Health Inequalities, Scientific Evidence, and Climate Litigation: A Preliminary Transnational Study

This article presents a preliminary study of the judicialization of unequal health impacts of climate change in climate litigation. Reviewing cases addressing unequal health impacts of climate change, the sample reveals that 60% of health-related cases involve intersectional dimensions, addressing health inequalities tied to gender, race, ethnicity, Indigeneity, or age. This serves as a departure point for a systematic content analysis of six transnational climate cases, analysing how plaintiffs use health-related scientific evidence and how judges respond to it in the first stage of judicial decisions. Results show that plaintiffs often present general scientific knowledge rather than specific evidence of intersecting vulnerabilities. While judges acknowledge these scientific claims, procedural dismissals limit opportunities for substantive engagement with intersectional health claims. These findings raise questions about the availability and strategic use of scientific evidence on intersecting vulnerabilities, and call for further research on the emerging phenomenon of health narratives and their normative and evidentiary value.