Search Climate Insights Directory

The case involved Mark McVeigh, a member of the Retail Employees Superannuation Trust (REST), who alleged that the fund violated the Corporations Act 2001 and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 by failing to provide information on climate change business risks and lacking a sufficiently developed climate policy. McVeigh argued that a prudent trustee should ensure investment management and risk disclosure comply with Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations. The Federal Court of Australia recognized the litigation as being of a "public interest nature" due to the socially significant role of superannuation trusts regarding climate change. The parties reached a settlement on 2 February 2010, where REST acknowledged climate change as a "material, direct and current financial risk" and committed to implementing strategies to manage these risks and pursuing a net-zero carbon footprint by 2050 in line with TCFD.

Natural Justice submitted comments on the draft Climate Change Bill (B9-2022) to the South African Portfolio Committee on Environment, Forestry and Fisheries on 27 May 2022. The organization argues that the Bill lacks the urgency required to address the climate crisis, fails to set ambitious emission reduction targets, and provides insufficient protections for constitutional rights and vulnerable communities.

Natural Justice provides a detailed critique of Mozambique's preliminary draft Forestry Bill (April 2022), arguing that the document functions more as an economic instrument for logging and trade than a tool for environmental protection. The organization highlights critical gaps in the bill regarding sustainable forest management, community rights, biodiversity protection, and the prevention of institutional corruption.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), on behalf of the Life After Coal Campaign (LAC), submitted comments on the Second Amendment Bill of the Electricity Regulation Act (ERA) 94 of 2006. The CER argues that the amendments fail to integrate climate change obligations and a just transition, while granting excessive discretionary power to the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy. The submission calls for stronger regulatory oversight by NERSA, increased transparency in licensing and procurement, and the protection of public participation rights in line with PAJA and PAIA.

The document argues that South Africa's environmental governance of mining is hindered by a "perilous lack of clarity" resulting from an unsynchronised transition to the 'One Environmental System'. This legislative obscurity is exemplified by the legal dispute over whether Shell's 2014 exploration right required a NEMA environmental authorisation in addition to an MPRDA-approved Environmental Management Programme (EMPr). The author contends that the current framework creates a "legislative vacuum" and risks environmental degradation by placing enforcement responsibility within the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy, whose primary mandate is to promote mining.

The brief asserts that gas appliances release harmful pollutants, including nitrogen dioxide (NO2), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and carbon monoxide (CO), which lead to respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses. It highlights that indoor pollution levels can be significantly higher than outdoor levels and that vulnerable populations, particularly children and communities of color, are disproportionately affected. Furthermore, it argues that gas appliances contribute to outdoor air pollution and climate change through the emission of criteria pollutants and methane, with methane leaks from stoves and water heaters potentially reaching 110 Gg per year. The document concludes that building electrification is a critical public health intervention that can provide substantial monetized health benefits, estimated at $3.5 billion annually for California.

Natural Justice argues that proposed amendments to the s24H Registration Authority Regulations under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) would create prohibitive financial and procedural barriers for the public. Specifically, the requirement that only a registered environmental assessment practitioner (EAP) may perform tasks related to appeals under section 43 of NEMA would effectively bar impoverished communities and landowners from appealing Environmental Authorisations (EAs) and subsequently seeking judicial review. The organization contends this violates the constitutional right to procedurally fair administrative action and undermines South Africa's Just Energy transition by complicating the oversight of large-scale solar and wind energy projects.

The document is an amicus curiae application and submission in the case of Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. United Mexican States. The applicants argue that the Don Diego Project, which involves dredging 91 thousand hectares of the Gulf of Ulloa seabed to extract phosphate rock, would cause irreversible ecological damage and violate human rights. They contend that the Mexican State's decision to deny the environmental permit is supported by the precautionary principle and obligations under UNCLOS, the Rio Declaration, and various human rights treaties, including the ICESCR and the American Convention on Human Rights.

The amicus curiae brief argues that the Mexican state was obligated to deny the environmental permit for the Don Diego project due to severe risks to the marine ecosystem of the Golfo de Ulloa and the human rights of local fishing communities. The authors contend that the project, which involves dredging 91,000 hectares of the seabed to extract 7 million tons of phosphate rock annually, would cause irreversible biodiversity loss and contaminate the area with radioactive elements like uranium and thorium. They assert that the precautionary principle and international treaties—including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the American Convention on Human Rights—mandate the protection of the environment and the right to work and health for the 128 families of the Puerto Chale Cooperative and other regional residents.

