{"id":22894,"date":"2024-08-26T14:30:49","date_gmt":"2024-08-26T19:30:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=22894"},"modified":"2024-08-28T12:46:43","modified_gmt":"2024-08-28T17:46:43","slug":"climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/08\/26\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\/","title":{"rendered":"Climate Change Litigation Turns Toward Animal Agriculture"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>
\"\"<\/a>
\u00a0 Nikki Ritcher \/ We Animals Media<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Even as the geographical and doctrinal diversity of <\/span>climate change litigation<\/span><\/a> increases, climate lawsuits\u2014whether they seek to hold private actors directly accountable or challenge government policies\u2014continue to focus primarily on fossil fuels. This makes sense given that major oil and gas companies (sometimes called the \u201cCarbon Majors\u201d) are leading contributors to the climate crisis. But other industrial sectors also generate significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The animal agriculture sector plays a prominent role, estimated to produce between 11 and 20 percent of all global GHG emissions, about one-third of the world\u2019s emissions of the climate super-pollutant methane, and more than half of global nitrous oxide emissions. <\/span><\/p>\n

Though animal agriculture has long escaped most climate litigants\u2019 notice, activists and lawyers in jurisdictions around the world are increasingly attentive to its responsibility for climate change. Our research discussing what we refer to as the \u201cMethane Majors,\u201d <\/span>published in the <\/span>Columbia Journal of Environmental Law<\/span><\/i><\/a>, demonstrates this growing trend. As we argue, however, the full range of potential climate-related challenges to animal agriculture firms and their backers remains underexplored, including in U.S. courts.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Litigation Absent Regulation<\/b><\/h3>\n

Inadequate regulation is often seen as a primary motivator of climate advocates\u2019 broader \u201c<\/span>turn to the courts<\/span><\/a>.\u201d That logic appears to apply with particular force to animal agriculture, which has largely enjoyed exemptions from climate change regulation, including in the <\/span>United States<\/span><\/a> and the <\/span>European Union<\/span><\/a>. This is despite the fact that animal agriculture is a leading source of potent climate pollutants, including methane and nitrous oxide, which the <\/span>IPCC<\/span><\/a> and <\/span>others have long said must be rapidly <\/span><\/a>cut in order to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

At COP28, where most state parties signed a nonbinding sustainable agriculture <\/span>pledge<\/span><\/a>, the conference\u2019s <\/span>final agreement<\/span><\/a> only mentioned agriculture in the context of adaptation, not mitigation. In the United States, even though the industry is responsible for approximately <\/span>36% of anthropogenic methane emissions<\/span><\/a>, animal agriculture\u2019s GHG emissions (methane and otherwise) likewise remain largely unregulated. Despite <\/span>environmental advocates\u2019 calls<\/span><\/a> for more meaningful regulations, the Biden administration\u2019s 2021 methane emissions <\/span>reduction plan<\/span><\/a> did not seek to control animal agriculture emissions, instead focusing on incentive-based and voluntary approaches. Nor did EPA address animal agriculture when it strengthened <\/span>oil and gas methane emissions regulations<\/span><\/a> in late 2023. In the United States and other jurisdictions with such regulatory shortfalls, allegations related to animal agriculture thus feature in a <\/span>variety<\/span><\/a> of <\/span>complaints<\/span><\/a> against inadequate policy responses to climate change. Plaintiffs have characterized governments\u2019 relative inaction on animal agriculture emissions as in violation of those governments\u2019 <\/span>constitutional<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>statutory<\/span><\/a>, or <\/span>international legal obligations<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The lack of regulatory action has also shaped common law tort suits directly against industry participants, as in a leading lawsuit in New Zealand, <\/span>Smith v. Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited<\/span><\/i><\/a>. In 2019, the climate change spokesperson for the Iwi Chairs\u2019 Forum (a M\u0101ori advocacy coalition) filed suit against New Zealand\u2019s seven largest greenhouse gas emitters for their contributions to climate change. The defendants include two animal agriculture firms: Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited and Dairy Holdings Limited. The <\/span>former<\/span><\/a> is a multinational, publicly traded manufacturer and distributor of dairy products and the <\/span>ninth largest dairy company<\/span><\/a> in the world; the <\/span>latter<\/span><\/a> is New Zealand\u2019s largest dairy farm operator and Fonterra\u2019s primary milk supplier.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Smith\u2019s allegations against Dairy Holdings are explicitly based on emissions from livestock. Emphasizing the risks posed by climate change to <\/span>M\u0101ori communities\u2019 customary interests<\/span><\/a> in coastal lands, Smith pled three tort causes of action: negligence, public nuisance, and a novel \u201cproposed climate system tort\u201d entailing a legally cognizable duty \u201cto cease materially contributing to: damage to the climate system; dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system; and the adverse effects of climate change.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In February this year, the New Zealand Supreme Court <\/span>ruled<\/span><\/a> that all three causes of action could proceed to trial. Throughout the <\/span>judgment<\/span><\/a>, the Supreme Court accepted\u2014without fanfare\u2014animal agriculture\u2019s presence among the significant sources of anthropogenic GHG emissions complained of in the suit. The court cited, \u201cas common ground,\u201d the IPCC\u2019s observations regarding, <\/span>inter alia<\/span><\/i>, atmospheric methane, land use change, and \u201clifestyle and patterns of consumption and production.\u201d The court also noted Smith\u2019s claim that these emissions \u201care actually or effectively unconstrained by the current regulatory regime,\u201d a reference to the fact that methane from agricultural sources\u2013\u2013which represented over a third of New Zealand\u2019s 2020 GHG emissions\u2013\u2013was categorically excluded from the government\u2019s statutory climate change response, leaving a major gap especially ripe for judicial intervention. <\/span>Other<\/span><\/a> courts<\/span><\/a> have also proved willing to recognize animal agriculture as a significant source of GHG emissions, suggesting there is no particular barrier to recognizing the industry\u2019s liability beyond the familiar obstacles that have arisen in cases against fossil-fuel defendants.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Enforcing Existing Protections<\/b><\/h3>\n

