Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing argues that proposed 'Omnibus I' amendments to weaken or delete Article 22 of the CS3D—which requires companies to adopt and implement 1.5°C-compatible climate transition plans (CTPs)—would contradict the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) July 2025 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ confirmed that States have a binding legal duty to regulate private sector emissions using 'stringent' due diligence. The authors warn that diluting these requirements would increase the liability risks for EU Member States, heighten the legal exposure of companies to climate litigation, and leave the final Omnibus I Directive vulnerable to legal challenges for failing to meet international and EU climate obligations.

The position paper argues against abolishing the formal complainant's right to a rejection decision and opposes the discontinuation of stricter national laws on unilateral conduct. It advocates for harmonising the rights of non-investigated parties and improving coordination between National Competition Authorities (NCAs) and the Commission to support public interest and the decarbonisation of the EU economy.

ClientEarth argues that the GBER lacks effective environmental safeguards and continues to permit harmful subsidies, particularly for fossil gas. The organisation proposes introducing horizontal conditionalities, such as the 'Do No Significant Harm' principle and the 'Energy Efficiency First' principle, and calls for the removal of block exemptions for fossil gas activities and tax reductions on fossil gas-fired electricity. Additionally, it suggests creating a tailored block exemption to support small-scale coastal fishing.

The document argues that UK local authorities have a solid legal foundation under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to implement weight- or size-based parking tariffs for SUVs. It highlights that SUVs increase fatality risks for pedestrians and cyclists, contribute more to air pollution via tyre and brake wear, and cause greater road surface damage. To avoid legal challenges, the briefing advises councils that such charges must be justified by traffic management and safety goals rather than revenue generation, and must be supported by robust public consultation.

The report argues that TNCs like Chevron, Total, and Shell maintain a 'system of impunity' by leveraging powerful lobbying organizations, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), to shape international law. It documents severe human rights and environmental abuses linked to these companies in Ecuador, Mozambique, Uganda, Nigeria, and Palestine. The document specifically critiques the current UN negotiation process for the Binding Treaty, claiming that the inclusion of corporate lobbyists as 'stakeholders' creates a conflict of interest that dilutes accountability mechanisms and prioritizes corporate profit over human rights and planetary health.

Friends of the Earth International argues that environmental rights are human rights and should form an autonomous basis for corporate liability in the UN Legally Binding Instrument. The document provides textual suggestions to ensure TNCs are obligated to prevent environmental harm, phase out emissions, and provide full ecological restoration, moving beyond voluntary due diligence and ESG frameworks.

The policy brief by Friends of the Earth International advocates for the integration of explicit environmental and climate obligations for transnational corporations (TNCs) into the UN's legally binding instrument. It argues that the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a recognized human right, as established by UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/76/300 and various regional courts. The document provides specific text proposals to ensure TNCs are held legally accountable for environmental damage, biodiversity loss, and climate change, moving beyond procedural due diligence to substantive obligations of result, including the total elimination of climate emissions across value chains and full ecological restoration.

The report analyzes 32 Air Service Agreements (ASAs) among COFFIS member states to identify legal obstacles to taxing aviation fuel. It finds that while the Chicago Convention does not prohibit such taxes, many bilateral ASAs contain prohibitions or non-discrimination clauses that require reform. The authors propose a 'Joint Agreement' as a multilateral mechanism to bulk-amend these treaties. For EU states, the Energy Taxation Directive (ETD) remains a primary structural barrier, though international agreements can override it. The report also estimates that taxing three specific UK flight routes could generate up to USD 3.1 billion in revenue.

The document argues that the UN climate regime, comprising the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement, is currently hindered by procedural complexity, fragmented institutional structures, and a lack of accountability. It highlights that 87% of recent decisions are merely procedural and recommends a systemic overhaul, including the formal closure of the Kyoto Protocol, the adoption of majority voting to replace consensus, and a shift toward a more active implementation role for the UNFCCC Secretariat. The authors emphasize the need for a new climate finance goal of at least $300 billion annually by 2035 and the integration of ethical considerations and structural causes of the climate crisis into future governance.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) argues that investment treaties must evolve from static instruments of investor protection into policy tools that address specific climate challenges. The submission outlines a three-step framework: assessing the realistic capabilities and limitations of treaties, identifying specific climate-related policy problems (such as energy sector bottlenecks and fossil fuel subsidies), and determining avenues for positive contributions, including enhancing transparency, requiring responsible business conduct, and facilitating cross-border cooperation.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a unanimous advisory opinion on 23 July 2025, establishing that states have customary international legal obligations to prevent significant environmental harm and cooperate to protect the environment. The author contends that these obligations apply to the restructuring of African sovereign debt, as debt distress often forces states to choose between creditor payments and financing essential services like renewable energy and health. The document suggests three avenues for relief: using the ruling to bolster negotiations on the social and environmental costs of debt, reminding stakeholders of international norms such as the UNCTAD Principles on Promoting Responsible Sovereign Borrowing and Lending, and enabling activists to hold states and financial institutions accountable through mechanisms like National Contact Points or multilateral development bank accountability systems.

