The causation conundrum in climate change litigation has long plagued the legal and scientific communities. This article explores the role of climate attribution theory in solving the loss and damage causation puzzle in climate change litigation. First, it describes the limitations of traditional causation theories in climate change litigation and analyzes the performance of emerging theories, such as the “substantial contribution” theory and the “market share” theory, in addressing this issue. The paper then evaluates the application of climate attribution theory in actual litigation through specific case studies and puts forward a series of policy recommendations. These include strengthening funding and support for climate attribution research, establishing a platform for interdisciplinary cooperation, developing a unified standard of proof, promoting public and judicial education, and promoting the improvement of the international legal framework. Finally, the paper points out the main problems and limitations in the application of climate attribution theory and proposes key directions for future research. The paper posits that by fostering continuous scientific research and enhancing the legal framework, climate attribution theory will assume a more prominent role in climate change litigation and facilitate the process of global climate governance.

Al-Nasser S. A. The Consequences of Legal Challenges for Oil and Gas Industry: Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation and Management[J]. Access to Just. E. Eur., 2023: 163.

Banda M. L. Climate science in the courts: A review of US and international judicial pronouncements[J]. Environmental Law Institute, 2020.

Beck T., Gudmundsson L., Seneviratne S. I., et al. Quantifying the contribution of climate change to heat-attributable mortality in Europe: Interfacing epidemiology and Extreme Event Attribution[C]//EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts. 2023: EGU-14521.

Bergkamp L. The Hague District Court’s Judgment in the ‘Climate Case of the Century: How a Dutch Court Fell Through the Cellar Hatch (Part 1)[J]. European Energy and Environmental Law Review, 2023, 32(1).

Bône C., Gastineau G., Thiria S., et al. Detection and attribution of climate change: A deep learning and variational approach[J]. Environmental Data Science, 2022, 1: e27.Perkins-Kirkpatrick S. E., Stone D. A., Mitchell D. M., et al. On the attribution of the impacts of extreme weather events to anthropogenic climate change[J]. Environmental Research Letters, 2022, 17(2): 024009.

Briscoe A. Of climate change, quantum physics and causation: Is it time for a probabilistic approach to causation in tort law? [J]. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 2022, 53(2): 159–183.

Burger M., Wentz J., Horton R. The law and science of climate change attribution[J]. Colum. J., Envtl L., 2020, 45: 57.

Burger M., Wentz J., Horton R. The law and science of climate change attribution[J]. Envtl. L. Rep., 2021, 51: 10646.

Carrico A. R. Climate change, behavior, and the possibility of spillover effects: Recent advances and future directions[J]. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 2021, 42: 76–82.

Clarke B., Otto F., Stuart-Smith R., et al. Extreme weather impacts of climate change: an attribution perspective[J]. Environmental Research: Climate, 2022, 1(1): 012001.

Colón-González F. J., Fletcher I., Annan-Callcott G., et al. Challenges and opportunities for detection and attribution of climate change impacts on health[C]//EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts. 2023: EGU-17514.

Craig R. K.. California Climate Change Lawsuits: Can the Courts Help with Sea-Level Rise, and Who Knew What When? [J]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy, 2018, 3(2): 306–310.

De La Cámara M. A. URGENDA FOUNDATION V. STATE OF THE NETHERLANDS[J]. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, 2022 (126): 299–330.

Driessen P. P. J., Hegger D. L. T., Kundzewicz Z. W., et al. Governance strategies for improving flood resilience in the face of climate change[J]. Water, 2018, 10(11): 1595.

Edenhofer O., Flachsland C., Wolff C., et al. Decarbonization and EU ETS Reform: Introducing a price floor to drive low-carbon investments[J]. Berlin: Mercator Research Instituteon Global Commons and Climate Change, 2017.

Frumhoff P C, Heede R, Oreskes N. The climate responsibilities of industrial carbon producers[J]. Climatic Change, 2015, 132(2): 157-171.

Gunderson R., Fyock C. Are fossil fuel CEOs responsible for climate change? Social structure and criminal law approaches to climate litigation[J]. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2021: 1–8.

He S., Yang S., Chen D. Accurate attribution and seasonal prediction of climatic anomalies using causal inference theory[J]. Journal of Climate, 2022, 35(23): 7711–7724.

James R. A., Jones R. G., Boyd E., et al. Attribution: how is it relevant for loss and damage policy and practice? [J]. Loss and damage from climate change: Concepts, methods and policy options, 2019: 113–154.

