Search Climate Insights Directory

A growing number of US communities and governments are suing fossil fuel companies, arguing they misled the public about climate change. These 'polluter pays' cases seek compensation for climate damages, mirroring the 1990s tobacco litigation. While most cases are in the US, a significant case in Peru involving RWE highlights global implications. The fossil fuel industry is responding with lobbying for legal immunity and efforts to discredit litigants, though some cases, such as Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, are advancing toward trial.

The document examines the opacity of EU trilogue negotiations, where 89% of legislative files reached agreement in the first reading during the 2014-2019 term. It argues that the current lack of transparency allows privileged industry lobbyists access while excluding civil society and enables Member States to later contradict agreed-upon positions, as seen with the Nature Restoration Law and the Corporate Sustainable Due Diligence Directive. The briefing rejects arguments that transparency would entrench negotiator positions, citing CJEU rulings, and asserts that reactive access requests under Regulation 1049/2001 are insufficient due to systemic delays. It recommends the proactive publication of 'four-column documents', agendas, and calendars, and suggests specific regulatory amendments for the European Parliament, Council, and Commission to formalise this openness.

The report presents evidence that major fossil fuel companies possessed accurate knowledge of the catastrophic effects of their products on the global climate as early as the 1980s but instead funded campaigns of disinformation and deception. It highlights specific internal documents from Shell and ExxonMobil, a 1998 American Petroleum Institute 'Roadmap' to increase public uncertainty, and allegations of a criminal hacking scheme targeting climate advocates. The Union of Concerned Scientists calls for these corporations to cease greenwashing, pay for climate damages, and accelerate a global phaseout of fossil fuels.

The Universal Basic Income Coalition (UBIC) argues that proposed amendments to the COVID-19 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant regulations in South Africa are insufficient and fail to address long-standing exclusionary barriers. UBIC highlights that the late publication of amendments created uncertainty for beneficiaries and that the current system continues to exclude millions through digital barriers, restrictive means-tests, and a failure to adjust grant values for inflation. The coalition specifically criticizes the proposed deletion of sub-regulation 3(b), which may render the collection of certain applicant data baseless, and calls for the grant to be transitioned into a permanent basic income programme rather than continuing annual piecemeal extensions.

The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) requires that commodities and products be produced in accordance with the local laws of the country of production. This briefing argues that the 'legality requirement' must be interpreted broadly, encompassing all laws—including customary and human rights laws—that affect the legal status of the area of production and its surrounding environment. It emphasizes that due diligence cannot rely solely on official government records, especially in jurisdictions with high corruption or weak law enforcement, and must instead incorporate verification from local experts and civil society stakeholders.

ClientEarth argues that EU State aid policy currently lacks environmental mainstreaming, allowing for the approval of aid that supports environmentally harmful activities, such as fossil fuels. The briefing asserts that there are no fundamental legal obstacles to integrating environmental requirements and proposes three main pillars: systemic verification of compliance with EU environmental law, horizontal application of the "Do No Significant Harm" (DNSH) principle, and the inclusion of environmental risks when assessing the negative effects of aid on competition and trade.

The document examines the legal framework and compliance risks for soy and cattle in Brazil under the EUDR. It highlights systemic issues including land grabbing, illegal deforestation, and labour violations, while warning EU companies that official records and third-party certifications are often insufficient for due diligence.

The document analyzes the EUDR's legality requirement, arguing that it encompasses all laws affecting the legal status of production areas, including human rights and customary laws. It highlights systemic risks such as land grabbing, corruption, and weak enforcement in Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Indonesia, and recommends that EU companies move beyond official records to consult local experts and stakeholders to verify compliance.

The document examines the legal framework for cocoa production in Côte d’Ivoire to guide EU companies in conducting due diligence under the EUDR. It highlights a significant gap between formal laws and the informal reality of smallholder farming, where 90% of cocoa is produced. Key risks include the widespread production of cocoa in protected "classified" forests, the use of unregistered pesticides, and high levels of child labour. The report notes that while trade and export are well-regulated by the Conseil Café-Cacao, production-level compliance is difficult to verify due to a lack of centralized land-use maps and the informality of land tenure and labour contracts.

The document examines the legal framework governing cocoa production in Ghana to guide EU companies in conducting due diligence under the EUDR. It highlights a pluralist legal system where statutory law overlaps with unwritten customary law, particularly regarding land tenure. Key risks identified include the encroachment of cocoa farms into forest reserves, the use of unregistered pesticides, and the prevalence of child labour. The report notes that while the trade and export of cocoa are well-regulated by the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), production remains largely informal, making traceability to the farm of origin difficult. It recommends that companies consult local experts and stakeholders rather than relying solely on official records to verify legal compliance.

