Search Climate Insights Directory

The document is a legal communication submitted by ten Australian citizens alleging that the Australian government's fossil fuel export policies violate their rights to life, privacy, family, home, and culture. It argues that Australia's role as a leading exporter of coal and liquefied natural gas (LNG) materially contributes to the climate emergency, causing specific harms to the authors, including extreme heat, bushfires, flooding, and toxic algal blooms. The authors contend that Australia has failed its due diligence obligations under international law and that domestic legal remedies are inadequate, requesting the Committee to declare these actions incompatible with human rights obligations and recommend a phase-out of fossil fuel exports.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) opposes the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) proposal to rescind the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. CATF argues that the rule aligns with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and provides critical tools, such as mitigation leases, that streamline the permitting of energy infrastructure, including high-voltage transmission and geothermal projects. The document claims the BLM's justification for rescission is legally insufficient and ignores the rule's role in promoting ecosystem resilience and carbon storage.

ClientEarth argues that environmental safeguards are constitutional obligations, not administrative burdens, and that the EU should address implementation bottlenecks—such as lack of staffing and poor digitalisation—rather than deregulating. The document specifically opposes the discontinuation of the SCIP database, the simplification of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), and the weakening of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) or Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR). It emphasizes that robust environmental assessments provide legal certainty and risk mitigation for investors.

ClientEarth supports the Hague's ban on fossil fuel advertising, asserting that EU internal market law allows such restrictions to achieve public interest goals, specifically climate change mitigation and the reduction of high-carbon consumption.

Earthjustice and partner organizations urge the EPA to reject California's SIP revisions, claiming they create loopholes for oil and gas polluters. The authors argue that RACT must apply to all wells regardless of production volume or oil gravity, and that the EPA failed to conduct a required environmental justice analysis. They contend that current exemptions for heavy oil and low-production wells disproportionately harm frontline communities and that monitoring and reporting frequencies are insufficient to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act.

Natural Justice argues that the ICJ should recognize a State's obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions based on a 'fair share' principle and ensure a just transition from fossil fuels. The document emphasizes that Africa is the most vulnerable continent despite contributing less than 4% of global emissions, facing projected annual loss and damage costs between US$ 290 billion and $440 billion by 2030. It asserts that high-income, high-emitting States owe legal obligations to provide financial support via grants rather than loans and must provide reparations—including compensation and restitution—for internationally wrongful acts that cause climate harm.

The document argues that the draft NPDES permit for the City of Everett Water Pollution Control Facility fails to meet legal requirements under the Clean Water Act and state law. It specifically demands the establishment of effluent limits for polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). The authors highlight a 'hot spot' of PBDEs in the lower Snohomish River that impairs the immune systems of juvenile Chinook salmon, and they call for stringent pretreatment requirements for industrial users, including Boeing, landfills, and industrial laundries. The statement also advocates for a halt on the land application of biosolids until they are sampled for these persistent toxics.

Earthjustice argues that the American Convention on Human Rights requires States to implement a just transition to clean energy based on their 'fair share' of historical and current emissions. The brief advocates for the immediate phase-out of fossil fuel extraction and power generation, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, and the mandatory use of comprehensive climate assessments—including scope 3 emissions—for all new energy projects and policies. It emphasizes that human rights obligations may necessitate more ambitious mitigation than those outlined in the Paris Agreement and warns against 'false solutions' like carbon capture and storage.

The Center for International Environmental Law asserts that geoengineering technologies, including solar radiation modification and carbon dioxide removal, are unproven, unfeasible at scale, and violate human rights obligations. The organization warns that these technologies are being used as excuses to avoid phasing out fossil fuels and notes that unregulated experiments often occur on Indigenous Peoples' territories without consent. It advocates for a rapid, fair fossil fuel phase-out and the adoption of a global binding instrument via the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative to limit global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

ClientEarth defends the proposed IED compensation right, which allows individuals suffering health damage from illegal pollution to seek remedy. The document clarifies that the right does not reverse the burden of proof, as victims must still provide evidence of health damage, an IED violation, and a link between the two. It further argues that the right is distinct from the Environmental Liability Directive, which excludes individual compensation, and asserts that the measure will incentivize legal compliance without causing excessive litigation.

