| dc.description.abstract | Issues involving climate change resulting from global warming have become a specific and extremely important agenda in the global and local debate. The gradual expansion of the multidisciplinary knowledge of climate science reveals that the high emission of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, has repercussions on atmospheric distemper in a transgenerational way. Currently, there is a worldwide scientific consensus on the significant contribution of human activities to the climate crisis. The risk society demands differentiated treatment of environmental, social, economic and political problems arising from disturbances and potential impacts related to climate change. The State was entrusted with the regulation, management, execution and supervision of climate policies. The constitutional text and the Brazilian legal system have specific bases on the protection of climate stability, its articulation with human rights and the competence of state powers in matters of climate change. Faced with the omission or inefficiency of the Legislative Power and the Public Administration, in dealing with the causes and effects of climate change, space opens up for climate litigation and for a closer participation of the courts with issues involving this theme. Climate litigation would be a necessary legal instrument for the effective and unstoppable confrontation of the causes and effects of the exponential increase in anthropogenic global warming and the impacts of climate change in Brazil, for the purpose of holding key actors accountable to effectively implement
mitigation measures and adaptation? The hypothesis put in checkmate considered climate litigation in Brazil promising as a means of constraint and accountability of key actors to comply with effective mitigation and adaptation measures, risk management and compensation for losses and damages. The main objective was to critically analyze the institute of climate litigation correlating it with the Brazilian scenario. As specific objectives, we sought to understand the state of the art of climate science, climate risk management, international and national regulatory framework on climate change. Also liability for actual and future climate damage, climate litigation, strategic litigation, strategic climate litigation, multilevel global governance, climate governance. The methodology adopted followed the regular syllogism structure, combined with deductive and descriptive techniques and bibliographic and documentary research, culminating in the elaboration of eleven
chapters. The landscape of climate litigation in the world was illustrated by the paradigmatic cases Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency; eat v.
Murphy Oil; Connecticut v. American Electric Power; California v. General Motors Corporation; Juliana v. United States; urgent v. State of the Netherlands; Lliuya v.
RWE AG; Colombian future generations v. Ministry of the Environment and others.
Following the selection of jurisprudence from the Federal Supreme Court, Superior
Court of Justice and Federal Regional Courts regarding climate change, the menus
were confronted with climate litigation doctrine, with emphasis on the cases Claim for
Noncompliance with Fundamental Precept 708 (Fundo Clima) and Public Civil Action
5048951-39.2020.4.04.7000 (Instituto de Estudos Amazônicos v. União). Brazil has
significant factual and normative conditions for climate litigation, whether strategic or
not, to be an important legal-procedural tool to evidence and build responses in this
complex discussion involving accountability and governance in the climate crisis
scenario. | en |
