Search Climate Insights Directory

The document is an amicus curiae brief filed by environmental organizations to oppose legal challenges to a BOEM rule that requires offshore oil and gas lessees to provide more robust financial assurances for decommissioning. The brief argues that the existing regulatory framework has failed, leading to a massive backlog of overdue wells and platforms, significant environmental risks, and potential multi-billion dollar liabilities for taxpayers. It asserts that the new rule is in the public interest as it ensures funds are available for cleanup, reduces the risk of leaks and navigational hazards, and supports the growth of the decommissioning industry.

The document supports the SEC's climate-related disclosure rule, specifically the requirements for companies to report the use of carbon offsets when they are a material part of achieving climate goals. It argues that because the voluntary carbon market lacks standardization and is often flooded with low-quality credits, investors need project-level transparency to assess a company's actual risk exposure. The brief highlights that reliance on flawed offsets can lead to 'greenwashing' litigation and financial instability as demand shifts toward more expensive, high-integrity credits.

The document argues that recent Supreme Court rulings have shifted power from subject matter experts in federal agencies to the judiciary, creating regulatory instability and making it harder to defend environmental protections. It specifically analyzes the blocking of the Good Neighbor Rule, the elimination of Chevron deference, the expansion of statutes of limitations for challenging regulations, and the restriction of agency-led civil penalty enforcement. The author contends that these changes will lead to a 'tsunami of lawsuits' and a patchwork of conflicting legal interpretations, necessitating more rigorous technical and legal justifications for new agency rules.

The author critiques the US Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to temporarily block the EPA's Good Neighbor Rule, which aimed to limit nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants and industrial sources in 23 states. The commentary argues that the Court disregarded significant public health benefits—including the prevention of 1,300 premature deaths in 2026 alone—and bypassed the standard judicial process by acting as a 'court of first view' rather than review. The author contends that the Court is inappropriately assuming a regulatory role ('Super-EPA') by making rushed assessments of highly technical environmental records without full briefing from lower courts.

The memorandum examines the ITLOS advisory opinion, which establishes that anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions constitute marine pollution under UNCLOS. It highlights the 'stringent' due diligence required of States to protect the marine environment, the role of the best available science (IPCC), and the principle that the Paris Agreement does not supersede UNCLOS obligations. The document further discusses the necessity of environmental impact assessments that account for cumulative and socio-economic impacts, and cautions against the use of marine geoengineering if it transforms pollution types.

The document argues that States have a legal obligation under international climate change law and human rights law to implement effective, science-based measures to mitigate climate change, specifically through the phase-out of fossil fuels and the regulation of non-state actors. It asserts that failure to do so constitutes an internationally wrongful act, triggering responsibilities for cessation of harm and full reparation, including financial compensation for loss and damage.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) asserts that the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement do not exhaustively define State obligations regarding climate change. Instead, States are bound by concurrent duties under customary international law (such as the prevention of transboundary harm), human rights law, and the law of State responsibility. CIEL argues that the cumulative emission of greenhouse gases, primarily from fossil fuels, constitutes an internationally wrongful act. Consequently, responsible States—particularly industrialized nations—must cease their destructive conduct and provide full reparation for material and moral injuries. The submission emphasizes that these obligations extend to future generations, grounded in the principle of intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle, which mandates prioritizing proven emission reductions over speculative technologies.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submits that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should interpret State climate obligations through a harmonized lens of multiple legal frameworks. CIEL contends that while the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement are relevant, they do not displace other primary rules such as the duty to prevent transboundary harm, human rights law, the law of the sea, or the law of State responsibility. The document asserts that these obligations apply concurrently and that compliance with climate treaties alone does not discharge a State's broader duties under international law, particularly regarding human rights and the protection of the marine environment.

The document asserts that because fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change, States' duties to prevent transboundary harm and protect human rights necessitate a rapid phase-out of oil, gas, and coal. It argues that due diligence requires States to conduct environmental impact assessments (EIAs) that include downstream 'Scope 3' emissions, regardless of where they occur. Furthermore, it contends that State actions increasing fossil fuel reliance are presumptively contrary to international law and that the precautionary principle obliges States to prioritize proven emission reductions over speculative technologies like carbon capture and storage.

The document asserts that high-emitting States have breached international obligations to prevent significant transboundary harm and protect human rights by allowing cumulative greenhouse gas emissions to degrade the global climate system. It argues that these breaches constitute internationally wrongful acts under the law of State responsibility, requiring States to cease wrongful conduct and provide full reparation—including restitution, compensation, and satisfaction—for material and moral injuries. The memorandum emphasizes that international climate agreements like the Paris Agreement do not preclude these reparations and suggests that the burden of proof for causation should shift to responsible States given the available attribution science.