The document provides legal proposals to integrate environmental rights into the LBI, emphasizing the need to hold transnational corporations accountable for environmental degradation and climate change. It advocates for the recognition of the RtHE, the inclusion of the financial and extractive sectors in the LBI's scope, and the implementation of strict liability for hazardous activities. The briefing also highlights the necessity of protecting environmental human rights defenders and ensuring that human rights obligations take primacy over trade and investment agreements.

The briefing paper advocates for a legally binding international instrument to end corporate impunity regarding environmental and human rights abuses. It highlights the insufficiency of voluntary frameworks and argues that the LBI can operationalize the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment by establishing mandatory due diligence, extraterritorial jurisdiction, and strict liability for parent companies across global value chains.

ClientEarth advocates for the UK government to mandate the development, disclosure, and implementation of transition plans aligned with the Paris Agreement. The organization argues that a 'comply or explain' framework is insufficient and that mandatory requirements are necessary to prevent 'greenwashing' and 'say-do gaps'. It specifically highlights the need for pension schemes to manage systemic climate risk through Paris-aligned anchors and robust stewardship. ClientEarth further asserts that legal risks for directors are often overstated due to the 'dishonesty standard' in English law, and that alignment with the 1.5°C goal is essential for the UK to fulfill its international obligations following the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion.

ClientEarth argues that CSOs in the EU, particularly those focused on environment and climate, face a deteriorating environment characterized by shrinking civic space, legal harassment (SLAPPs), and financial insecurity. The document criticizes the European Commission for restricting public access to documents and prioritizing corporate interests in 'strategic dialogues' over civil society. It calls for a binding framework for civil dialogue, systemic consultation at all legislative stages, and increased funding for protection mechanisms like the Aarhus Rapid Response Mechanism. Specific national examples of repression are cited in Poland, France, Italy, Germany, and Hungary, while Finland and Denmark are noted for positive engagement models.

The briefing details the 2024 revisions to the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), focusing on expanding access to justice, strengthening non-compliance and suspension mechanisms, increasing penalties, and introducing a new compensation right for health damages. It emphasizes alignment with the Aarhus Convention and provides recommendations for Member States to ensure these provisions are effective and dissuasive in practice.

ClientEarth critiques the European Commission's 'Roadmap towards Nature Credits', warning that a market for biodiversity credits could undermine EU environmental law if not strictly separated from regulatory obligations and offsetting. The organization argues that the biodiversity financing gap—estimated at 19 billion euros per year in the EU—should first be addressed by scaling up public funds and redirecting the 48 billion euros in annual harmful subsidies. ClientEarth recommends that any future credit system be strictly outcome-based, exclude 'business-as-usual' practices, and prohibit the use of credits for ecological compensation (offsetting) to avoid 'net loss' of biodiversity. It further highlights the scientific complexity of measuring biodiversity compared to carbon, cautioning against reductionist proxy metrics that could lead to greenwashing.

The report examines climate litigation in the oil and gas sectors of Latin America and the Caribbean, highlighting a strong reliance on human rights and constitutional frameworks. While the region leads the Global South in climate cases, it faces significant barriers including institutional weaknesses, violence against environmental defenders, and a gap in scientific evidence. The study contrasts these with Global North trends, such as 'climate washing' and corporate-focused lawsuits, and discusses the potential for transnational litigation to hold Northern companies accountable for Southern impacts.

The submission argues that South Africa's draft second NDC lacks sufficient ambition and fails to reflect the 'highest possible ambition' required by the Paris Agreement. It proposes more stringent emission targets—350 Mt CO2e for 2025-2030 and 248 Mt CO2e for 2031-2035—based on 'fair share' calculations and the best available science. The document highlights legal risks under the South African Constitution, the Climate Change Act, and NEMA, while criticizing the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) for a non-transparent process that delayed the release of the underlying technical report. It further calls for a stronger focus on phasing out fossil fuels, enhancing climate adaptation for vulnerable groups, and incorporating climate justice principles from the Presidential Climate Commission's recommendations.

The CER argues that the Draft Mineral Resources Development Bill 2025 fails to adequately protect mine-affected communities and the environment. Key concerns include the conflict of interest inherent in the 'One Environmental System' (OES), where the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources manages both mining promotion and environmental authorisations. The CER criticizes the Bill's narrowing of the definition of 'community' and 'interested and affected persons,' which it claims limits public participation. It further highlights gaps in mine closure and rehabilitation, particularly regarding abandoned mines, and calls for the legal incorporation of the Mining Charter to ensure binding transformation and gender parity targets. The CER proposes introducing the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and improving access to information through mandatory public disclosure of mining authorisations.