Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that Eskom's justifications for delaying emissions compliance—including plant decommissioning, water scarcity, and high costs—are untenable. The author contends that Eskom's capital expenditure estimates for air pollution controls are substantially inflated compared to similar projects in India and suggests alternative, lower-cost technologies like Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) and Selective Non-catalytic Reduction (SNCR) to achieve emissions reductions.

The document analyzes the case of Meepo v Kotze, focusing on the interpretation of section 5(4)(c) of the MPRDA. The court ruled that a prospecting rights holder must engage in a consultation process with the landowner after a prospecting right has been granted but before operations begin, which involves more than providing notice and requires an attempt to obtain the landowner's consent for entry. Additionally, the court established a general principle of interpretation for the MPRDA: where uncertainty exists, the court should prefer the construction that achieves the most rational balance between the rights of the mineral rights holder and the landowner, both of which are protected under the Bill of Rights.

The document examines a legal case where the New Heriot Gold Mining Company successfully sued the Union Government for damages after a railway embankment's failure to divert storm-water flooded its underground works. The court affirmed that while statutory authority provides some exemption from liability for water discharge, this does not cover works that are negligently executed or maintained. Notably, the court adopted a pragmatic approach to legal causation, ruling that the inability to mathematically apportion the exact volume of water caused by the state's negligence should not prevent a party from receiving relief.

The document examines a legal dispute between claimholders in the Du Toit’s Pan Mine in Griqualand West. The appellant, Reid, alleged that De Beers Consolidated Mines allowed water to overflow and flood his claims. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, ruling that there is no common law duty for a mining company to continue working a claim solely to prevent damage to another claimholder, and that the cessation of work does not inherently constitute negligence or a nuisance.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) argues that South African local governments must be empowered to procure renewable energy to meet constitutional obligations under Section 24 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a healthy environment. The CER contends that the current reliance on Eskom's coal-fired power stations causes significant health crises, including thousands of premature deaths and high greenhouse gas emissions. It asserts that renewable energy is now the most cost-effective option and that interpreting the Electricity Regulation Act (ERA) to allow municipal procurement is essential for a just energy transition and the realization of sustainable development.

The document describes a legal case where the Thabantsho Beneficiaries Association (TBA) successfully sued the Bakgaga Ba-Kopa Traditional Authority and trustees of the Bakgaga Ba-Kopa Motheo Trust. The dispute centered on the administration of trust monies, specifically monthly rentals of approximately R116,000 paid by Blue Ridge Platinum (Pty) Ltd for mining operations on community land. The court ordered the respondents to submit all trust records to the Master of the North Gauteng High Court and prohibited the use of trust funds until an audit was completed.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) asserts that trade liberalization in forest products, specifically through WTO tariff reductions and APEC non-tariff measure reviews, can intensify forest loss, degradation, and the introduction of alien species. CIEL argues that current international and national forest protection frameworks are inadequate to ensure sustainable trade. The document criticizes the USTR/CEQ review process as inadequate in duration and scope, urging the U.S. government to adopt formal environmental assessment procedures based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and to promote forest protection measures in tandem with trade liberalization.

The document provides legal arguments to support a lawsuit against the Panamanian National Environmental Authority (ANAM) regarding the Barro Blanco Hydroelectric Project. It contends that the project's EIA was approved without adequate consultation or the free, prior, and informed consent of the Ngäbe people, violating international human rights and environmental law. The brief highlights specific failures, including a single public forum conducted only in Spanish and the omission of critical data regarding indigenous territories adjacent to the Ngäbe-Buglé Comarca.

The Center for International Environmental Law and partner organizations argue that Executive Order 13141 must be implemented with the political will to fully integrate environmental considerations into the earliest stages of trade policy-making. They propose a structured, iterative review process triggered at every significant step of negotiations, from the contemplation of talks to ongoing implementation. The authors advocate for a broad analytical framework that considers global and transboundary impacts, cumulative effects of trade policy, and the evaluation of alternatives, including 'no-action' options. They emphasize the necessity of maximizing public participation to restore democratic accountability and insist that environmental agencies, rather than the USTR alone, maintain lead authority over technical environmental findings.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submits this brief to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) regarding Case 12.696. It contends that Chile's Agricultural and Livestock Service (SAG) provided incomplete and ambiguous information about GMO crops, failing to disclose specific planting locations and the identities of companies involved. The document argues that scientific uncertainty regarding GMO risks to human health and biodiversity necessitates a transparent regulatory framework and public participation. It supports its claims by citing international instruments like the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Aarhus Convention, as well as jurisprudence from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and the European Court of Justice, all of which emphasize the public's right to environmental information.