Kaduk O. Причинно-наслідковий зв’язок як елемент складу правопорушення в приватно-правових відносинах[J]. Наукові записки НаУКМА. Юридичні науки, 2021, 8: 26–33.

Lando, Henrik. “Should Courts Decide Climate Policies?” Available at SSRN 4184747 (2022).

Lewellen S. M. An Argument for Multi-District Climate Litigation[J]. Ind. Health L. Rev., 2023, 20: 411.

Lloyd E. A., Shepherd T. G. Climate change attribution and legal contexts: evidence and the role of storylines[J]. Climatic Change, 2021, 167(3): 28.

Mikhailova E. A., Lin L., Hao Z., et al. Question of liability for emissions from land development in relation to New York State climate change plan[J]. Climate, 2023, 11(5): 109.

Otto F. E. L., Van Oldenborgh G. J., Eden J., et al. The attribution question[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2016, 6(9): 813–816.

Otto, Friederike E. L., et al. “Causality and the fate of climate litigation: The role of the social superstructure narrative.” Global Policy 13.5 (2022): 736–750.

Oxford Analytica. Climate litigation is set to grow globally[J]. Emerald Expert Briefings, 2023 (oxan-db).

Peel J., Osofsky H. M. Climate change litigation[J]. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2020, 16: 21–38.

Philip S. Y., Kew S. F., Van Oldenborgh G. J., et al. Rapid attribution analysis of the extraordinary heat wave on the Pacific coast of the US and Canada in June 2021[J]. Earth System Dynamics, 2022, 13(4): 1689–1713.

Sanford C., Kwa A., Watt‐Meyer O., et al. Improving the reliability of ML‐corrected climate models with novelty detection[J]. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 2023, 15(11): e2023MS003809.

Schwarzwald K., Lenssen N. Understanding the Sources of Climate Uncertainty in Projections of Climate Impacts[C]//EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts. 2023: EGU-9745.

See:amarck, E. (2019). The challenging politics of climate change. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-challenging-politics-of-climate-change/,2024-06-04.

See:di Stefano Nespor, Responsibility for the damages caused by climate change and attribution science,https://www.scienceonthenet.eu/articles/responsibility-damages-caused-climate-change-and-attribution-science/stefano-nespor/2023-10, 2024-02-07.

Sindelarova K., Arellano S., Ginoux P., et al. Natural Emissions on Global Scale[M]//Handbook of Air Quality and Climate Change. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023: 1–42.

Smith A. B., Katz R. W. US billion-dollar weather and climate disasters: data sources, trends, accuracy and biases[J]. Natural hazards, 2013, 67(2): 387–410.

Sokol, Karen C. “Seeking (some) climate justice in state tort law.” Wash. L. Rev. 95 (2020): 1383.

Stott P. A., Stone D. A., Allen M. R. Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003[J]. Nature, 2004, 432(7017): 610–614.

Stuart-Smith R. F., Otto F. E. L., Saad A I, et al. Filling the evidentiary gap in climate litigation[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2021, 11(8): 651–655.

Tigre M. A., and Wewerinke‐Singh M. “Beyond the North–South divide: Litigation's role in resolving climate change loss and damage claims.” Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 32.3 (2023): 439–452.

van Loon, Hans, ‘Warming Up for Climate Litigation around the World: Recent Court Cases from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United Kingdom’, in Jonathan Harris, and Campbell McLachlan (eds), Essays in International Litigation for Lord Collins (Oxford, 2022; online edn, Oxford Academic, 20 Oct. 2022), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192867988.003.0005, accessed 22 Oct. 2024.

van Manen N., Buxó A., Egberts L., et al. Assessing the feasibility of prescribed burning as a fire risk reduction tool for The Netherlands[C]//EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts. 2023: EGU-11992.

Wang T., Gao X. How Enhancing Transparency Contributes to Reduced Risks in Climate Change Policy Making? [J]. Annual Report on Actions to Address Climate Change (2019) Climate Risk Prevention, 2023: 79–96.

Wedy, Gabriel, and Ingo Sarlet Ingo Wolfgang Sarlet. “Notes on So-Called Climate Litigation in Germany: The Lliuya V. RWE Case.” RWE Case (12 February 2021) (2021).

Wentz J., Merner D., Franta B., et al. Research priorities for climate litigation[J]. Earth’s Future, 2023, 11(1): e2022EF002928.

Zaninelli P. G., Barriopedro-Cepero D., Drouard M., et al. Deep learning techniques applied to an attribution study for heatwaves in the Iberian Peninsula[C]//EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts. 2023: EGU-6732.