Though climate change regulations typically do not reach the animal agriculture industry, litigants have seized upon existing, generally applicable statutory frameworks to challenge alleged climate-related harms and misconduct by animal agriculture defendants. At least two important categories of such cases are worth noting: (1) supply-chain due diligence and (2) consumer protection.<\/span><\/p>\n

Supply Chain Due Diligence<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

In Europe, national and EU laws increasingly recognize private actors\u2019 obligation to conduct supply-chain due diligence. Existing rules may soon be augmented with <\/span>broader due diligence obligations<\/span><\/a> for the largest EU companies, requiring them to take steps to avoid adverse human rights and environmental impacts throughout their global operations, including by planning for climate change mitigation.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

France has a particularly strong <\/span>\u201cduty of vigilance\u201d law<\/span><\/a> that requires large companies to establish, implement, and publish an annual due-diligence plan addressing the risks their operations pose to human rights, fundamental liberties, and the health and security of persons and the environment. In March 2021, nearly a dozen non-governmental organizations (NGOs)\u2014including the environmental group Envol Vert and Indigenous representatives\u2014invoked this duty of vigilance in a <\/span>lawsuit against the French retail group Casino<\/span><\/a>. The claimants alleged the \u201cimplication\u201d of Casino and its subsidiaries in systematic environmental and human rights violations caused by livestock operations in Brazil and Colombia. (An Envol Vert investigation <\/span>had shown<\/span><\/a> that Casino\u2019s meat suppliers were involved in \u201cillegal deforestation and land grabbing practices.\u201d) According to the complaint, Casino\u2019s vigilance plans were insufficient, both in terms of specificity and substance, to address the heightened human, climatic, and ecological risks associated with the cattle industry, including deforestation, forced labor, and the appropriation of Indigenous lands. Hearings in the case <\/span>began<\/span><\/a> in early 2023, substantive pleadings <\/span>expected<\/span><\/a> to begin in 2024. In the meantime, the lawsuit has already heightened scrutiny of Casino\u2019s operations. A 2023 <\/span>\u00a0investigation<\/span><\/a> revealed that the firm\u2019s supply chain remained tainted with animals farmed on Indigenous and protected lands, undercutting Casino\u2019s claims in court that it was exercising adequate due diligence.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Another animal agriculture-related case arising under the same law began in October 2022, when French and Brazilian NGOs sent a notice of intent to sue the European banking giant BNP Paribas (BNP) for financing cattle operations in Brazil, which the demand characterized as having \u201cdramatic\u201d climate consequences. <\/span>The case<\/span><\/a> focused in particular on BNP\u2019s financing of Marfrig, Brazil\u2019s second-largest meatpacker, despite Marfrig\u2019s history of environmental and human-rights abuses and BNP\u2019s own public commitments to net-zero goals. As the demand recounted, Marfrig is one of the world\u2019s top emitters of methane. After the action was deemed inadmissible for lack of formal notice, another group of NGOs filed a <\/span>new complaint<\/span><\/a> with the French national prosecutor, seeking criminal enforcement against BNP and other French banks alleged to have financed illegal deforestation and thereby engaged in money laundering.<\/span><\/p>\n

