Search Climate Insights Directory

The document analyzes the denial of third-party participation in the Odyssey v. Mexico case, arguing that the tribunal's discretionary power to exclude affected communities undermines the legitimacy of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system and ignores critical environmental and human rights considerations.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, on behalf of the Life After Coal Campaign, submits a formal objection to the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy's draft Gas Master Plan Basecase Report. The submission argues that the plan is 'reckless and unnecessary', contradicting South Africa's constitutional obligations to protect citizens from climate change and ignoring energy modelling that suggests gas-to-power is not required for energy security.

Natural Justice argues that South Africa's Gas Master Plan perpetuates fossil fuel dependence and undermines the Just Energy Transition and the Global Methane Pledge. The organization highlights significant gaps in the plan regarding community compensation for land expropriation, the lack of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), and the failure to address fugitive methane emissions. Furthermore, it criticizes the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy for an inadequate public comment period and the absence of risk mitigation strategies for gas explosions or economic fluctuations.

Natural Justice argues that South Africa's Gas Master Plan is incompatible with the country's climate commitments and the Climate Change Bill. The submission highlights risks including fugitive methane emissions, fossil fuel dependency, and the potential for inadequate compensation for land expropriation. It calls for a transition toward renewable energy, the adoption of the 'free prior and informed consent' (FPIC) principle for affected communities, and a more transparent public participation process.

The statement criticizes the City of Denver for supporting a settlement with Xcel Energy that delays the retirement of the Comanche 3 coal plant until 2035 and allows continued use of fracked gas for at least 40 years. The author contends that this agreement contradicts Denver's goal of 100% renewable electricity by 2030 and harms vulnerable Latino communities in Pueblo and North Denver who suffer from pollution-related health issues.

ClientEarth warns Greater Manchester authorities that delaying or diluting the Clean Air Zone (CAZ) risks legal challenge and exacerbates public health crises. The region continues to report illegal nitrogen dioxide levels, contributing to an estimated 1,200 premature deaths annually. ClientEarth argues that the CAZ is the most effective tool for compliance and that economic or political concerns do not justify delaying health protections, particularly for low-income and minority communities who are disproportionately affected.

Reclaim Finance argues that the Climate Action 100+ Net Zero Company Benchmark remains flawed due to an excessive number of poorly prioritized indicators that focus on future commitments rather than immediate evidence of alignment. The organization calls on investors to use the tool selectively and link their voting and engagement policies to a more streamlined version of the benchmark.

The report argues that 'net zero' initiatives are being manipulated by 'Big Polluters' to create an illusion of climate action while continuing to expand fossil fuel portfolios. It specifically analyzes the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, the UN's High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) on Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities, and the Race to Zero campaign. The analysis highlights how leadership roles in these bodies are held by individuals and organizations with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry, such as executives from banks that provide billions in fossil fuel financing and lawyers representing oil majors. For instance, the report notes that member banks of the Race to Zero, Net-Zero Banking Alliance, and GFANZ invested over US$500 billion in fossil fuels in 2021, with 25% directed toward new expansion. The document concludes that these initiatives allow polluters to greenwash their business plans and avoid meaningful regulation.

Reclaim Finance challenges Crédit Agricole's commitment to net-zero goals, citing the bank's role as a top financier for companies like TotalEnergies and Saudi Aramco. The document questions the bank's failure to stop financing new oil and gas expansion, its inadequate exclusion policies for non-conventional fuels and Arctic projects, and its indirect support for the EACOP project. It also addresses the bank's ties to Russian fossil fuel activities, alleged infractions in its coal policy, and the voting behavior of its asset management subsidiary, Amundi, regarding the climate plans of oil majors.

The document opposes the renewal of the Title V permit for the Miami-Dade County Resources Recovery Facility (Covanta Incinerator). It argues that the draft permit fails to include necessary emission limitations from previous State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits, lacks adequate monitoring for pollutants and odors, and contains unlawful 'director discretion' provisions. The authors emphasize that the facility is located in an environmental justice community where 92% of the population are people of color and 36% live below the poverty line, exacerbating health risks from toxic emissions and greenhouse gases.