The petition argues that the arbitration over water and sanitation services in Greater Buenos Aires involves significant public interest and fundamental human rights, necessitating a transparent process and the inclusion of civil society perspectives. The authors contend that both Argentine law and international legal trends support the admission of amicus curiae and public access to proceedings, especially given the potential conflicts of interest arising from the World Bank Group's involvement in the privatization of the services in question.

CIEL argues that WIPO's response to the CBD must recognize the CBD's leading role in biodiversity and focus on creating mandatory international rules to prevent the misappropriation of genetic resources. The document criticizes the first draft for failing to emphasize the prevention of intellectual property system misuse and for not sufficiently incorporating the views of developing countries and NGOs. CIEL suggests that equitable principles, such as the 'unclean hands' doctrine, should be used to justify mandatory disclosure requirements and sanctions for non-compliance to ensure that intellectual property rights do not reward inequitable conduct.

The document provides a scientific and legal basis for the European Court of Human Rights to assess State due diligence regarding climate change. It emphasizes the urgency of limiting warming to 1.5°C to avoid irreversible damage and tipping points, noting that current global emissions trends are insufficient. It highlights severe health risks in Europe, including heat-related mortality, and argues that under the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC, States have a 'best efforts' obligation to pursue the highest possible ambition in emissions reductions. ClientEarth asserts that failure to meet international climate commitments constitutes a prima facie violation of human rights obligations, and that adaptation measures cannot substitute for necessary mitigation.

The document argues that clause 37(8) of the Environment Bill would severely undermine the efficacy of the environmental review process by imposing a mandatory restriction on the High Court's ability to grant remedies, even in cases of serious environmental law breaches.

The document argues that Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) are essential, self-standing legal obligations that must be conducted prior to the adoption of plans to effectively influence policy and assess cumulative climate impacts. It specifically contends that for fossil fuel projects, failing to assess 'downstream' emissions—which can exceed extraction emissions by up to 900%—renders an assessment partial and misleading. ClientEarth links these procedural requirements to the European Convention on Human Rights, asserting that fossil fuel extraction constitutes 'dangerous industrial activities' and that the principle of intergenerational equity requires the Court to consider the disproportionate risks posed to future generations and young people under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention.

The document asserts that the defendants had internal knowledge of the link between fossil fuels and global warming as early as the 1950s but spent decades funding disinformation and public relations strategies to manufacture doubt. It highlights a contradiction where companies publicly denied climate change while privately adjusting infrastructure, such as oil rigs and pipelines, to account for rising sea levels.

A group of over 30 law professors argues that the public trust doctrine (PTD) is an inherent attribute of state sovereignty that obligates Utah to protect the Great Salt Lake. The brief contends that Utah has violated this duty by failing to restrain upper basin water diversions, which have reduced the lake's footprint by half and threatened species extinction. The authors assert that the PTD applies not only to navigable waters but also to non-navigable tributaries and groundwater that sustain the lake, citing legal precedents from other Western states like California, Nevada, and Hawaii.

The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative submits that fossil fuel production is the primary driver of the climate emergency and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of human rights law. The brief contends that States have a duty of prevention to regulate, monitor, and phase out fossil fuels to protect fundamental rights, including the rights to life, health, and a healthy environment. It emphasizes differentiated obligations, arguing that wealthy, developed States must act first and provide support to less-developed nations. The document also advocates for a 'just transition' and increased transparency regarding fossil fuel reserves and production.

The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative submits that fossil fuel production is the primary driver of the climate emergency and directly violates numerous human rights, including the rights to life, health, and a healthy environment. The document argues that states have a legal duty under the American Convention on Human Rights to regulate, monitor, and ultimately phase out fossil fuel production. It emphasizes differentiated responsibilities, asserting that wealthy, developed nations must lead the phase-out and provide financial and technical support to less developed states. The brief further advocates for a 'just transition' that protects vulnerable populations and ensures transparency through active disclosure of fossil fuel production data.

The document argues that new transparency rules must avoid codifying the current secretive status quo and should ensure automatic, prompt disclosure of proceedings. It advocates for an 'opt-out' approach to maximize the rules' application to both future and existing treaties, while warning against broad tribunal discretion and 'opt-in' mechanisms that would limit openness. Specific recommendations include the mandatory publication of notices of arbitration, all tribunal documents, and final awards, as well as the establishment of a central repository for public access.