Last year, California <\/span>enacted<\/span><\/a> the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, which would require public and private companies with global revenues of at least $1 billion that meet a minimal trigger of \u201cdoing business in California\u201d to disclose their Scope 3 (supply chain) emissions. The SEC adopted a more limited emissions <\/span>disclosure rule<\/span><\/a> in March 2024. If they survive <\/span>legal challenge<\/span><\/a>, the disclosures these enactments require could deliver more information to potential litigants about animal agriculture companies and their emissions, climate plans, and commitments. Information of this kind plays an important role in another class of climate change and animal agriculture litigation: consumer protection.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Consumer Protection<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

In a few early cases, animal agriculture companies are facing consumer protection claims aimed at climate misrepresentations. The earliest lawsuit in this arena targeted <\/span>Danish Crown<\/span><\/a>, a major processor of pork (the European Union\u2019s largest) and beef, the <\/span>global GHG emissions<\/span><\/a> of which are equivalent to nearly one-third of Denmark\u2019s national total (based on 2016 emissions data). In May 2021, in response to a <\/span>\u201cclimate-controlled pig\u201d<\/span><\/a> promotional campaign, three Danish NGOs sued Danish Crown for misleading consumers by misrepresenting the carbon footprint of its products in violation of Denmark\u2019s Marketing Practices Act. Following the lawsuit\u2019s filing, Danish Crown <\/span>announced<\/span><\/a> it would stop using the \u201cclimate-controlled pig\u201d label on its packaging, though <\/span>it continued<\/span><\/a> to use that terminology on its website. It also continued to defend the terminology as an effort to communicate that its pig suppliers were \u201cactively working to lower their [carbon dioxide]footprint.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Testifying<\/span><\/a> at trial in November 2023, a former Danish Crown director revealed that the firm had launched the \u201cclimate-controlled pig\u201d campaign without being able to guarantee that products bearing that label had actually been produced using special climate mitigation measures. <\/span>Another<\/span><\/a> witness, the firm\u2019s sustainability director, \u201cadmitted that the soy feed given to animals is not all deforestation-free.\u201d In a March 2024 <\/span>ruling<\/span><\/a>, Denmark\u2019s Western High Court found that Danish Crown had unlawfully misled consumers with its \u201cclimate-controlled pig\u201d campaign, though it suggested that future uses of the term might be permissible if adequately supported by emissions reductions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Danish Crown was the first in a series of similar cases. Sweden\u2019s consumer protection agency subsequently brought a case against major European dairy producer Arla Foods, the <\/span>global GHG emissions<\/span><\/a> of which are projected to amount to more than 60 percent of Denmark\u2019s entire Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement by 2030. The Swedish Patent and Market Court <\/span>enjoined<\/span><\/a> the firm from marketing dairy products as having a \u201cnet-zero climate footprint,\u201d finding that such claims misled consumers, notwithstanding Arla\u2019s assertion that its \u201cpromise of net zero [was] based on climate-compensating activities.\u201d Arla, which under the Swedish court\u2019s judgment faces a fine of nearly 100,000 U.S. dollars if it violates the injunction, has discontinued its net-zero advertising.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A similar case<\/span><\/a> has now emerged in the United States against JBS USA, another meat processing company and major GHG emitter. New York\u2019s Attorney General <\/span>recently filed suit<\/span><\/a>, accusing the company of violating the state\u2019s consumer protection statutes with \u201csweeping representations to consumers about [JBS\u2019s] commitment to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions\u201d that the firm \u201chas had no viable plan to meet\u201d and \u201ccould not feasibly meet\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0because there are no proven agricultural practices to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero at the JBS Group\u2019s current scale, and offsetting those emissions would be a costly undertaking of an unprecedented degree.\u201d New York\u2019s lawsuit, which seeks a variety of judicially enforceable remedies including injunctive relief, civil penalties, and disgorgement, builds on prior nonjudicial advocacy efforts. In 2023, the environmental NGO Mighty Earth <\/span>submitted a whistleblower complaint<\/span><\/a> to the SEC, seeking an investigation into \u201cSustainability-Linked Bonds\u201d issued by JBS. The complaint alleged that the bonds were misleading because, among other things, the company\u2019s GHG emissions continue to grow. A month after the complaint was submitted, JBS <\/span>sought to appeal<\/span><\/a> a parallel finding by the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the nongovernmental Better Business Bureau, which had \u201cdetermined that JBS\u2019 \u2018net zero\u2019 claims reasonably create[d] consumer expectations that the advertiser\u2019s efforts [we]re providing environmental benefits,\u201d and held that JBS\u2019s \u201cpreliminary efforts\u201d fell short of its claims. The appellate body rejected JBS\u2019s appeal and <\/span>recommended<\/span><\/a> that the firm stop making the net-zero claims at issue.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What Comes Next?<\/b><\/h3>\n

