1. Introduction

Decarbonisation refers to the reduction and eventual elimination of greenhouse-gas emissions from energy, transport, industry, buildings, agriculture and other economic activities. Modern climate law increasingly asks not merely whether governments and corporations have adopted climate policies, but whether they have actually complied with legally binding duties to reduce emissions.

“Legal accountability for decarbonisation failure” therefore concerns the legal consequences when a government, regulator, public authority or private corporation:

fails to implement legally binding climate targets;

authorises projects inconsistent with climate obligations;

inadequately regulates major greenhouse-gas emitters;

fails to adopt reasonable emissions-reduction measures;

ignores climate risks in administrative decision-making; or

adopts climate plans without adequately implementing them.

Accountability may arise through constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, human-rights law, corporate law, statutory climate duties and judicial review.

Importantly, courts do not always impose a specific emissions-reduction percentage. The scope of judicial intervention depends on the legal system, statutory framework, separation-of-powers principles and the evidence presented.

2. Concept of Decarbonisation Failure

A decarbonisation failure can occur at several levels.

A. Failure to meet statutory climate targets

Where legislation establishes legally binding emissions targets, failure to comply may constitute a breach of statutory duties.

For example, climate legislation may require a government to:

establish carbon budgets;

prepare emissions-reduction plans;

monitor progress;

report periodically; and

revise policies where existing measures are inadequate.

A court may review whether the government has actually discharged these obligations.

B. Failure in administrative decision-making

A planning authority may approve a coal mine, airport expansion, pipeline or other carbon-intensive infrastructure without adequately considering legally relevant climate obligations.

Such a decision may be challenged through judicial review.

C. Corporate decarbonisation failure

Companies may face litigation where their activities allegedly conflict with duties arising from:

corporate or civil law;

environmental legislation;

human-rights principles;

fiduciary obligations;

disclosure requirements; or

a general duty of care.

The Shell litigation in the Netherlands demonstrates both the potential and limits of this approach.

D. Failure to protect fundamental rights

Climate change can interfere with rights to:

life;

health;

livelihood;

property;

equality;

private and family life; and

a healthy environment.

The Indian Supreme Court's 2024 decision in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India is particularly important because it recognised protection from the adverse effects of climate change as connected to fundamental constitutional rights. (Indian Kanoon)

3. Constitutional Accountability

Constitutional law can transform climate protection from a purely policy matter into a question of enforceable rights.

In India, environmental protection has traditionally been connected with Article 21, the right to life, as well as Articles 48A and 51A(g).

The important development is that climate change is increasingly understood as affecting the enjoyment of fundamental rights.

M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024)

In M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 280, the Supreme Court considered the relationship between climate change, environmental protection and constitutional rights. The Court recognised a constitutional right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, while also addressing the importance of renewable energy and protection of the Great Indian Bustard. (Indian Kanoon)

The case is significant for decarbonisation accountability because climate protection is no longer viewed exclusively as an issue of executive policy. Climate-related governmental action can increasingly be examined through the lens of fundamental rights.

Legal significance

The judgment potentially strengthens arguments that:

Government decisions concerning energy infrastructure and climate policy must be compatible with constitutional environmental and rights-based obligations.

However, the judgment does not mean that every failure to achieve a climate target automatically constitutes a constitutional violation. Courts must still determine the applicable legal duty and whether the challenged action or omission infringes that duty.

4. The Urgenda Principle

One of the most influential climate accountability cases is:

Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands

The Dutch courts considered whether the State had a legal duty to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions sufficiently to protect people against dangerous climate change.

The Dutch Supreme Court ultimately upheld an obligation requiring the Netherlands to achieve at least a 25% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by the end of 2020 compared with 1990 levels.

The legal reasoning drew significantly on human-rights protection, particularly Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Importance

Urgenda demonstrated that:

climate policy can become judicially enforceable where inadequate governmental action creates a sufficiently established risk to protected rights.

It therefore became an important precedent for rights-based climate litigation around the world.

5. Administrative Law and Decarbonisation Failure

Administrative law is another major mechanism.

Governments generally cannot exercise statutory powers arbitrarily. When making decisions concerning major infrastructure, authorities may have to consider:

statutory climate objectives;

environmental impacts;

relevant scientific evidence;

national emissions targets;

international commitments incorporated into domestic law; and

legally prescribed environmental assessment requirements.

Failure to consider a legally relevant climate factor may render an administrative decision unlawful.

6. Heathrow Airport Case

R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52

This case concerned the UK's Airports National Policy Statement supporting a third runway at Heathrow.

The claimants argued that the government's decision was unlawful because it failed to take account of the UK's commitments under the Paris Agreement.

The Court of Appeal had found the policy unlawful, but the UK Supreme Court unanimously allowed Heathrow's appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Paris Agreement did not have the domestic legal status necessary to make it a mandatory consideration under the relevant statutory framework at the time the decision was made. (Supreme Court UK)

Significance for decarbonisation accountability

The case demonstrates an important limitation:

International climate commitments do not automatically create directly enforceable domestic obligations.

