Search Climate Insights Directory

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted comments on the South African National Petroleum Company Bill, B2 - 2026, arguing that the draft legislation prioritizes petroleum expansion and commercialization over environmental governance, climate commitments, and constitutional rights. While acknowledging the potential for improved coordination by consolidating PetroSA, iGas, and the Strategic Fuel Fund, the CER recommends rejecting the Bill in its current form until significant amendments are made to align it with South Africa's climate obligations and environmental laws.

The brief contends that the Department of Defense is violating the Administrative Procedure Act and statutory obligations by refusing to conduct reviews for over 100 utility-scale wind projects. It argues this freeze is a pretext for the Trump Administration's animus toward wind energy, which will result in increased electricity prices, higher pollution levels, and greater greenhouse gas emissions.

A submission by a coalition of civil society organisations—including Law for Energy Transitions Africa, Natural Justice, The Green Connection, and Project 90 by 2030—providing detailed comments on the draft South African Wholesale Electricity Market (SAWEM) Code and Rules. The submission argues that the draft framework lacks sufficient alignment with constitutional rights and climate obligations, suffers from governance conflicts of interest due to the Market Operator's link to Eskom, and lacks transparency regarding costs and contracts.

The brief contends that removing Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) protections for federal employees with policymaking or administrative responsibilities would allow the Trump Administration to fire scientists based on political disagreement rather than merit. It argues that independent science is a statutory requirement for agencies like the EPA, CDC, and HHS to faithfully execute laws related to air quality, chemical safety, and vaccinations. The authors provide case studies on the Clean Air Act, ethylene oxide regulation, mRNA vaccine development, and hepatitis B vaccinations to demonstrate how political interference in science endangers public health and safety.

PARI's submission on the Protected Disclosures Bill supports the expansion of whistleblower protections and the introduction of financial rewards but warns that the proposed central database lacks sufficient security and clear purpose. The institute argues that the current reward mechanism is too restrictive by limiting awards to court-convicted monetary sanctions, which may exclude administrative recoveries and discourage disclosures of serious crimes. PARI recommends relocating the database to an independent body, refining the scope of reporting obligations to reduce administrative burdens, and implementing a more flexible, incremental approach to financial incentives tailored to specific sectors like public procurement.

The brief supports the reversal of a district court decision that dismissed claims against the EPA for failing to regulate PFAS in sewage sludge. It asserts that PFAS are highly toxic 'forever chemicals' commonly found in sewage sludge used as fertilizer, which contaminates soil, water, and food chains. The authors argue that local governments in Pennsylvania and New York face significant technical, fiscal, and legal hurdles—including state preemption and 'Right to Farm' laws—that prevent them from protecting residents. Legally, the brief contends that CWA Section 405(d)(2)(C) requires the EPA to not only review but also promulgate regulations for newly identified toxic pollutants at least every two years.

The document argues that the European Commission's proposed amendments to the EU Plant Protection Products Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 would significantly degrade health and environmental protections. Key concerns include the shift toward unlimited approval durations for active substances, the 'freezing' of scientific knowledge during national authorisations, and the introduction of broad exemptions for biocontrol and low-risk substances. The authors contend these changes violate the precautionary principle and the high level of protection required by the TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Furthermore, the document criticizes the Commission's procedural failures, specifically the absence of a comprehensive impact assessment and insufficient stakeholder consultation.

The document evaluates the legal implications of proposed UK government requirements for climate-related transition plan (CRTP) disclosures. It concludes that 'comply or explain' and mandatory disclosure regimes are unlikely to materially heighten liability risks for companies and directors, provided existing safe harbour provisions apply. While disclosing the extent of alignment with the Net Zero Objective introduces some risk, it is not considered materially heightened if clear metrics and authoritative standards are used. The authors state that a full legal analysis of requirements to produce an aligned plan or to implement a CRTP is currently impossible due to a lack of detail in the government's consultation regarding obligations, sanctions, and enforcement mechanisms.

The brief contends that the Wind Directive lacks a reasoned basis and ignores the public health, climate, and economic benefits of wind power. It argues that existing permitting frameworks already sufficiently protect wildlife and that the sudden ban on wind permits contradicts the administration's own goals of increasing domestic energy production and its simultaneous efforts to expedite fossil-fuel projects.

The document critiques the Supreme Court's decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County and other government efforts to curtail NEPA, asserting that these actions create uncertainty and primarily benefit fossil fuel infrastructure rather than accelerating clean energy. It recommends improving agency capacity, aligning jurisdictional requirements, and enhancing community and Tribal engagement to streamline permitting.

