Last week, Earth Refuge joined scientists, lawyers, researchers, and advocates from around the world at the Second Conference on Attribution Science and Climate Law, hosted by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Climate School, and Columbia Law School.
The conference explored one of the most significant developments in climate governance today: how advances in attribution science are reshaping legal accountability, evidentiary standards, and pathways to justice for communities experiencing climate harm.
We were pleased to contribute to a panel examining the intersection of climate mobility, attribution science, and legal protection. As climate-related displacement reaches unprecedented levels, the discussion centred on a pressing challenge: while climate change is increasingly forcing people to move, legal frameworks have struggled to keep pace.
The panel was moderated by Lauren Grant of the Beyond Climate Collaborative (BCC), who grounded the discussion with the following. In 2024 alone, disasters displaced 45.8 million people worldwide. Yet, people displaced by sea-level rise, drought, flooding, extreme heat, and other climate impacts remain largely excluded from existing international protection frameworks. Establishing legal responsibility for climate-related displacement remains one of the central challenges facing advocates, courts, and policymakers alike.
The session then opened with Gabriela Nalvio Melillo of BCC, who examined the strengths and limitations of climate mobility forecasting models. Her presentation highlighted an important reality for legal practitioners: while climate mobility models consistently demonstrate that climate change is driving displacement, they often struggle to capture the full complexity of why, when, and how people move. Understanding these limitations is essential when translating scientific evidence into legal arguments.
Our Yumna Kamel then explored how climate attribution evidence is increasingly being deployed within strategic litigation and advocacy efforts to establish responsibility for climate-related displacement and strengthen protection claims. Drawing on emerging trends from the Climate Mobility Case Database, the presentation observed that lawyers are already working creatively within existing legal frameworks to advance the rights of climate-displaced communities. Importantly, the discussion challenged the assumption that climate mobility protection can only be achieved through entirely new legal instruments. Alongside litigation, the presentation highlighted a growing ecosystem of complementary initiatives, including interventions before regional human rights courts, practical guidance for legal practitioners, and cross-disciplinary collaborations strengthen the field as a whole.
We then heard insights from Gamal Basha of Qore Legal, who shared practical lessons from the first UK climate-attributed human rights case in which he successfully represented his client in November 2025. His presentation demonstrated how carefully structured legal arguments, supported by robust climate evidence and expert testimony, can already secure protection within existing legal frameworks. Rather than requiring a wholesale rewrite of refugee law, these cases reveal how established human rights principles can be applied to climate-related vulnerabilities in meaningful and innovative ways. In a conference concerned with tracing causes and assigning responsibility, Gamal Basha reminded us of the measure that matters most: human suffering. It was a simple but profound intervention, one that travelled beyond the panel and resurfaced in the closing plenary as a call to ensure that the people living through climate harm remain at the centre of conversations about science, law, and justice.
The panel closed with Dr Katarina Velkov, who explored how recent developments in attribution science are beginning to close what she described as the structural gap that has historically shielded major emitters from responsibility for climate harms. Drawing on her work on shared responsibility for climate-induced displacement, Dr Velkov examined the implications of the landmark 2025 Lliuya v. RWE decision. Although the claimant did not secure a conventional victory, the ruling marked an important development in the legal treatment of climate attribution evidence. By rejecting the argument that an individual emitter’s contribution was too small to be legally relevant, the court signalled a willingness to engage with concepts of proportional responsibility and partial causation.
The presentation highlighted how attribution science is increasingly moving beyond its scientific origins to become a legally meaningful tool for establishing responsibility. Rather than viewing climate harms as too diffuse to attribute, courts are beginning to grapple with measurable contributions to climate impacts and the obligations that may follow from them.
For those working on climate mobility, these developments are particularly significant. If attribution evidence can help establish responsibility for climate-related harms, it may also strengthen future efforts to address the costs and consequences of climate-induced displacement. Dr Velkov’s intervention offered an important reminder that accountability and protection are deeply interconnected questions, and that advances in attribution science have implications far beyond litigation alone.
One of the conference’s greatest strengths was its commitment to genuine interdisciplinary dialogue. Scientists and lawyers often work towards similar goals but speak different professional languages. The conference created a rare space where attribution scientists, legal practitioners, and advocates could engage directly with one another, and initiating collaborations that will be essential as climate litigation continues to evolve.
For those working on climate mobility, these conversations are becoming increasingly important. Questions of causation, responsibility, loss, and protection sit at the heart of efforts to secure justice for people affected by climate change. Attribution science is helping to strengthen the evidentiary foundations of these discussions, while lawyers and advocates are exploring how that evidence can be mobilised in courts, policy processes, and protection claims.
We were also delighted to share updates on the forthcoming Climate Mobility & Legal Innovation Programme (CLIP), which generated significant interest among participants. As the field continues to grow, initiatives that foster collaboration between practitioners, researchers, and advocates will become increasingly important.
We extend our sincere thanks to Dr Joyce Kimutai for facilitating our participation, and to Jessica Wentz, Rebecca Lowy, and the wider organising team for creating such a thoughtful and accessible space for learning and exchange.
Most of all, the conference was a reminder that climate mobility is no longer a niche conversation. It is becoming an increasingly important part of wider debates about climate justice, accountability, and human rights. While significant challenges remain, the discussions at Columbia demonstrated both how far the field has come and how much momentum is building behind efforts to strengthen protection for people displaced by climate change.