As dozens of countries declared their ambitions to achieve net zero emissions in COP26, the strength and efficacy of these promises are being questioned. In the absence of any detailed plans or mechanisms to ensure carbon emissions will be driven down, there is a substantial risk that the current announcements are empty promises, made only as a result of the current sense of urgency felt globally. Climate change is the ultimate free-rider problem: each country hopes to benefit from other countries taking the burden of planning and extending funding towards addressing climate change, instead of enacting concrete measures themselves. The fundamental reason behind this is that immediate changes to current policies require a significant amount of investment and could even decelerate economic growth which currently is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. More importantly, if a country feels that it is paying a disproportionately large amount of the cost, it might divest, motivating other countries to do the same. To reduce such problems, legislation of climate change policies is imperative.

Legislation must happen at two levels: domestic and international. Domestically, it has been shown that such legislation strongly correlates with increased public interest in understanding and funding scientific research on climate change. However, the fundamental problem at the international level is the lack of authority to enforce laws and regulations, as well as   mechanisms to ensure that a country will meet its stated obligations. Domestic legislation, often having a greater influence on government policies and being harder to abruptly modify compared to international agreements, is therefore of significant importance. The absence of a mechanism to enforce agreements has also led to the developed countries falling far behind on their promised 100 billion USD annual support to help developing economies transition to green energy sources. Despite the agreement having been established as a floor value — a bare minimum — the fact that it was not even close to being met, as reflected in several reports, highlights a serious need for a mechanism to measure and track such funding.  Moreover, a UN report indicated that of the funds collected, a significant fraction comes from loans. This is problematic since climate change expenditure is usually unprofitable, and thus it is unclear how the money to repay these loans will be generated.

A case that shows the necessity of legislation is Australia, which announced to cut down on emissions but simultaneously refused to pass any concrete legislation at all. Moreover, it has also declined to officially commit to a target as part of the current conference. The government claims that they hope corporations and consumers themselves will be able to drive down the emissions. Australia’s case may be interpreted as lack of interest and seriousness and lead other fossil fuel exporters to follow, ultimately preventing the creation of a concrete target and plans to meet them.

Domestic legislation in a country spurs debate and research into climate change, and also serves to prove a country’s commitment to mitigation and adaptation internationally. It therefore serves as the critical link between national-level policies and international accords and agreements. For instance, the UK parliament passed the Climate Change Act in 2008, and this act has played a key role in transforming the power sector towards greater sustainability and improving the general debate around climate issues in the country. Passing such legislation also helped give the UK a global leadership role on programs and initiatives pertaining to climate change, in addition to catalyzing the establishment of other climate change laws and policies in the UK and globally.

In the absence of sufficient legislation on climate matters, many individuals and groups have attempted to find a solution through litigation. In recent decades, it has been estimated that thousands or possibly tens of thousands of lawsuits have been filed against corporations and governments over environmental harm. Litigants have alleged that these corporations, and lack of regulations from the government, are endangering people’s wellbeing and causing significant harm to the environment and other public resources. A landmark case was filed in 2013 in the Netherlands, which turned out to be an unexpected success: the court ordered the government to ensure that emissions were reduced at least 25% by 2020. This lawsuit sparked several other lawsuits throughout the EU as well as other parts of the world. In 2020, an expansion of a major airport in the UK was blocked by court. However, this ruling was overturned by their highest court on the grounds that policy-making is the domain of legislators, highlighting a considerable divide among jurists as to whether courts should be making policy-related rulings. Another class of lawsuits are being filed against the environmental permits granted by local and national governments. However, litigation is not a sustainable solution for several reasons. Lawsuits regarding climate change are complicated by numerous factors, the most important being the general reputation of climate change studies as being controversial and questionable. There is also a risk of detailed judicial decisions pertaining to climate change significantly complicating future legislation. These complications make it necessary to promptly accomplish comprehensive climate change legislation.

A state is obligated to protect the environment and care for its citizens’ wellbeing, both of which face an unparalleled threat. Climate modeling shows that even if all governments were to achieve their pledged goals, there is still considerable risk that global temperatures will rise by more than 2℃ — deemed to be catastrophic — highlighting the need for further measures. Legislation at the national level has the potential to accelerate the implementation of climate friendly policies and to hold governments to account on their progress; therefore, it must be given its due importance.