The document argues that the draft regulations fail to sufficiently protect the state and affected communities from the costs of mine abandonment. It calls for a shift from 'agreed' to 'approved' closure objectives, the inclusion of 'sustainable end use' to address socio-economic inequality and land reform, and the removal of high-risk financial vehicles like parent company guarantees. It specifically highlights regulatory gaps in tailings reprocessing and the environmental risks of seismic surveys in the oil and gas sector.

The document provides evidence that major fossil-fuel companies had internal knowledge of anthropogenic climate change as early as the 1950s and 1960s, yet spent decades funding disinformation to manufacture public doubt. It details how these companies protected their own infrastructure from sea-level rise while publicly denying the science, and argues that current 'greenwashing' and 'carbon footprint' narratives continue this pattern of deception.

The brief contends that fossil fuel companies have engaged in a long-term strategy of deception, shifting from explicit denial to framing climate change as a manageable 'risk' and shifting responsibility to individual consumers. It provides evidence that companies like BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell promote themselves as clean energy leaders while maintaining massive investments in fossil fuels and funding third-party organizations to undermine climate science.

The document examines a landmark Australian Federal Court ruling where Justice Mordecai Bromberg found that the Federal Environment Minister owes a duty of care to young people to protect them from the climate crisis. While the court did not grant an injunction against the expansion of the Vickery coal mine, the ruling establishes a precedent for climate-based litigation under the law of negligence and requires the government to consider the impacts of climate change on youth when approving fossil fuel projects.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted comments on June 7, 2021, regarding the draft Regulations for the use of water for gas exploration and production in South Africa. While welcoming the goal of protecting water resources, the CER argues that the draft regulations are insufficient to protect surface and underground water from the risks of hydraulic fracturing and underground coal gasification (UCG), particularly in the context of climate change.

The document provides technical and legal arguments to support the suspension of the Granja Porcícola Homun, a large-scale swine operation in the Yucatan Peninsula. It asserts that such 'mega-farms' pose severe risks to water quality, air quality, and public health, specifically through the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The authors argue that under the precautionary principle and international law, the burden of proof should shift to the state and operator to prove the absence of danger, rather than requiring affected citizens—including indigenous Maya children—to prove certain harm before preventative measures are taken.

The author argues that the Supreme Court of Canada's focus on federal-provincial jurisdiction in its carbon price review erased critical Indigenous perspectives on sovereignty and climate justice. While the Court acknowledged that Indigenous peoples face disproportionate climate impacts, it failed to address arguments that Canada is not merely a bi-juridical state of federal and provincial powers, but one that must respect Indigenous laws and nation-to-nation relationships for reconciliation.

The brief contends that the IFC's commercial activities are fundamentally linked to its environmental and social (E&S) due diligence, and that granting the IFC immunity from lawsuits regarding project harms creates an 'accountability gap'. The authors argue that the risk of litigation would not 'chill' financing but would instead incentivize the IFC to improve its E&S compliance and grievance mechanisms. They provide data suggesting that only a small fraction of IFC projects result in formal complaints, countering the 'floodgates' argument used to justify immunity.

The document argues for a broad interpretation of 'legitimate interest' in environmental litigation, asserting that any person with a link to a vulnerable ecosystem service—even if indirect or remote—should have legal standing. It specifically applies this to the expansion of the Port of Veracruz, detailing how the project threatens the Veracruz Reef System (SAV) through sedimentation, destruction of coastal dunes, water pollution, and air degradation, thereby violating the human right to a healthy environment.

The CJEU clarified that project consents granted based on plans or programmes that bypassed the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive must generally be annulled, regardless of whether construction has already started. The Court reaffirmed that exceptions to this rule—such as avoiding an environmental legal vacuum or ensuring the security of energy supply—must be interpreted narrowly and cannot be used to justify the continued operation of a limited number of wind turbines.

The text asserts that because electricity generation is a primary source of greenhouse gas emissions, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) should use its authority as an economic regulator to address the CO2 externality. It argues that carbon pricing is not merely an environmental issue but a core market concern necessary for a functional and efficient interstate transmission and wholesale electricity market.