The document concludes that mandatory CRTP disclosures, based on IFRS S2 and the TPT Disclosure Framework, are unlikely to materially increase liability risks for companies and directors due to existing legal protections and the high evidentiary hurdle of proving dishonesty. It argues that such disclosures may actually reduce overall legal risk by promoting better compliance with existing duties and mitigating greenwashing claims.

The brief argues that the 'Wind Directive'—which suspends all federal wind permitting—violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by deviating from established review processes without a reasoned explanation. Amici assert that wind power is a cost-effective, critical energy source with significant public health and climate benefits. They further argue that the directive's claims regarding wind energy's impact on whales and birds are scientifically unsupported, citing findings from NOAA and the GAO. Finally, the brief highlights a contradiction in federal policy, where the administration fast-tracks fossil fuel projects while blocking wind energy, despite the latter's superior economic and environmental profile.

A group of 16 children from various nations filed a communication to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, alleging that Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey violated the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) by failing to prevent and mitigate climate change. While the Committee recognised the 'extraterritorial application of human rights obligations' and the 'victim status of the authors', it ultimately deemed the claim inadmissible. The decision rested on the 'failure to exhaust domestic remedies', as the claimants had not initiated internal legal procedures in the defendant states before approaching the Committee.

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled on 11 April 2025 that poor air quality in the Highveld Priority Area breaches constitutional rights and that the Minister of Environmental Affairs has a legal duty to prescribe regulations under section 20 of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 39 of 2004 (NEM:AQA). The court found that while the law uses the permissive word 'may', this constitutes a mandatory duty once the 'jurisdictional fact of necessity' is established. The SCA declared that the Minister unreasonably delayed these regulations and directed their prescription within 12 months. Notably, the court affirmed that environmental rights under section 24 of the Constitution are immediately realisable rather than subject to progressive realisation based on available resources.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) asserts that the recent removal of CEQ's NEPA regulations by an interim final rule will hinder infrastructure deployment by increasing ambiguity and complicating interagency coordination. While intended to expedite permitting, CATF argues this action reverses recent trends in decreasing review timelines and removes essential tools like categorical exclusions and tiering frameworks. The document advocates for restoring these regulations or implementing data-driven reforms, such as increasing agency staffing and aligning jurisdictional requirements, to efficiently deploy clean energy infrastructure.

The Superior Court of Justice in Ontario denied a motion to dismiss a case brought by seven youth who argued that Ontario's 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target of 30% below 2005 levels is insufficiently ambitious and violates constitutional rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The court ruled that the application is prima facie justiciable, the targets are reviewable, and the applicants have standing for themselves and future generations.

The brief, submitted by the lead Assembly sponsor of the CLCPA and several nonprofit organizations, contends that the CLCPA was designed to work in tandem with local climate actions rather than replace them. It argues that there is no legislative intent for the state to occupy the entire field of climate regulation and that the state has explicitly relied on Local Law 97 to meet its own emissions targets. The authors warn that a ruling of preemption would stifle local innovation and jeopardize New York's ability to meet its 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas reduction mandates.

ClientEarth asserts that the EU-Mercosur trade deal contradicts the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) by allowing Mercosur countries to influence the implementation of EU law and by exposing EU Member States to trade disputes when enforcing deforestation rules. The analysis highlights specific articles in the agreement's Trade and Sustainable Development chapter that may force EU authorities to consider third-country information, potentially biasing objective assessments and country benchmarking processes. Furthermore, the agreement's broad definition of 'measure' and its 'rebalancing mechanism' could lead to legal disputes over EUDR compliance, creating political pressure that jeopardizes the EU's goal of protecting global forests.

The document contends that the U.S. power grid is already transitioning away from coal toward renewables, storage, and flexible natural gas due to market forces, and that the EPA's Rule aligns with these trends. It argues that modern resources like battery storage and flexible gas plants provide better operational reliability than aging coal plants. The brief asserts that the Rule provides sufficient time for resource procurement and includes flexibility mechanisms to protect the grid during periods of stress.

The author contends that South Africa's increasing number of hung councils has led to political instability that impairs municipal service delivery and administrative function. While supporting the Local Government: Municipal Structures Amendment Bill, 2024—particularly the requirement for public coalition agreements—the author identifies contradictions regarding the timeline for establishing collective executive systems and suggests further limits on votes of no confidence, such as annual thresholds and the adoption of a "constructive vote of no confidence" to ensure long-term stability.