A case for Nepal: suing major carbon emitters for floods

Why in the News

The August 2026 floods in Nepal, which killed thousands, are overwhelmingly attributed to climate change and follow Pakistan’s 2022 floods as a worst-case South Asian scenario. Their victims could sue major emitters through climate litigation, as plaintiffs in Europe and the United States have done for two decades. Proving that a distant emitter caused a particular flood remains the main legal hurdle.

What is climate litigation, and why is causation its hardest test?

1. What it is: Climate litigation means people exposed to climate risks suing states or companies for harm to life, health, property and family life. It is like neighbours suing a factory whose smoke harms them, but across borders.
2. Causation problem: It is extremely difficult to prove that a distant state’s or company’s failure to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions harmed flood victims in Nepal’s districts bordering Tibet.
3. Incremental contribution: Courts now accept that each emitter’s failure adds to global cumulative GHGs, which raise the likelihood of extreme events everywhere. The actual damage then depends on local exposure, vulnerability and resilience.
4. The takeaway: A victim must tie one emitter’s share of a global problem to a local loss, so proof decides most claims.

Who can claim to be a victim, and does Nepal’s border region qualify?

1. Diffuse harm: Climate wrongs harm society as a whole. Courts usually require direct and proximate harm, meaning harm to a specific person that follows closely from the defendant’s act.
2. Standing (the right to bring a case): Victims must be shown to face a specific exposure, distinct from the general population. Only then can they invoke individual or group rights and claim compensation.
3. GLOF exposure: People in the Trishuli and Bhote Koshi river basins on the Tibet-Nepal border have faced glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs), sudden floods from bursting ice-dammed lakes, for three decades.
4. Retreating glaciers: Glaciers in the Tibetan Autonomous Region have retreated faster since 2010. These earlier risks could meet the legal test of an imminent catastrophe, a danger close at hand.

What have foreign courts held on the liability of large emitters?

1. Lliuya v. RWE (Germany): A Peruvian national sued the German energy firm RWE under German private nuisance law. He argued that carbon dioxide from its coal plants, 5,000 miles away, made glaciers near his home unstable.
2. Hamm ruling: The Higher Court of Appeal in Hamm ruled on 28 May 2025 that RWE can be held responsible in principle. It dismissed this claim for inadequate proof of an imminent risk.
3. Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell: In November 2024, the Dutch Court of Appeal held that major contributors to climate change owe a duty of care, a legal duty to avoid harming others, to limit GHG emissions.
4. Asmania v. Holcim (Switzerland): Four Indonesian islanders have sued the Swiss building-material firm Holcim in the Cantonal Court of Zug, seeking emission cuts and compensation.

Why should Nepal’s victims litigate when no ruling binds them?

1. Distance no longer a shield: The Hamm court accepted that past emissions add to climate risks in proportion to their size. It also held that German civil law can apply to transboundary harm, damage across borders.
2. No binding precedent: Foreign rulings do not bind courts in other countries. Courts are increasingly aware of large emitters’ duties, so litigation remains worth pursuing.

Challenges

1. Proof of imminent risk: Even courts that accept liability in principle demand proof of imminent harm, the test that defeated the RWE claim.
2. Cost of foreign suits: Suing a multinational in its home court needs money, lawyers and expert evidence that flood-hit mountain communities rarely have.
3. Contested attribution science: Linking one flood to one emitter needs event attribution studies, which estimate how far climate change made a flood more likely. Defendants can challenge them as uncertain.

Way Forward

1. Document exposed households: Nepal should record GLOF-exposed communities in the Trishuli and Bhote Koshi basins, so victims can prove specific exposure.
2. Commission attribution studies: Fund scientific studies linking the August 2026 floods to glacier loss and emissions.
3. Build legal partnerships: Work with international environmental law networks to file and fund suits in emitters’ home jurisdictions.

Conclusion

European courts now accept that a large emitter can owe a duty to distant victims, yet proof of a direct and imminent link still decides who is compensated. Whether South Asian flood victims turn that principle into an award will depend on documenting their exposure before they reach court.

Matching Previous Year Question

“No direct PYQ traced in the provided files. Thematic PYQ: [2025, GS1, 10 marks] How are climate change and the sea level rise affecting the very existence of many island nations? Discuss with examples.”