Search Climate Insights Directory

The Global Climate & Health Alliance (GCHA) argues that climate change is a critical threat to public health in Latin America and the Caribbean, exacerbating inequalities and violating human rights. The document details specific health impacts—including heat-related deaths, respiratory issues from wildfires and air pollution, and the spread of vector-borne diseases like dengue—while highlighting the vulnerability of indigenous peoples, children, and the elderly. It asserts that states have legal obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights and the Paris Agreement to prevent climate-related health harms. The GCHA recommends a transition away from fossil fuels, the elimination of 'sacrifice zones,' and the implementation of sustainable land management and urban design to achieve health and climate co-benefits.

The document argues that climate change is a human rights crisis driven by a small number of 'Carbon Majors' in the fossil fuel and agroindustrial sectors. It asserts that States have a duty under the American Convention on Human Rights to regulate these entities, halt fossil fuel expansion, and ensure reparations for affected communities. It further argues that business enterprises have an independent obligation to respect human rights, which includes conducting due diligence across their entire value chain and ceasing deceptive 'climate-washing' practices.

The brief provides scientific and legal arguments to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, asserting that the climate emergency constitutes a threat to fundamental human rights. It emphasizes that States have a positive obligation to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available science, specifically the 1.5°C target. The document argues that this duty includes regulating 'Carbon Majors' and avoiding 'false solutions' like carbon offsetting and unproven geoengineering, which may undermine genuine decarbonization. It concludes that failure to take effective, science-based action violates the rights to life, health, and a healthy environment, particularly for marginalized groups and future generations.

The document details the case of Sagoonick v. Alaska, where the Alaskan Supreme Court upheld a lower court's dismissal of a claim by 16 young Alaskans. The plaintiffs had petitioned the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to reduce carbon emissions to 85% below 1990 levels by 2050. The court ruled that the claims for injunctive relief were non-justiciable political questions and that declaratory relief was inappropriate on prudential grounds. A dissenting opinion argued that the Public Trust doctrine provides a right to a liveable climate.

The Urgenda Foundation successfully sued the State of the Netherlands, resulting in a final Supreme Court ruling that the government must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 relative to 1990 levels. The courts determined that while the state has discretionary power, it has a duty of care to protect its citizens from the dangers of climate change, and its previous 20% target was insufficient and lacked scientific justification. The judiciary rejected the government's arguments regarding the separation of powers, ruling that the order did not mandate specific legislation but rather a result that the state is free to achieve through various means.

The brief, submitted by ClientEarth and The Shareholder Commons, opposes efforts by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) to eliminate SEC Rule 14a-8. The authors argue that climate change represents a systemic financial risk that is material to all businesses, affecting them through physical damages, transition risks, and litigation. They contend that a divergence of interests exists between corporate managers, who may prioritize short-term gains, and diversified shareholders, who are exposed to broader economic instability (beta risk). The brief asserts that Rule 14a-8 is a critical tool for investor stewardship, allowing shareholders to hold management accountable and mitigate catastrophic systemic risks.

The Court of Justice of the EU ruled on 6 July 2023 that the European Investment Bank (EIB) must allow NGOs to request internal reviews of financing decisions that contravene environmental law. This case originated from a EUR 60 million loan for a biomass plant in Spain. While the ruling establishes the EIB's accountability under the Aarhus Regulation, the author notes that Art. 271(c) TFEU may limit the Court's ability to indirectly review the merits of the EIB's board decisions, potentially creating a different standard of review compared to other EU institutions.

A joint submission by PARI, PSAM, TEI, and Corruption Watch regarding the Public Administration and Management Amendment Bill 2023, focusing on strengthening prohibitions against public sector employees conducting business with the state and improving financial disclosure and remuneration standards in South Africa.

The submission supports the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023's goal of professionalising public administration but argues that the Bill does not go far enough to prevent political interference. The authors propose clarifying the distinct roles of the President/Premier versus Ministers/MECs, strengthening the role of the Head of the Presidency in managing senior career paths, and introducing robust checks and balances in the appointment of Heads of Department (HODs). They specifically advocate for de-linking HOD tenure from political terms and extending prohibitions on holding political office to all public servants to prevent the 'strategic positioning of particular individuals in positions of power' used during state capture.

Germany's Federal Administrative Court overturned a lower court's decision, ruling that the German Environmental Legal Remedies Act (UmwRG) cannot be used to restrict the legal standing of environmental NGOs when such restrictions conflict with EU law and the Aarhus Convention. The court found that the NGO 'BUND Naturschutz' had standing to challenge a Bavarian ordinance reducing protected natural areas, citing the primacy of EU law and the Protocol on the Implementation of the Alpine Convention. This decision establishes that national laws restricting access to justice for environmental organizations must be disregarded if they prevent the protection of rights guaranteed by EU and international environmental law.