The document examines the application of the EU Deforestation Regulation's (EUDR) legality requirement to the Indonesian palm oil sector. It highlights a complex, decentralized legal framework where national laws are often poorly enforced at sub-national levels. Key systemic risks include widespread failure to obtain mandatory Indonesia Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) certification, pervasive corruption in permitting, illegal plantation establishment in forest zones, and significant violations of Indigenous land rights and labour standards. The report concludes that EU companies cannot rely solely on official documentation or third-party certificates for due diligence due to these systemic irregularities.

The document outlines the challenges of verifying legal compliance in global agricultural supply chains under the EUDR. It argues that official documentation and third-party certifications are often insufficient due to systemic corruption, land-grabbing, and informality. Through case studies of Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Indonesia, it highlights specific risks such as illegal deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado, child labour in cocoa production, and the widespread lack of mandatory ISPO certification in Indonesia's palm oil sector. It recommends that EU operators consult local experts and civil society to verify the 'reality on the ground'.

This guide explains how model contracts—both generic and nationally tailored—can help governments ensure responsible investment in agriculture. It details how these templates can integrate international standards, prevent problematic omissions, flag risky clauses like stabilization provisions, and promote transparency and legal harmonization.

The report argues that while phasing out oil and gas is essential to meet the 1.5C Paris Agreement goals, the threat of investor-state arbitration often creates a 'regulatory chill' that discourages ambitious climate action. It identifies that legal risks increase as a project progresses through its life cycle, with the highest risks associated with targeting the production phase. To mitigate these risks, the authors propose five principles: stopping the issuance of new licenses, managing investor expectations through long-term frameworks and early notice, grounding policies in legislation and scientific evidence, leveraging existing environmental regulations, and ensuring consistent application across all investors. The report specifically suggests that governments should prioritize a managed phase-out with clear end dates and consider an internationally legally binding instrument to harmonize production deadlines and exclude arbitration rights for fossil fuel investors.

The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) and the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) oppose a proposed VAT increase in South Africa, claiming it disproportionately harms low-income households, African women, and people with disabilities. They argue that such a regressive tax is incongruent with the constitutional mandate for transformative governance and social justice. Instead, the organizations advocate for progressive alternatives, including wealth taxes, increased company tax, and improved tax collection efficiency, to address budget shortfalls without exacerbating hunger and poverty.

The document outlines how a proposed Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty would fill a regulatory void by focusing on the supply side of fossil fuels, which is not explicitly addressed in the Paris Agreement or UNFCCC. It proposes a 'coalition of the willing' approach to set high ambition standards, using majority decision-making to avoid the consensus-based deadlocks of the UNFCCC. The treaty aims to end new fossil fuel expansion, phase out existing projects in line with a 1.5°C limit, and provide financial and technical support for a just transition for dependent communities and workers.

The document proposes a new binding legal instrument, the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, to accelerate the phase-out of coal, oil, and gas. It argues that while the Paris Agreement and UNFCCC provide a general framework for climate action, they lack specific mechanisms to regulate the supply side of fossil fuels. The proposed treaty would focus on three pillars: ending new fossil fuel projects, phasing out existing infrastructure aligned with a 1.5 °C limit, and ensuring a just transition for dependent communities. Unlike the consensus-based decision-making of the UNFCCC, the treaty would employ a 'Coalition of the Willing' approach and majority voting to prevent a small number of states from blocking ambitious action.

Six youth activists sued the Brazilian government, claiming the 2020 NDC update used an 'accounting trick' to increase allowable emissions while maintaining the same reduction percentages as the 2015 NDC. The plaintiffs argued this violated the principle of non-regression and the Paris Agreement. A federal judge denied the request for urgent injunctive relief, ruling that the updated NDC's goal of climate neutrality by 2060 and the nature of the calculation changes did not prove a lack of ambition or a violation of the principle of progression. The case is currently awaiting final judgement.

The report outlines how the federal government of Canada can regulate oil and gas development through specific constitutional powers, noting that while provinces have significant authority, federal jurisdiction extends to federal lands, offshore areas, Indigenous reserves, and international trade, as well as indirect areas like fisheries and climate change.

ClientEarth urges the European Commission to use the European Oceans Pact to move beyond 'paper parks' and policy silos. The organization calls for a systemic approach to enforcement of the Common Fisheries Policy and Habitats Directive, the creation of an EU Ocean Fund to replace the EMFAF, and the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies in the maritime sector. It advocates for legally binding targets to protect 30% of EU seas by 2030 and a ban on destructive activities like bottom trawling in all Marine Protected Areas.