Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that the Trump EPA's proposal to revoke the 2009 endangerment finding relies on misinterpretations of the Clean Air Act and fringe science. It details how the agency seeks to narrow the definition of 'air pollution' to exclude global harms and challenges the scientific consensus on climate change using a Department of Energy report authored by climate skeptics. The briefing notes that while the proposal specifically targets motor vehicle emission standards for model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond, it also undermines the legal basis for greenhouse gas regulations on power plants and oil and gas facilities.

The report argues that allowing African exporters to use Article 6 carbon credits to reduce their EU CBAM liabilities would address equity concerns, retain climate finance within Africa, and provide policy flexibility. It notes that current CBAM regulations only permit deductions for explicit carbon prices (taxes or ETS), making Article 6 credits ineligible. The document highlights the significant economic risks CBAM poses to African GDP and the specific challenges African nations face in implementing traditional carbon pricing due to their emissions profiles and administrative constraints. It concludes with recommendations for the EU to amend its regulations to include high-integrity international credits, specifically those from Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Africa, to align with the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC).

The report analyzes the tension between national cybersecurity measures—such as data localization, technical standards, and technology bans—and the goal of open digital trade. It finds that while cybersecurity is essential for trust in the digital economy, divergent domestic regulations create market fragmentation and trade barriers. The document evaluates the lack of specific cybersecurity rules in WTO treaties, the emergence of 'soft' aspirational provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) and Digital Economy Agreements (DEAs), and the significant 'cyber capacity' gap facing developing countries and Least Developed Countries (LDCs). It concludes with recommendations for evidence-based domestic frameworks and enhanced international technical assistance to bridge the digital divide.

The ICJ issued a unanimous advisory opinion establishing that States have binding international legal obligations to prevent climate harm, including a duty to phase out fossil fuels and provide reparations for damages. The ruling affirms the right to a healthy environment as a binding norm and clarifies that sea level rise does not terminate a State's legal statehood or maritime borders.

The authors contend that the ICJ has a legal and moral imperative to name fossil fuels as the root cause of climate change and mandate their phase-out. They argue that international law, including the transboundary harm and precautionary principles, requires States to constrain fossil fuel production and hold corporate polluters accountable. The text highlights recent advisory opinions from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) as precedents for a heightened due diligence standard regarding climate emissions. The authors criticize the political reluctance within the UNFCCC and the UN Human Rights Council to explicitly mention fossil fuels, asserting that legal clarity from the ICJ is necessary to overcome political paralysis and protect human rights, particularly for climate-vulnerable Pacific Island States.

The document is a formal letter from ClientEarth and other civil society organisations to the European Commission expressing strong opposition to the Sixth Omnibus on chemicals. The authors argue that the proposal, which seeks to simplify requirements in the CLP, Cosmetic Products, and Fertilising Products Regulations, actually promotes deregulation and undermines EU competitiveness by creating regulatory instability. They specifically highlight 'severe cases of maladministration' regarding the proposed rollback of CLP Regulation formatting rules, claiming the Commission bypassed public consultation and lacked a proper evidence basis. The letter warns that these procedural flaws violate EU primary law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, potentially leading to the legislation being annulled by EU courts.

Earthjustice reports on its efforts to secure and defend health protections against pollution and toxic chemicals. The organization highlights the use of 'citizen suits' under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to hold polluters accountable, such as litigation against Suncor Energy and the County of Hawai‘i. The report emphasizes a strategic shift toward state and local legal avenues—including constitutional 'right to a healthy environment' claims in Hawai’i and New York—to mitigate the impact of federal rollbacks by the Trump administration. Key achievements include pushing for bans on PFAS in menstrual products in New York, reducing flame retardants in Washington state, and implementing zero-emissions truck rules in California. The document also details the projected life-saving impacts of federal rules secured in 2024, such as the Air Toxics Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule Update.

The report examines the three types of non-deterioration obligations in the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRL): continuous improvement, non-deterioration of good status, and pre-restoration non-deterioration. It argues that these obligations are not merely effort-based but require 'appropriate measures' and are essential for the long-term success of ecosystem restoration. The analysis highlights the interplay between the NRL and the Habitats Directive, particularly regarding Natura 2000 sites, and critiques the uniform National Restoration Plan (NRP) format for providing inadequate guidance on demonstrating compliance with these obligations. It also details the strict criteria for derogations, such as force majeure and overriding public interest, emphasizing that they must be interpreted narrowly to avoid undermining overall restoration targets.