Early developments in climate change and animal agriculture litigation and nonjudicial advocacy are promising. Many of these efforts have unfolded in non-U.S. jurisdictions but are adaptable to the U.S. legal context. Moreover, a <\/span>growing<\/span><\/a> body<\/span><\/a> of <\/span>U.S.<\/span><\/a> cases<\/span><\/a> is challenging animal agriculture\u2019s climate impacts in lawsuits directed at government policies and decisions, <\/span>sometimes<\/span><\/a> successfully<\/span><\/a>. For climate advocates, U.S. litigation may be especially appealing because of the failure of U.S. regulators to address the animal agriculture industry\u2019s emissions and because of the scale of the industry: the United States exports a surplus of meat and dairy in addition to having exceptionally high domestic per capita consumption.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Our work has identified a wide variety of legal claims that might emerge. Notwithstanding some judicial reluctance to expand common-law liability to cover climate change harms, early indications from several pending suits, especially <\/span>Fonterra<\/span><\/i>, suggest that this strategy has potential. Additional litigation activity grounded in consumer protection theories and climate-related financial risk also seems likely. Meanwhile, U.S. plaintiffs will no doubt continue to invoke procedural and environmental statutes to oppose adverse administrative actions related to climate change and animal agriculture. Non-judicial grievance mechanisms offer further paths by which to increase awareness and shape public discourse in favor of constraints on animal agriculture\u2019s GHG emissions.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Time is short. According to a 2023 U.N. <\/span>report<\/span><\/a>, to meet climate goals and avoid the worst effects of climate change, global GHG emissions must be cut nearly in half by 2030\u2014now less than six years away. But the report paints a grim picture of progress to date: \u201c[w]ith a climate cataclysm looming, the pace and scale of current climate action plans are wholly insufficient to effectively tackle climate change.\u201d Even dramatic decarbonization is <\/span>likely to prove inadequate<\/span><\/a> without simultaneous action to curb climate super-pollutants, like methane and nitrous oxide, which animal agriculture produces in significant quantities. Well-founded litigation might be uniquely positioned to facilitate such action\u2014which likely must include reduced production and consumption of animal products\u2014where gridlocked political processes have failed.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Even as the geographical and doctrinal diversity of climate change litigation increases, climate lawsuits\u2014whether they seek to hold private actors directly accountable or challenge government policies\u2014continue to focus primarily on fossil fuels. This makes sense given that major oil and gas companies (sometimes called the \u201cCarbon Majors\u201d) are leading contributors to the climate crisis. But […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3416,"featured_media":23140,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[69207,5671],"tags":[69637,69616,9438,68627,35],"class_list":{"0":"post-22894","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-cross-cutting-issues","8":"category-international","9":"tag-comparative-law","10":"tag-consumer-protection-claim","11":"tag-eu","12":"tag-global-climate-litigation","13":"tag-us","14":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nClimate Change Litigation Turns Toward Animal Agriculture - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/08\/26\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Climate Change Litigation Turns Toward Animal Agriculture - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Even as the geographical and doctrinal diversity of climate change litigation increases, climate lawsuits\u2014whether they seek to hold private actors directly accountable or challenge government policies\u2014continue to focus primarily on fossil fuels. This makes sense given that major oil and gas companies (sometimes called the \u201cCarbon Majors\u201d) are leading contributors to the climate crisis. But […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/08\/26\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-08-26T19:30:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-08-28T17:46:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2024\/08\/1-1024x683.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"683\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Daina Bray and Thomas Poston\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Daina Bray and Thomas Poston\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/26\\\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/26\\\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Daina Bray and Thomas Poston\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/393f9aa3411cd3eed165f165b7bdd46f\"},\"headline\":\"Climate Change Litigation Turns Toward Animal Agriculture\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-08-26T19:30:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-08-28T17:46:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/26\\\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2346,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/26\\\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/1.