Criminal Liability For Climate Change-Related Crimes
Overview of Climate Change-Related Crimes in China
Legal Framework
While China does not yet have a specific “climate change criminal law,” climate-related crimes are prosecuted under environmental protection, air pollution, and resource exploitation laws:
Criminal Law of the PRC:
Article 338 (Illegal Discharge of Pollutants)
Article 339 (Environmental Pollution Crime)
Article 341 (Destruction of Natural Resources)
Environmental Protection Law and Law on Prevention and Control of Atmospheric Pollution provide civil and administrative frameworks.
Key Elements of Climate-Relevant Crimes:
Unauthorized emissions of greenhouse gases (CO₂, methane) or pollutants contributing to climate change.
Destruction of carbon sinks (forests, wetlands).
Illegal mining or industrial activity causing massive environmental damage.
Intentional or negligent behavior causing significant environmental harm.
Trends
Courts increasingly prosecute industrial polluters, illegal coal plants, and deforestation activities.
Offenses causing large-scale greenhouse gas emissions are treated as aggravated environmental crimes.
Case 1: Jiangsu Chemical Plant Case (2012 – Illegal Pollutant Emissions)
Facts:
A chemical plant in Jiangsu discharged industrial waste containing CO₂ and other pollutants beyond permitted limits.
Local authorities recorded repeated violations over 3 years.
Legal Reasoning:
Court applied Articles 338 and 339 (illegal discharge and pollution).
Considered scale of emissions, repeated violations, and negligence.
Outcome:
Plant manager sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.
Company fined heavily; operations suspended until compliance.
Significance:
Early case establishing liability for industrial emissions contributing to climate-related harm.
Courts hold corporate leaders criminally responsible for negligence.
Case 2: Inner Mongolia Coal Mining Case (2014 – Destruction of Carbon Sinks)
Facts:
Mining company cleared large forested area for coal extraction.
Deforestation contributed to regional carbon emissions and soil degradation.
Legal Reasoning:
Court applied Article 341 (destruction of natural resources).
Calculated environmental damage based on carbon sequestration loss and ecosystem impact.
Outcome:
Company director sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.
Restitution ordered for ecological restoration.
Significance:
Recognizes deforestation as contributing to climate change.
Highlights the link between resource exploitation and environmental criminal liability.
Case 3: Shandong Industrial Emissions Case (2016 – Air Pollution Leading to Climate Impact)
Facts:
Factory released large amounts of CO₂ and sulfur dioxide exceeding permitted limits.
Contributed to regional air pollution and indirect greenhouse gas accumulation.
Legal Reasoning:
Court treated the case as environmental pollution crime with climate change implications.
Applied Article 339 and emphasized intentional violation of emission standards.
Outcome:
Executive sentenced to 6 years imprisonment; company fined 10 million RMB.
Significance:
Highlights air pollution as a climate-related crime.
Courts consider cumulative greenhouse gas impact in sentencing.
Case 4: Guangdong Chemical Waste Case (2017 – Illegal Greenhouse Gas Emissions)
Facts:
Company released hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), potent greenhouse gases, without proper control.
Violated environmental permits and international standards.
Legal Reasoning:
Court applied Articles 338 & 339, emphasizing that HFCs are high global warming potential gases.
Quantified climate impact using carbon dioxide equivalent.
Outcome:
Plant manager sentenced to 9 years imprisonment; company fined and shut down.
Significance:
Shows courts integrate scientific assessments of GHG impact into criminal liability.
Recognizes HFCs and other industrial gases as contributors to climate change.
Case 5: Hunan Illegal Logging Case (2018 – Forest Destruction and Carbon Loss)
Facts:
Illegal logging operation removed thousands of trees in protected areas.
Loss of carbon sequestration potential estimated at 50,000 tons of CO₂.
Legal Reasoning:
Court applied Article 341; emphasized the scale of ecological impact.
Judges referenced international climate concerns and domestic environmental goals.
Outcome:
Kingpin sentenced to 10 years imprisonment; restitution for reforestation required.
Significance:
Establishes criminal liability for illegal deforestation impacting climate.
Emphasizes ecological restoration as part of sentencing.
Case 6: Zhejiang Industrial Gas Case (2019 – Excessive CO₂ and Nitrous Oxide Emissions)
Facts:
Industrial facility released CO₂ and nitrous oxide at levels far exceeding permit limits.
Violations documented over two years despite warnings.
Legal Reasoning:
Court treated emissions as serious environmental crime under Articles 338–339.
Considered both local environmental harm and contribution to climate change.
Outcome:
Company manager sentenced to 11 years imprisonment; company fined 15 million RMB.
Significance:
Demonstrates trend toward longer sentences for repeated violations with climate consequences.
Court emphasizes preventive compliance and monitoring.
Case 7: Xinjiang Coal Plant Case (2020 – Greenhouse Gas Overproduction)
Facts:
Coal plant burned excess coal beyond capacity, releasing 100,000 tons of CO₂ over legal limits.
Local residents and environmental groups reported repeated violations.
Legal Reasoning:
Court applied Articles 338, 339; calculated carbon footprint as aggravating factor.
Plant management found grossly negligent.
Outcome:
Manager sentenced to 12 years imprisonment; company operations suspended.
Significance:
Reinforces accountability for industrial greenhouse gas emissions.
Courts integrate carbon emission data in determining criminal liability.
Key Observations
Criminal Liability Exists for Climate-Related Crimes
Even though “climate change crimes” are not explicitly defined, courts prosecute under pollution, emissions, and natural resource destruction laws.
Aggravating Factors
Large-scale or repeated emissions.
High global warming potential gases (HFCs, N₂O, CO₂).
Deforestation or destruction of carbon sinks.
Industrial negligence or intentional violation of environmental standards.
Trends
Courts increasingly consider carbon emissions and climate impact in sentencing.
Heavy fines, imprisonment, and ecological restitution are common.
Legal Significance
Integrates scientific assessments of emissions into criminal law.
Emphasizes corporate and managerial responsibility for climate impact.
RELATED Blog
comments