Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that the EU Ambient Air Quality (AAQ) Directives, particularly Directive 2008/50/EC, are essential tools for protecting public health and that failures to meet air quality targets are due to Member State implementation gaps rather than flaws in the legislation. The authors recommend maintaining binding limit values, updating standards to align with the latest World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines, and strengthening enforcement through infringement procedures. Key recommendations include the adoption of short-term action plans for particulate matter (PM) pollution events, the inclusion of indoor air pollution in future revisions, and stricter enforcement of Euro Standards for vehicles to address the 'Dieselgate' scandal.

The document asserts that climate change and the net zero-carbon transition create material financial risks for all UK listed companies, making detailed disclosure a legal necessity. It claims that the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have failed to hold companies accountable, citing a series of complaints made by ClientEarth where regulators took no public enforcement action despite evidence of non-compliance. The report urges regulators to close this 'accountability gap' and encourages institutional investors to use their power to demand TCFD-aligned disclosures.

The report critiques CBAM designs based on incurred emissions due to legal, administrative, and economic risks, such as resource shuffling and export leakage. It proposes a three-pillar alternative: a 'climate contribution' charge on basic materials, dynamic free EU ETS allowance allocation conditional on transition plans, and Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfDs) to fund the incremental costs of clean production. This framework aims to provide effective carbon price signals across the value chain and support an inclusive transition across all EU industrial regions.

The document analyzes 32 youth climate litigation cases (litigants aged 7-30) filed between 1990 and 2022. It finds that while such cases are increasing in frequency—particularly in Europe—the majority result in unfavorable outcomes or remain pending. Most cases argue that states failed to take adequate climate measures, frequently relying on human rights grounds. The author concludes that future success depends on judicial willingness, procedural adherence, and the substantive strength of legal arguments.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the FTC's 'Green Guides' are outdated and fail to align with the Paris Agreement's 1.5C goal. The submission recommends a total ban on claims such as 'carbon neutral' and 'net zero' because they falsely imply that emissions can be 'neutralised' through carbon credits, which the author describes as scientifically unsound. Instead, the document proposes a 'contribution' model where companies fund mitigation projects without claiming to offset their own emissions. It also suggests that the Guides be made enforceable under the FTC Act to provide oversight of the voluntary carbon market and protect consumers from greenwashing.

The report details a concerted effort by the Trump administration and members of Congress to restrict judicial review, expand forced arbitration, limit class action lawsuits, and increase the financial risks of public interest litigation. It argues that these measures, often supported by corporate interests, undermine the constitutional system of checks and balances and disproportionately affect marginalized communities. The document provides specific examples of pending bills and administrative directives that would shield government agencies and corporations from legal accountability, specifically citing impacts on the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and medical malpractice recovery.

The document argues that U.S. agriculture can achieve carbon neutrality by combining emissions reductions—particularly of nitrous oxide and methane—with increased soil carbon sequestration. It details 'carbon farming' practices such as cover cropping, agroforestry, and prescribed grazing, while critiquing the current 'farm safety net' for subsidizing carbon-intensive industrial operations. The authors propose a systemic shift toward payments for ecosystem services, reformed crop insurance, and updated federal research and extension priorities to incentivize climate-friendly agriculture.

Earthjustice argues that the FWS proposal to delist gray wolves in the Northern Rockies is illegal and biologically unsound. The organization contends that the proposed DPS boundaries are arbitrary, demographic recovery goals are set too low to ensure long-term viability, and state regulatory frameworks in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana are inadequate to protect wolves from aggressive killing. Furthermore, Earthjustice asserts that the FWS failed to account for habitat fragmentation from roading, the loss of historic range, and the lack of guaranteed funding for management activities.

The report identifies five primary methods used by corporate interests and the U.S. government to restrict judicial access: the use of "no judicial review" clauses, the expansion of forced arbitration and class action bans, increasing the financial risk of litigation, limiting judicial discretion on sanctions and damages, and blocking timely case settlements.

The report documents a systemic 'environment of fear' in South Africa's mining regions, where activists facing environmental and social harms from mining are targeted with physical violence, death threats, and legal harassment. It highlights the failure of the South African government to protect these defenders and the role of municipalities in imposing extra-legal restrictions on peaceful assembly. The document also details the use of SLAPP suits and social media attacks by mining companies to silence opposition, while noting the severe environmental and health costs of mining, including water pollution and respiratory diseases.