Earthjustice argues that limiting climate mitigation to the property level is insufficient to protect world heritage. The statement recommends that the World Heritage Committee recognize state parties' national-level obligations to limit warming to 1.5°C, acknowledge extraterritorial obligations under Article 6(3) to prevent transboundary harm, and utilize the List of World Heritage in Danger to hold states accountable for climate-related threats.

A coalition of environmental organizations requests that the U.S. Department of the Interior and BOEM halt Lease Sale 257 or perform a supplemental NEPA review. They contend that previous environmental impact statements from 2016 and 2017 are obsolete, failing to account for current climate science, the shift toward deepwater drilling, threats to newly listed endangered species, and the impacts of offshore fracking and pipeline failures. The authors argue that the lease sale, which could produce 1.12 billion barrels of oil and 4.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, is inconsistent with President Biden's climate and environmental justice goals.

A joint statement from Earthjustice and numerous environmental and community organizations urging the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council to withdraw a proposed rule that would add mining as a covered sector under FAST-41. The commenters argue that mining's unique environmental risks, including toxic waste and acid mine drainage, require rigorous and flexible permitting rather than the accelerated timelines and limited judicial review provided by FAST-41.

The document criticises the European Commission for requesting 'technical service' catch scenarios from ICES for fish stocks that have official zero-catch advice, arguing this prioritises target fisheries over the legal sustainability requirements of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). It asserts that only the official stock-specific advice reflects the goal of restoring stocks above levels capable of producing Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). To restore vulnerable stocks like Irish Sea whiting and West of Scotland cod, the author recommends cutting target stock TACs, implementing Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM), and developing rebuilding plans with spatial or seasonal closures.

The Ironbound Community Corporation (ICC) and the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance (NJEJA) argue that New Jersey waste incinerators are ineligible for Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) subsidies because they have consistently violated Clean Air Act permits. The authors claim that ratepayers have paid approximately $30 million in subsidies to these facilities between 2005 and 2019, despite legal requirements that eligible 'Class II renewable energy' sources must meet the 'highest environmental standards'. The document highlights that these incinerators are located in environmental justice communities and that the BPU and DEP have failed to provide the same level of oversight for in-state facilities as they do for out-of-state ones.

A coalition of 76 organizations urges UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee to hold state parties accountable for their contributions to climate change. The authors argue that the World Heritage Convention requires states to align their national policies, including fossil fuel exports, with the 1.5°C warming limit to protect the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of heritage sites. The statement provides examples of other UN treaty bodies making similar mitigation recommendations to countries such as Australia, Argentina, and Germany.

This document contains the heads of argument submitted by ACWA Power to the Appeal Authority of the Nkangala District Municipality. ACWA argues that an appeal brought by the non-profit organization GroundWork against the transfer of a Provisional Atmospheric Emission Licence (PAEL) should be dismissed because GroundWork, as a third party, lacks the legal standing to appeal under section 62 of the Local Government Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000.

ClientEarth warns the Shell Contributory Pension Fund trustees that failing to strategically manage climate risk may breach their fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of members. The letter asserts that climate change is a material investment risk and provides evidence that fossil fuel assets, particularly coal, are highly exposed to financial losses. It highlights emerging market standards among OECD asset owners, including the use of TCFD frameworks and divestment policies. ClientEarth recommends specific actions: evaluating physical and transitional risks, reallocating capital away from coal and risky fossil fuels, and pursuing active stewardship to align portfolio companies with the Paris Agreement.

The document expresses concern that ECHA is favouring industry interests over scientific evidence of environmental and health risks in its approach to restricting microplastics. The authors argue that ECHA's call for evidence discouraged the submission of risk data and erroneously suggested that a lack of demonstrated risk or a lack of alternatives automatically justifies derogations from restrictions.

The Institute for Policy Integrity asserts that the U.S. Forest Service's final approval of the West Elk coal mine expansion ignores significant climate costs. While the agency quantified the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, it provided only a generic description of climate effects rather than monetizing the damages, which the author claims would amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. The document argues this omission is arbitrary and illegal, noting that as recently as 2017, agencies used the Interagency Working Group’s social cost of greenhouse gases for similar decisions.