Search Climate Insights Directory

Earthjustice, representing several environmental and community groups, opposes the proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal's (OBOT) plan to export coal. The letter contends that coal shipment was never part of the original environmental reviews or development agreements, poses severe health risks through coal dust emissions, and lacks sufficient regulatory protections. It argues that the City of Oakland has the legal authority to prohibit coal exports to protect public health and safety without hindering the broader economic development of the former Army Base.

The document argues that biomass combustion should not be part of the Clean Power Plan's 'best system of emission reduction' because it emits more CO2 per megawatt-hour than coal and relies on speculative, delayed carbon offsets. The authors contend that the EPA lacks a rational scientific framework for biomass carbon accounting and that 'sustainability' standards are an inadequate proxy for carbon dynamics.

Earthjustice and a coalition of local governments and environmental groups are appealing the 'Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains' final rule. They contend that the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act by abandoning the notification requirements of the May 2014 Emergency Order without public comment. The appeal argues that the new system—which relies on rail routing analysis and voluntary industry practices—provides retrospective, aggregated data that is less useful to first responders than the weekly, county-level notifications previously required. Furthermore, the petitioners argue that the DOT is improperly restricting public access to train route information by treating it as sensitive security or confidential business information without a legal basis.

The Sierra Club and Chesapeake Climate Action Network oppose Exelon's acquisition of Pepco Holdings, Inc., asserting that the proposed settlement is insufficient. They argue that Exelon's solar commitments are merely statutory obligations, its financial health is questionable, and the merger would conflict with Maryland's renewable energy goals. The brief claims that the acquisition offers negligible ratepayer savings while introducing substantial risks to the public interest.

The document argues that the current 75 ppb ozone standard is insufficient to protect public health, particularly for sensitive populations like children and asthmatics. It advocates for a 60 ppb primary standard based on scientific evidence of lung function decrements and inflammation at that level. It also calls for a separate secondary standard of 7 ppm-hrs using the W126 metric to protect vegetation and ecosystems, specifically in Class I areas.

The document argues that the UK is falling behind global standards in environmental law enforcement and advocates for systemic legal reforms to increase citizen access to justice and the use of strategic litigation to protect the environment.

The author defends the EPA's use of the Clean Air Act to mandate deep carbon pollution reductions in the power industry, rejecting claims by certain members of Congress that federal subsidies for clean coal projects prohibit those technologies from being used to set performance standards. The author asserts that the EPA relies on a global array of projects to demonstrate that carbon capture and sequestration is a viable 'best system of emissions control'.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and 12 other organisations are urging the South African Minister of Mineral Resources to exercise discretion under section 49 of the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) to create 'no-go areas' for mining based on environmental sensitivity. The CER rejects claims by the Chamber of Mines that existing laws—such as the Protected Areas Act, the Biodiversity Act, and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs)—provide sufficient protection, noting that rights have been granted illegally in protected areas and that the Biodiversity Act often only triggers an EIA without providing further legal protection. The CER asserts that a section 49 declaration is the only way to prevent wasted costs for the state and industry by refusing applications in sensitive areas from the outset, citing the Minister's intention to declare the Chrissiesmeer Biodiversity Site as a precedent.

The document supports Brazil's measures against retreaded tyre imports, emphasizing that such trade shifts waste problems from developed to developing nations. It advocates for a 'life-cycle approach' to assess environmental burdens and links the ban to obligations under the Basel and Stockholm Conventions, as well as the right to health under international human rights law.

The amici argue that the Tribunal should recognize legitimate environmental measures as non-expropriatory under the police powers rule, similar to public health measures. They contend that international law has evolved to include environmental protection within the state's regulatory authority, citing precedents from the ICJ, WTO, and other NAFTA tribunals to support the view that non-discriminatory regulations protecting the environment do not constitute a compensable taking.

The document provides technical and legal arguments to support the position that 'insufficient scientific evidence' under the SPS Agreement should be interpreted to include cases of high scientific uncertainty. It details the unpredictable nature of rDNA techniques, the lack of independent peer-reviewed data, and the potential for unintended toxic or environmental effects, asserting that these factors prevent adequate risk assessments and justify precautionary regulatory measures.