Their legal effect depends upon the domestic constitutional and statutory framework.

Consequently, a claim that a project is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement does not necessarily establish that the project is legally invalid.

7. Corporate Accountability: The Shell Litigation

One of the most important corporate climate cases is:

Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell

In 2021, the District Court of The Hague ordered Shell to reduce its worldwide CO₂ emissions by net 45% by 2030 compared with 2019 levels.

The court approached the issue through Dutch civil-law duties and the company's responsibility to contribute to preventing dangerous climate change.

The case was subsequently appealed.

2024 Court of Appeal decision

On 12 November 2024, the Hague Court of Appeal overturned the District Court's reduction order and dismissed the claim for the specific 45% reduction.

The Court nevertheless considered that Shell had an obligation to address dangerous climate change, while concluding that the court could not establish that Shell was legally required to achieve the particular 45% reduction requested. (Climate Case)

As of 2026, the litigation has continued before the Dutch Supreme Court; a hearing took place on 22 May 2026. (Climate Case)

Legal lesson

Shell illustrates an important distinction between:

Existence of a climate responsibility
and
judicial authority to impose a particular emissions-reduction pathway.

A court may recognise that a corporation has climate-related legal responsibilities without necessarily being able to determine the precise percentage by which the company must reduce emissions.

8. Separation of Powers

Decarbonisation litigation frequently raises separation-of-powers concerns.

Climate policy involves difficult choices concerning:

energy prices;

employment;

industrial policy;

electricity security;

energy imports;

transport;

taxation;

infrastructure;

technological development; and

distribution of costs.

These decisions are ordinarily made by elected governments and legislatures.

Courts therefore have to distinguish between:

Legal enforcement
and
creation of climate policy.

Courts can determine whether a government has complied with a statutory or constitutional obligation. They may be more cautious when asked to design an entire national decarbonisation programme.

9. Accountability of Regulators

Energy regulators can also become subject to legal accountability.

A regulator responsible for electricity, gas or energy markets may have statutory obligations concerning:

environmental protection;

consumer welfare;

security of supply;

renewable energy;

energy efficiency;

emissions reduction; and

long-term system planning.

Failure to properly incorporate these legally relevant considerations may result in judicial review.

For example, if a regulator approves infrastructure investment while ignoring a mandatory statutory climate requirement, affected parties may challenge the legality of the decision.

10. Carbon Budgets and Government Accountability

A particularly important mechanism is the carbon-budget system.

A carbon budget establishes a maximum amount of greenhouse gases that may be emitted during a specified period.

The legal accountability chain can therefore operate as:

Climate target → Carbon budget → Government policy → Sectoral measures → Monitoring → Reporting → Judicial review

If the government repeatedly misses legally binding targets, several questions arise:

Was the target legally binding?

Was there a statutory duty to achieve it?

Was there a duty to prepare adequate policies?

Were those policies rational and evidence-based?

Did the government properly monitor implementation?

Was Parliament informed of the failure?

Does domestic law provide a judicial remedy?

These questions determine whether a decarbonisation failure is merely a political failure or also a legal failure.

11. Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle is highly relevant where governments must make decisions despite scientific uncertainty.

Climate change involves uncertainty regarding the precise timing and magnitude of particular impacts. However, uncertainty does not necessarily justify inaction.

Environmental law may therefore require authorities to consider reasonably foreseeable climate risks even where precise impacts cannot be calculated.

This is particularly relevant to:

new fossil-fuel infrastructure;

coal-fired power stations;

oil and gas development;

airports;

major highways;

industrial projects; and

long-lived energy infrastructure.

12. Intergenerational Equity

Decarbonisation law also raises the principle of intergenerational equity.

Current governments make infrastructure decisions whose effects may last for decades.

A fossil-fuel power station approved today may continue operating for 30–50 years. Consequently, today's decisions can constrain the emissions budget available to future generations.

Legal accountability can therefore incorporate the proposition that environmental decision-making should not impose disproportionate climate burdens on future generations.

13. Public Trust Doctrine

The public trust doctrine can also support climate accountability.

Under this principle, certain natural resources are treated as resources that government holds in trust for the public.

In India, public trust principles have developed through environmental jurisprudence, including cases such as:

M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath;

M.C. Mehta v Union of India; and

other cases concerning protection of natural resources.

In the climate context, the doctrine can support arguments that governments cannot treat environmentally critical resources entirely as ordinary commodities when their degradation threatens public interests.

14. Polluter Pays Principle

The polluter pays principle establishes that those responsible for environmental harm should bear appropriate costs associated with preventing or remedying that harm.

In decarbonisation law, this can potentially support:

environmental compensation;

remediation;

liability for pollution;

emissions-related costs; and

economic internalisation of environmental damage.

Indian environmental jurisprudence has repeatedly recognised the polluter-pays principle as an important component of environmental law.

However, applying it specifically to global greenhouse-gas emissions presents difficult questions of causation, attribution and quantification.

15. Causation and Attribution Problems

One of the most difficult issues in climate accountability is causation.

Climate change is produced by the cumulative emissions of:

states;

corporations;

households;

transport systems;

industrial facilities; and

electricity systems worldwide.