The document argues that fossil fuel production is the primary driver of the climate emergency and must be directly addressed in NDCs to meet the 1.5°C temperature limit. It proposes a comprehensive framework of commitments, including phasing out extraction, ending new licenses, and redirecting subsidies, while emphasizing a just transition for workers and developing nations. The memo justifies these inclusions through the Paris Agreement's purpose, the UNFCCC's precautionary principle, and recent outcomes like the COP28 Global Stocktake.

The document outlines various legal frameworks and mechanisms that could be adapted for a Fossil Fuel Treaty. It categorizes obligations into those of conduct (prescribing actions) and result (requiring specific outcomes), and discusses the use of binding versus non-binding language. Key commitment options include prohibiting new fossil fuel sites, setting absolute or relative production reduction targets, and restricting financial flows. The briefing also explores the adoption of technical, general specification, and performance standards, as well as trade restrictions to prevent 'free-riding' by non-parties. Additionally, it suggests informational mechanisms such as environmental impact assessments, labelling, and public participation to ensure transparency and a just transition.

The report outlines various legal frameworks and mechanisms from existing international treaties to inform the design of a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. It categorizes potential obligations into conduct and result-based commitments, suggests specific measures such as banning new extraction and reducing existing production, and explores financial targets, technical standards, and trade restrictions. The document emphasizes a differentiated approach based on equity and historical responsibility, providing a wide array of options for binding language, precision levels, and transparency mechanisms to ensure a just transition.

The briefing asserts that the omission of fossil fuel production and consumption from NDCs undermines the 1.5°C temperature limit and may constitute a breach of international law. Citing the International Court of Justice, it argues that NDCs are binding obligations requiring 'highest possible ambition' and due diligence. The document calls for 2025 NDCs to include comprehensive packages addressing production, consumption, exploration licenses, and subsidies, while ensuring a just transition and policy coherence between supply and climate goals.

The document outlines various structural options for integrating principles into a Fossil Fuel Treaty, such as through dedicated provisions or preambles. It details 16 potential international law principles—including common but differentiated responsibilities, precaution, and just transition—explaining their legal nature, precedents in other treaties, and how they could be applied to regulate the phase-out of fossil fuel production.

The report examines various international legal frameworks and principles that could be incorporated into a future treaty to phase out fossil fuels. It discusses structural options for including these principles—either in a dedicated provision, the preamble, or substantive articles—and evaluates 16 specific legal principles, such as 'common but differentiated responsibilities' and 'intergenerational equity', detailing their legal status and potential application to fossil fuel production and a just transition.

This report by Friends of the Earth International discusses the French 'duty of vigilance' law passed in March 2017, which aims to hold parent and subcontracting companies accountable for human rights and environmental violations. The document examines the law's implementation through case studies involving Total, Société Générale, and French retail chains, while suggesting that a draft treaty could internationalise these standards and improve victims' access to justice.

The document outlines a legal case brought against Shell in The Hague, asserting that the company is responsible for approximately 1.8% of historical human-caused CO2 emissions and currently contributes around 1% of global annual emissions. The claimants argue that Shell has known about the dangers of climate change since the 1950s but continues to invest heavily in fossil fuels, including shale gas and tar sands, thereby breaching its legal duty of care under the Dutch Civil Code. The summons demands that Shell reduce its CO2 emissions by at least 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050, based on IPCC scenarios, claiming that Shell's own 2017 ambition of a 50% reduction in carbon intensity by 2050 is inadequate.

The document argues that community forest management (CFM) is a more effective strategy for forest conservation and poverty reduction than industrial logging or strict state protection. It identifies seven key rights—state obligations, self-determination, consultation, territorial rights, livelihoods and economic development, women's rights, and cultural/traditional knowledge—and maps these against international legal frameworks to provide a tool for advocates to pressure governments for the legal recognition of community-led forestry.

The document argues that community forest management (CFM) is a highly effective strategy for forest conservation and poverty reduction, yet it remains under-supported by governments. It identifies seven key rights—state obligations, self-determination, consultation, territorial rights, livelihoods/economic development, women's rights, and cultural/traditional knowledge—and maps these against international legal frameworks to provide advocates with tools to pressure governments for the legal recognition of community-led forestry.