4. Conclusion

Chief Judge of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, Brian J Preston, wrote in 2011 that:

Private law actions, such as in tort, to remedy and restrain pollution of the environment were the original environmental litigation … With the new focus on treaties and legislation, private law actions fell effectively into disuse for addressing environmental problems … The pervasive and pernicious effects of climate change, however, have led to reflection and review of this approach.^[1]

While tort law is sometimes considered inapt to deal with complex environmental challenges, it will have to find its place in the struggle to respond to climate change or risk irrelevance. History demonstrates tort law’s capacity to adapt and respond to complex collective harms, without betraying its roots. While of a different scale, climate change shares some characteristics of the early industrial era that helped shape tort law as we know it today. And while climate change is a global phenomenon, it is also cognisable as an interpersonal one — some have benefitted most from the greatest causes of climate change, while others will suffer more from its harms. For these reasons, we can expect every effort by litigants and jurists alike to bend tort law’s future towards climate justice.