A defendant may therefore argue:

“Our emissions are only a small fraction of global emissions.”

Climate litigation has responded to this issue in different ways.

Courts may examine:

the defendant's historical emissions;

contribution to atmospheric concentrations;

foreseeable risks;

market share;

statutory responsibilities;

corporate control;

supply-chain emissions; and

the defendant's capacity to reduce emissions.

The Shell litigation demonstrates the complexity of applying this reasoning to Scope 3 emissions, which occur throughout a company's value chain.

16. Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 Accountability

Corporate decarbonisation responsibilities can be divided into:

Scope 1

Direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by the company.

Scope 2

Indirect emissions associated with purchased electricity, heat or steam.

Scope 3

Other indirect emissions throughout the value chain, including emissions associated with the use of products sold.

Scope 3 is particularly controversial because companies may have limited direct control over consumers and downstream markets.

The 2024 Shell appellate decision illustrates the judicial difficulty of imposing a specific Scope 3 reduction obligation on an individual corporation. (Climate Case)

17. Greenwashing as a Form of Accountability

Decarbonisation accountability is not limited to physical emissions.

Companies may also face legal consequences where they make misleading claims such as:

“net zero”;

“carbon neutral”;

“clean energy”;

“zero emissions”; or

claims concerning the environmental benefits of particular products.

Consumer-protection, securities, advertising and corporate-disclosure laws can potentially be used to challenge misleading climate representations.

This creates an important accountability mechanism:

Climate commitment → public representation → legal disclosure duty → verification → liability for misleading information.

18. Directors and Corporate Governance

Corporate climate accountability can also reach directors.

Boards increasingly have to consider:

climate-related financial risks;

transition risks;

stranded assets;

regulatory changes;

carbon pricing;

disclosure requirements;

energy-transition investment; and

long-term business risks.

Whether directors have a legally enforceable duty to pursue a particular decarbonisation strategy depends on the applicable corporate law.

A useful distinction is:

A duty to consider climate risks is not necessarily a duty to adopt a particular climate strategy.

19. Remedies for Decarbonisation Failure

Courts can potentially use several remedies.

1. Declaration

A court may declare that an authority acted unlawfully.

2. Judicial review

A governmental decision may be quashed and reconsidered.

3. Mandatory orders

A court may require a public authority to comply with a statutory duty.

4. Injunctions

A court may restrain environmentally harmful conduct where legal requirements are satisfied.

5. Compensation

Environmental statutes or civil law may permit compensation in appropriate cases.

6. Procedural remedies

Courts may require:

environmental assessment;

reconsideration of climate impacts;

disclosure of relevant information; or

consultation with affected parties.

The appropriate remedy depends heavily on the legal system.

20. Major Case Laws

21. Emerging Model of Legal Accountability

The emerging model can be represented as:

Climate science
↓
International commitments
↓
Domestic climate legislation
↓
Carbon budgets and sectoral targets
↓
Government implementation
↓
Regulatory decisions
↓
Corporate obligations
↓
Monitoring and disclosure
↓
Judicial review / civil litigation
↓
Remedies and corrective action

This model shifts climate governance from merely announcing targets toward legally verifiable implementation.

22. Critical Legal Challenges

Despite the development of climate litigation, several difficulties remain.

A. Political question concerns

Courts may hesitate to determine broad questions of national energy policy.

B. Scientific complexity

Climate attribution requires sophisticated scientific evidence.

C. Global causation

Climate change results from cumulative global emissions, complicating individual liability.

D. Institutional competence

Courts may lack the institutional capacity to design energy-transition policies.

E. Remedy problems

Even where a legal violation is established, determining the appropriate emissions-reduction remedy can be difficult.

F. Enforcement

A judgment requiring policy development may still depend upon effective governmental implementation.

23. Conclusion

Legal accountability for decarbonisation failure represents the transition from voluntary climate governance toward enforceable climate responsibility.

The most important legal developments are occurring through three overlapping pathways:

Constitutional accountability — climate inaction can implicate fundamental rights;

Administrative accountability — public authorities must comply with statutory climate and environmental duties; and

Corporate accountability — major emitters may face legal obligations concerning emissions, climate risks and environmental disclosures.

The jurisprudence is not uniform. Urgenda demonstrates strong judicial enforcement of governmental climate duties, while Heathrow demonstrates that international climate commitments do not automatically become domestic legal obligations. The Shell litigation demonstrates both the possibility of corporate climate duties and the difficulty of imposing a judicially determined emissions-reduction percentage. In India, M.K. Ranjitsinh has significantly strengthened the constitutional dimension of climate protection. (Indian Kanoon)

Thus, the central legal question is increasingly not simply “Has a state or corporation promised to decarbonise?”, but rather:

“What legally enforceable duty governs the promise, what evidence demonstrates compliance or failure, and what remedy is authorised by law?”

That distinction is fundamental to modern climate litigation and to the development of Energy Law as a system of accountability for the transition from fossil-fuel-dependent economies toward low-carbon and net-zero energy systems.