The report outlines a strategic framework for negotiating protocols under the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (UN FCITC). It identifies two 'early protocols'—taxation of cross-border services and the resolution of tax disputes—and several 'potential protocols' covering the digital economy, illicit financial flows, high-net-worth individuals, environmental taxation, information exchange, mutual assistance, and harmful tax practices. The document argues that the UN FCITC can provide a more inclusive and effective alternative to OECD-led initiatives, which often disadvantage developing nations. Key recommendations include establishing a global digital services tax, creating a global asset register for beneficial ownership, implementing a global minimum tax on the super-rich, and developing a coordinated multilateral environmental tax architecture to support net-zero goals.

The document details the widespread groundwater contamination caused by coal ash at U.S. power plants, where 91 percent of plants exceed federal safe standards. It highlights the dangers of 'sham recycling'—specifically using coal ash as soil fill—and contrasts this with legitimate encapsulation in concrete and gypsum. The testimony criticizes the Trump administration's efforts to cede enforcement to states and weaken federal regulations, while providing evidence that 'closure by removal' of ash ponds leads to significant water quality improvements and economic benefits for local communities.

The document critiques a presidential memorandum and subsequent OMB guidance that direct federal agencies to repeal regulations based on ten Supreme Court decisions. It specifically focuses on five cases involving statutory interpretation—Loper Bright, West Virginia, Michigan v. EPA, Sackett v. EPA, and Ohio v. EPA—asserting that the administration's interpretation of these rulings is too broad and ignores the nuanced principles established by the court.

The document argues that the proposed Omnibus Directive is vulnerable to legal challenges under EU law due to substantive and procedural failures. Substantively, it claims the directive violates the principles of proportionality, legal certainty, and coherence, and breaches the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the EU Climate Law by weakening corporate sustainability and due diligence requirements. Procedurally, it highlights the Commission's failure to conduct required impact assessments, climate-consistency checks, and extensive consultations, which may render the act voidable under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The document examines the ecological insecurity caused by military occupations, noting that hostile authorities often engage in the deliberate destruction of ecosystems and exploitation of natural resources. It analyzes the limitations of the 1907 Hague Regulations in the context of the modern 'triple planetary crisis' and provides examples of environmental damage in Georgia, Kuwait, Palestine, and Timor-Leste. The author proposes legal remedies through the International Criminal Court and the ICJ, as well as policy interventions such as environmental risk assessments and citizen science monitoring to enhance ecosystem resilience.

The document asserts that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions constitute marine pollution, creating a legal duty for States to phase out fossil fuels. It examines how advisory opinions from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) reinforce the rights of vulnerable island States and establish standards of due diligence and corporate accountability for climate-related ocean harm.

ClientEarth advocates for a shift from 'paper commitments' to legal action to address the ocean crisis. The briefing prioritises the enforcement of existing frameworks, such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), to protect marine biodiversity and combat climate change. It specifically calls for the elimination of harmful fisheries subsidies, the banning of bottom trawling in marine protected areas (MPAs), and the ratification of the BBNJ Agreement to protect the high seas. The document also highlights the need for a 'Protection Principle' that makes ocean conservation the default norm and outlines specific legal priorities for the EU, Mediterranean, China, and the UK.

The document analyzes the legal requirements of Article 9 of the Nature Restoration Law (NRL), which mandates the restoration of at least 25,000km of free-flowing rivers in the EU by 2030. It details the process for creating barrier inventories, prioritizing the removal of obsolete structures, and ensuring these actions align with other EU frameworks like the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Habitats Directive. The briefing emphasizes the need for longitudinal, lateral, and vertical connectivity and warns against using the Renewable Energy Directive to justify the retention of obsolete barriers.

The document examines the risks associated with South Africa's increasing reliance on IFI loans, particularly for climate finance under the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JET-P). It highlights a lack of transparency and parliamentary oversight, noting that loan conditionalities can undermine constitutional rights and sovereignty. The authors propose a five-step approval procedure involving sustainability, human rights, development, and sovereignty assessments, alongside a public consultation and majority vote in the National Assembly.

The Institute for Policy Integrity asserts that the EPA's authority to set greenhouse gas emission standards for power plants is legally sound because the source category was listed in the 1970s. The document contends that power sector emissions meet any reasonable threshold for 'significant contribution' to air pollution, consistent with the EPA's fifty-year historical practice of assessing pollution contributions.

The House Judiciary Committee's 2025 budget reconciliation proposal includes aggressive regulatory reforms, specifically a version of the REINS Act, which would require all existing agency regulations to be approved by Congress within five years or face automatic sunsetting. The document asserts that these measures expand congressional veto power over agency rules, destabilize regulatory frameworks, and violate the Byrd Rule because they are not primarily budgetary.

The joint submission argues that rather than mandating UK investment, the government should clarify fiduciary duty laws to allow trustees to consider wider societal and environmental impacts and regulate strategic asset allocation advice provided by investment consultants.