Ten youths challenged the State of Brandenburg for failing to set climate protection goals and emission reduction paths, arguing this violated German constitutional law and endangered future generations. The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the claims on 18 January 2022, ruling that it was not possible to determine the extent of the state legislature's power to prevent future rights violations, noting a lack of federal specifications on state-level emission budgets and the limited influence of states in climate protection areas managed by the federal government.

Eight young people sued the State of Florida, arguing that the state's fossil fuel-based energy system violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The plaintiffs claimed that human-caused carbon dioxide concentrations would impair vital natural resources and discriminately harm current and future generations. Both the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit and the First District Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint, ruling that the issues were non-justiciable political questions that must be resolved by the political branches of government rather than the judiciary, citing the separation of powers doctrine.

The case Aji P. v. State of Washington involved a constitutional complaint by youth petitioners who argued that Washington's reliance on fossil-fuel-based energy and transportation systems infringed upon their "fundamental right to a healthful and pleasant environment". The claim was dismissed by the King County Superior Court and the Washington Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Washington ultimately denied the petition for review without providing reasons. However, Chief Justice Steven Charles González dissented, arguing that the court should have decided whether climate change impacts are remediable under state law and that the lower court had "unnecessarily expand[ing] the political question doctrine".

Six Alaskan children sued the State of Alaska, arguing that the state's failure to limit greenhouse gas emissions violated the public trust duty established in Art. VIII of the Alaska Constitution. The Superior Court of Alaska dismissed the case in 2012, ruling it non-justiciable as it involved political questions. The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the dismissal in 2014, though it differed in reasoning, concluding that a declaratory judgment would not settle the dispute as it would have no impact on the state's conduct or emissions.

The document details the case of Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea, where 19 members of 'Youth4ClimateAction' challenged the constitutionality of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth. The applicants argue that the government's failure to maintain sufficient greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets violates rights to human dignity, equality, and a healthy environment. Specifically, they contest the President's authority to modify targets via decree, claiming it constitutes an unconstitutional 'blanket delegation' of power and fails to meet the minimum protective measures required to mitigate climate change impacts, which are noted to be particularly severe in South Korea.

The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) now includes a novel right (Art. 79a) for individuals to claim and obtain compensation for health damage caused by violations of national laws transposing the directive. This is the first such right in EU environmental law and is being followed by similar provisions in the Ambient Air Quality and Urban Wastewater Treatment Directives. To succeed in a claim, three elements must be proven: health damage, a violation of IED obligations by an operator or Member State, and a causal link between the two. The author argues that Member States should implement presumption rules on causation and adapted burdens of proof to ensure the right is effective in practice, as claimants often lack the information available to industrial operators.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) analyzes the Revised Zero Draft of the Plastics Treaty, arguing that the instrument must include legally binding obligations to control primary plastic polymer production and eliminate hazardous chemicals to be effective. CIEL emphasizes the need for a 'shall' rather than 'should' framework, the inclusion of human rights and health dimensions, and the establishment of a dedicated financial mechanism and a robust transparency framework to ensure accountability and a just transition for affected workers and communities.

The author criticizes the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for its decision in Cangi and Others v. Turkey, where the Court declared the application of four applicants inadmissible because they did not live near the Kışladağ-Uşak open-pit gold mine. The commentary argues that by ignoring the Aarhus Convention, the Court applied a strict reading of Article 6 ECHR that contradicts its own previous flexible approach to the standing of environmental associations and individuals who are not personally affected by a project's proximity.

The CJEU ruled on March 2, 2023, that Polish law violated EU biodiversity conservation laws and the Aarhus Convention by preventing the public from challenging forest management plans in court. The Court determined that such plans, when they significantly affect Natura 2000 sites, constitute 'decisions' under the Aarhus Convention, granting environmental NGOs access to judicial review. While the ruling specifically addresses plans impacting protected sites, the author notes that other plans may still be challengeable under Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention if they contravene national environmental law.

The Global Climate and Health Alliance (GCHA) provides legal and scientific commentary to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, detailing how climate change exacerbates health crises in Latin America and the Caribbean. The document highlights the disproportionate impact of heat, wildfires, air pollution, and vector-borne diseases on vulnerable populations, including indigenous peoples and children. It argues that states have a legal duty under the American Convention on Human Rights and the Paris Agreement to prevent climate-related health harms. The brief recommends a transition away from fossil fuels, the elimination of 'sacrifice zones', and the adoption of sustainable land management to achieve health co-benefits and uphold human rights.