The document provides legal arguments to support the legitimacy of California's MTBE ban in the arbitration between Methanex Corporation and the United States. It contends that international law, including the precautionary principle and the right to potable water, mandates deference to government health and environmental regulations. The authors argue that foreseeable impacts on foreign investors or the existence of alternative measures do not prove discriminatory intent under NAFTA Chapter 11.

This document consists of the heads of argument filed on 17 June 2020 by four applicants (including the Mpukunyoni Traditional Council and labor unions) seeking admission as amicus curiae in an appeal before the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa. The applicants argue against a proposed interim interdict that would stop the mining operations of Tendele Coal Mining (Pty) Ltd, asserting that such a closure would cause disastrous socio-economic harm to the local community and the South African ferrochrome industry.

This document consists of the heads of argument filed by Tendele Coal Mining (Pty) Limited (the First Respondent) in the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa. The filing is a response to arguments submitted by an amicus curiae (the Centre for Environmental Rights) regarding whether mining operations commencing before 8 December 2014 required both a mining right under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) and a separate environmental authorisation under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).

This document consists of the practice note, chronology, and heads of argument filed by Arcelormittal South Africa Ltd (AMSA) in the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa. AMSA is appealing a High Court judgment that ordered it to disclose environmental records to the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA) under the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA). AMSA argues that VEJA failed to meet the 'need to know' threshold required for requests to private bodies and that there is no legal right for a private NGO to act as a regulatory 'watch-dog' to monitor a private company's environmental compliance.

This document consists of the applicants' (defendants') heads of argument filed in the High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division) on 15 May 2019. The applicants, including environmental lawyers and a community activist, are seeking an order to compel Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd (MSR) to disclose documents relevant to a defamation lawsuit. MSR is suing the applicants overS for statements made during a University of Cape Town course on 25 January 2017, which alleged that MSR operated its Tormin Mine in breach of mining, environmental, and land use planning laws. The applicants argue that the requested documents are essential to prove the truth of their statements and to protect their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and academic freedom.

This document contains the heads of argument for an application for leave to appeal a High Court decision regarding the legality of mining operations conducted by Tendele Coal Mining (Pty) Limited. The applicants argue that the mining company failed to obtain necessary environmental authorizations under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), violated town planning legislation for new mining areas, operated without a required waste management license, and unlawfully relocated traditional graves.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submits that the Article 6.4 mechanism must focus on near-term emissions reductions and the phase-out of fossil fuels rather than carbon removals. CIEL warns that relying on removals risks temperature overshoot beyond 1.5°C, which could lead to irreversible tipping points. The submission critiques land-based removals for their impermanence and limited capacity, and describes engineered removals like BECCS and DACCS as speculative technologies that threaten food sovereignty, land rights, and biodiversity. It further argues that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) primarily serves to prolong fossil fuel reliance and has a history of underperformance. Finally, CIEL calls for the establishment of robust human rights safeguards and an independent grievance redress mechanism for all Article 6.4 activities.

The document contends that the modernized Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) remains incompatible with EU law and climate goals because it retains an unpredictable investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system and continues to protect fossil fuel investments. It argues that the process for the new treaty to enter into force is uncertain and potentially protracted. Instead, the author proposes a coordinated withdrawal by the EU and Member States, combined with an 'inter-se agreement' to abolish the 20-year sunset clause, as the cleanest method to eliminate legal risks and provide the regulatory flexibility necessary for the energy transition.

ClientEarth calls for the European Union to strengthen the rule of law and governance to address climate, biodiversity, and pollution crises. The organization advocates for the creation of a European Commission Vice-President for People and the Environment to oversee the European Green Deal's implementation and urges the EU to end public financial support for harmful activities, specifically fossil fuels and energy-intensive industries. The manifesto emphasizes the need for increased enforcement capacity at both EU and national levels and the strengthening of environmental democracy to ensure public participation and access to justice.