuracy, completeness, functionality, usefulness or other assurances as to the content appearing in this column. The Star disclaims all responsibility for any losses, damage to property or personal injury suffered directly or indirectly from reliance on such information.
