Search Climate Insights Directory

Earthjustice, representing St. Johns Riverkeeper and Miami Waterkeeper, urges the EPA to reject Florida's proposed water quality criteria revisions. The statement claims the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) violated public participation laws and used an unsound probabilistic risk analysis that fails to protect sensitive populations, such as children and subsistence fishers. The document highlights drastic increases in allowable concentrations for several toxins and the failure to regulate 22 substances recommended by the EPA.

A coalition of environmental groups argues that the BLM should deny rights-of-way for Enefit's oil shale project in Utah, citing severe risks to air and water quality, climate change, and endangered species, while alleging the project's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is legally deficient.

The document argues that the Arecibo Waste-to-Energy and Resource Recovery Project is unnecessary, economically unviable, and environmentally hazardous. It claims the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) fails to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) standards by ignoring reasonable alternatives, underestimating public health risks—particularly lead exposure in a non-attainment area—and omitting cumulative impacts on human health and biological resources. The authors contend that the project violates the Rural Electrification Act's mandate to serve rural areas and would cause irreversible damage to the Caño Tiburones Natural Reserve.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) is challenging Eskom's application to postpone or be exempt from minimum emission standards (MES) for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter across 17 power stations. CER argues that Eskom's current process lacks necessary health and environmental risk assessments and provides insufficient time for public consultation, which could make any resulting government decision subject to judicial review under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).

A coalition of organizations calls for the suspension of the Keystone XL pipeline review process, alleging that the consulting firm ERM lied on conflict-of-interest forms regarding its relationships with TransCanada and other oil companies involved in Canadian tar sands.

Earthjustice and a coalition of environmental and tribal groups are appealing a July 2013 decision by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to lease approximately 13,175 acres for coal in the Canyon Creek area. The appeal argues that the lease is unconstitutional because it grants exploration rights for an indeterminate period, violating the Alaska Constitution's requirement for 'specific periods'. Furthermore, the appellants contend that the DNR ignored the foreseeable impacts of climate change, seismic risks, and severe health hazards to workers and local communities. They also argue that the economic benefits are exaggerated and that the project would cause irreversible damage to salmon habitats and watersheds, citing similar findings from the nearby Chuitna project.

This document is a legal notice filed in the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) in August 2017. It outlines the grounds upon which several applicants, including Mining and Environmental Justice and GroundWork, seek the review and setting aside of decisions made by the Minister of Environmental Affairs and the Minister of Mineral Resources to allow Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd to conduct commercial mining in the Mabola Protected Environment.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), acting for Earthlife Africa Johannesburg (ELA), wrote to the Department of Energy on 18 October 2016 to question the appointment of Thabametsi Power Company (Pty) Limited as a preferred bidder for a coal-fired power station. The CER highlights a pending High Court review application regarding the project's environmental authorisation, specifically the failure to conduct a climate change impact assessment, and requests clarity on whether Thabametsi disclosed this legal challenge to the Department as required by the procurement criteria.

This document is a legal notice filed in the High Court of South Africa on May 21, 2014, by Sasol Synfuels (Pty) Ltd, National Petroleum Refiners of South Africa (Pty) Ltd, and Sasol Infrachem. The applicants challenge the constitutionality of minimum emission standards published by the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs under the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 39 of 2004.

The document details a legal challenge against TGS Geophysical Company's proposed 3D seismic survey off South Africa's West Coast, arguing that the authorization was unlawful, ignored climate commitments, and threatened marine ecosystems and small-scale fisheries.

The document details a legal challenge in the Western Cape High Court against a proposed 3D seismic survey by TGS Geophysical Company. The applicants argue that the authorisation was unlawful due to a lack of proper delegation of authority and a failure to consider the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act. Key concerns include the physical and behavioural impact of airgun noise on marine mammals and fish, the creation of exclusion zones harming small-scale fishers, and the government's failure to account for climate change commitments under the Paris Agreement and the economic risk of stranded assets in a decarbonising world.

The document details a judicial review application by Green Connection and Natural Justice to set aside the environmental authorization (EA) granted to TotalEnergies EP South Africa Block 567 (Pty) Ltd for offshore oil drilling between Cape Town and Cape Agulhas. It lists six grounds for review, including failures to assess socio-economic impacts on small-scale fishers, climate change impacts from gas combustion, and transboundary risks to Namibia. Additionally, it notes that TotalEnergies announced its withdrawal from Block 567 in July 2024 and is now seeking to have Shell joined as a party to the legal proceedings, a request opposed by the applicants.

The document details a legal challenge in the Western Cape High Court scheduled for March 2026. The applicants argue that the environmental authorisation granted to TotalEnergies for exploration in the Deep Water Orange Basin (DWOB) block ignores climate commitments, underestimates oil spill risks in waters deeper than 2,000 metres, threatens the food security of small-scale fishers in areas like Port Nolloth, and fails to comply with the Integrated Coastal Management Act.