The Gauteng High Court dismissed a review application by Industrial Zone (Pty) Ltd, upholding the MEC's decision to require a stream to remain in its natural course rather than being diverted for a light industrial development. The court found the Department's decision to be rational and reasonable under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), while noting that the landowner maintains a duty to rehabilitate the stream.

The brief asserts that Defendants had actual knowledge of the catastrophic risks of fossil fuel combustion as early as the late 1950s, confirmed through internal research and industry-wide consensus. It details a coordinated strategy to manufacture doubt via public relations campaigns, funding of contrarian scientists, and the use of 'shadow groups' to undermine scientific consensus. The document highlights a contradiction where companies protected their own physical assets from sea-level rise while publicly denying such risks. Finally, it argues that current 'net zero' pledges and natural gas promotions constitute ongoing greenwashing and deception.

A coalition of environmental justice advocates, including Earthjustice and the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, submitted comments on the New Jersey DEP's proposed Environmental Justice (EJ) rules. The coalition argues for a narrow interpretation of the 'compelling public interest' exception, specifically opposing the use of economic benefits or job creation as justifications for permitting new polluting facilities in overburdened communities. They recommend expanding public notification radii to five kilometers, refining the definitions of 'new facility' and 'incinerator' to include technologies like pyrolysis and gasification, and adopting more sensitive air quality metrics based on WHO guidelines rather than EPA NAAQS. The document also emphasizes that race is the strongest predictor of pollution burden in New Jersey, citing historical redlining and systemic failures in DEP's permitting and enforcement processes as drivers of environmental racism.

This document contains joint comments submitted by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and seven other civil society organisations to the South African Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment (DFFE). The submission critiques the proposed 2022 regulations regarding financial provisioning for the mitigation and rehabilitation of environmental damage caused by extractive activities, arguing that the regulations should prioritise environmental protection and community rights over corporate profitability.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled that Australia violated the rights of indigenous Torres Strait Islanders to enjoy their culture and be free from arbitrary interference with their private life, family, and home due to inadequate climate change protections. The petitioners, inhabitants of Boigu, Poruma, Warraber, and Masig islands, argued that sea level rise and extreme weather destroyed ancestral graves, degraded traditional food sources, and threatened their cultural ceremonies. While Australia constructed new seawalls expected to be completed by 2023, the Committee found these measures insufficient and ordered Australia to compensate the Islanders, engage in meaningful consultations, and secure the communities' safe existence on their islands.

The Clean Air Task Force asserts that the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases remains intact following the West Virginia v. EPA decision, specifically regarding at-the-source technological controls for methane. The author advocates for a 65% reduction in methane emissions from the US oil and gas sector through measures such as frequent leak detection and repair (LDAR) inspections and a ban on routine flaring of associated gas.

The Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia v. EPA limits the EPA's ability to use 'generation shifting' as a basis for emission standards but preserves the agency's authority to mandate specific pollution control technologies. The decision also expands the 'major questions doctrine,' which may hinder federal agencies from addressing novel environmental problems without explicit congressional authorization.

The document details the legal challenge by Plan B Earth and others against the UK Government's Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) supporting a third runway at Heathrow Airport. The central dispute was whether the Secretary of State failed to account for the Paris Agreement under the Planning Act 2008 and the SEA Directive. While the Court of Appeal initially found the designation unlawful due to a failure to consider the Paris Agreement as 'Government policy', the UK Supreme Court ultimately reversed this decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of State had lawfully exercised discretion and that the Paris Agreement's obligations were sufficiently reflected in the Climate Change Act 2008.

The legal commentary details the attempts by the NGO Environment Jeunesse to launch a class action on behalf of Quebecers aged 35 and under, alleging that the Canadian Government's failure to set adequate greenhouse gas emission targets violated fundamental human rights. Both the Quebec Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the application. The Superior Court found the age limit of 35 to be "arbitrary" and "not objective". The Court of Appeal further ruled that the action was an attempt to compel legislative action, which would violate the doctrine of Separation of Powers, and noted that global warming affects the entire Canadian population, making the specific class composition difficult to justify. The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The document details a legal challenge brought by six Portuguese children against Portugal and 32 other European states before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The applicants argue that the states' failure to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C violates their rights to life, privacy, and protection from discrimination. The ECtHR has fast-tracked the case and, on its own initiative, included Article 3 (prohibiting inhuman and degrading treatment) as a possible violation due to the severity of climate impacts on the applicants.