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Comparative Law\",\"Consumer Protection Claim\",\"EU\",\"Global Climate Litigation\",\"US\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Cross-cutting Issues\",\"International\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/26\\\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/26\\\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Change Litigation Turns Toward Animal Agriculture - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/26\\\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/26\\\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-08-26T19:30:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-08-28T17:46:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/26\\\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/26\\\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/26\\\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/1.jpg\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1281,\"caption\":\"\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/26\\\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Climate Change Litigation Turns Toward Animal Agriculture\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/sabincenter\"]},[{\"@type\":[\"Person\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/393f9aa3411cd3eed165f165b7bdd46f\",\"name\":\"Daina Bray\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"\",\"inLanguage\":\"en_US\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/Screenshot-2024-08-05-at-3.23.38\u202fPM-e1722886806209-150x150.png\",\"caption\":\"Daina Bray\"}},{\"@type\":[\"Person\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/393f9aa3411cd3eed165f165b7bdd46f\",\"name\":\"Thomas Poston\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"\",\"inLanguage\":\"en_US\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/Screenshot-2024-08-05-at-3.23.42\u202fPM-e1722886759197-150x150.png\",\"caption\":\"Thomas Poston\"}}]]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Climate Change Litigation Turns Toward Animal Agriculture - Climate Law Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/08\/26\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Climate Change Litigation Turns Toward Animal Agriculture - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"Even as the geographical and doctrinal diversity of climate change litigation increases, climate lawsuits\u2014whether they seek to hold private actors directly accountable or challenge government policies\u2014continue to focus primarily on fossil fuels. This makes sense given that major oil and gas companies (sometimes called the \u201cCarbon Majors\u201d) are leading contributors to the climate crisis. But […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/08\/26\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2024-08-26T19:30:49+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-08-28T17:46:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":683,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2024\/08\/1-1024x683.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Daina Bray and Thomas Poston","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Daina Bray and Thomas Poston","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/08\/26\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/08\/26\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\/"},"author":{"name":"Daina Bray and Thomas Poston","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/393f9aa3411cd3eed165f165b7bdd46f"},"headline":"Climate Change Litigation Turns Toward Animal Agriculture","datePublished":"2024-08-26T19:30:49+00:00","dateModified":"2024-08-28T17:46:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/08\/26\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\/"},"wordCount":2346,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/08\/26\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2024\/08\/1.jpg","keywords":["Comparative Law","Consumer Protection Claim","EU","Global Climate Litigation","US"],"articleSection":["Cross-cutting Issues","International"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/08\/26\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/08\/26\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\/","name":"Climate Change Litigation Turns Toward Animal Agriculture - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/08\/26\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/08\/26\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2024\/08\/1.jpg","datePublished":"2024-08-26T19:30:49+00:00","dateModified":"2024-08-28T17:46:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/08\/26\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/08\/26\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/08\/26\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2024\/08\/1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2024\/08\/1.jpg","width":1920,"height":1281,"caption":""},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2024\/08\/26\/climate-change-litigation-turns-toward-animal-agriculture\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Climate Change Litigation Turns Toward Animal Agriculture"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},[{"@type":["Person"],"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/393f9aa3411cd3eed165f165b7bdd46f","name":"Daina Bray","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"","inLanguage":"en_US","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2024\/08\/Screenshot-2024-08-05-at-3.23.38\u202fPM-e1722886806209-150x150.png","caption":"Daina Bray"}},{"@type":["Person"],"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/393f9aa3411cd3eed165f165b7bdd46f","name":"Thomas Poston","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"","inLanguage":"en_US","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2024\/08\/Screenshot-2024-08-05-at-3.23.42\u202fPM-e1722886759197-150x150.png","caption":"Thomas Poston"}}]]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22894","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3416"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22894"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22894\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23143,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22894\/revisions\/23143"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/23140"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22894"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22894"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22894"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}