"The evidence is sufficient to demonstrate it is reasonably probable that emissions from projects supported by Opic and the Export-Import Bank will threaten plaintiffs' concrete interests" - US District Judge Jeffrey White.
This statement on 24 August looks like a significant development in the climate lawsuit (The judge's decision in full is here).
For context compare this from Myles Allen:
"This is not a lifestyle issue requiring detailed intervention in every aspect of our behaviour. It is a simple problem of waste disposal. The fossil-fuel industry has yet to implement an effective method of disposing of their key waste product, the carbon dioxide generated by the stuff they sell. As long as dumping it in the atmosphere was apparently harmless, it would have been a waste of their shareholders’ money for them to do so. But as the impacts of climate change become steadily more obvious, that situation is changing.
Past emissions of greenhouse gases, easily traceable to products sold or used by only a couple of dozen major corporations, very likely increased the risk of [damage by man made climate change] by at least a factor of two, and probably more like a factor between six and ten".
(Allen is refering to the 2003 European heatwave, but the same principles apply even if the risk numbers may be different)