ClientEarth and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) have expressed serious concerns regarding the European Commission's revision of the State aid Guidelines on climate, environmental protection and energy (CEEAG). They argue that the Commission is favoring energy intensive users (EIUs) by potentially expanding aid eligibility to companies only 'at risk' of carbon leakage, rather than those at 'significant risk'. The authors contend that the risk of carbon leakage remains 'unproven' and that maintaining reductions in electricity levies for EIUs contradicts the European Green Deal and the Polluter Pays Principle. They advocate for 'Option E2' (the ETS list), which would restrict aid to 14 eligible sectors, resulting in an estimated 89% annual budget reduction and 'much lower competition distortions'. Additionally, the letter criticizes the Commission's governance, alleging a breach of EU jurisprudence by failing to make impact assessments publicly accessible before adopting proposals.

ClientEarth criticizes the Society of Lloyd’s ESG Guidance for being non-binding and lacking transparency, short-term targets, and a fossil fuel phase-out plan. The letter asserts that the Guidance represents a retreat from previous commitments and risks legal breaches regarding climate risk management and public disclosure.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) critiques the draft USAID Climate Strategy 2022-2030, arguing that it overlooks critical opportunities to address the climate crisis. CATF recommends that USAID support access to advanced clean energy technologies—such as clean hydrogen, advanced nuclear, and carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS)—which the draft strategy currently deems too early for investment. Additionally, CATF urges USAID to better integrate the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), specifically methane, to align with the Global Methane Pledge. Finally, the organization emphasizes that USAID must ensure its programs are consistent with the specific policy priorities and capacity needs of host countries to ensure successful implementation.

ClientEarth has issued a formal letter to Deloitte alleging that the firm is failing to demonstrate how it incorporates material climate risks into its audits of listed companies. The document asserts that existing standards from the IASB, IAASB, and FASB already require the consideration of climate-related matters. Referencing a report by Carbon Tracker and the Carbon Accounting Project, ClientEarth claims that Deloitte and other auditors are habitually failing to provide evidence of climate risk assessment, creating an information gap for investors and risking legal liability in jurisdictions such as the UK and US. The letter calls on Deloitte to review its audit practices, ensure consistency between financial statements and narrative climate commitments, and adopt Paris-aligned accounting assumptions.

ClientEarth asserts that KPMG and other auditors are failing to incorporate material climate-related financial risks into company audits, despite clear guidance from standard-setters like the IFRS Foundation and IAASB. Referencing a Carbon Tracker report, the letter highlights a systemic lack of transparency regarding climate-sensitive assumptions and a failure to align accounts with the Paris Agreement. ClientEarth warns that this creates a material information gap for investors and exposes KPMG to regulatory sanctions and legal liability in the UK and US.

ClientEarth asserts that EY and other auditors are failing to incorporate material climate-related financial risks into company audits, despite clear guidance from standard-setters like the IFRS Foundation and IAASB. Referencing a Carbon Tracker report, the letter highlights a systemic lack of transparency regarding climate-sensitive assumptions in financial statements. ClientEarth warns EY of potential legal and regulatory liabilities in the UK and US and calls for a comprehensive review of its audit practices for carbon-intensive firms.

ClientEarth has issued a formal letter to PwC alleging systemic failures in the audit of climate-related financial risks. The document asserts that existing IFRS, US GAAP, and IAASB standards already require the consideration of material climate risks, yet a report by Carbon Tracker indicates that PwC and other auditors frequently fail to demonstrate this scrutiny. ClientEarth warns that such failures create an information gap for investors and expose PwC to regulatory sanctions, shareholder claims, and potential criminal liability. The letter calls for a comprehensive review of PwC's audit practices for carbon-intensive companies and a commitment to using Paris-aligned accounting assumptions.

The document condemns the travel bans imposed by the US, EU, and Canada on Southern African countries after the detection of the Omicron variant, describing them as 'unjustified and lacking scientific basis'. It argues that these measures penalize South Africa for its scientific transparency and ignore the 'vaccine apartheid' that left Africa as the most under-vaccinated continent, with only 6.66% of its population fully vaccinated. The authors state that these restrictions cripple struggling economies, specifically impacting tourism which accounts for 3% of South Africa's GDP, 11% for Namibia, and 13% for Botswana. Furthermore, the text highlights the role of 'vaccine nationalism' and the refusal of the EU, Switzerland, and Japan to waive intellectual property rights for vaccines as structural failures in the global pandemic response.

The document argues that offshore seismic surveying is fundamentally damaging to marine ecosystems and contradicts South Africa's COP26 commitments to transition from hydrocarbons to renewables. The authors highlight legal deficiencies in the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) that allow these surveys to bypass full environmental impact assessments and criticize the outdated Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) used for Shell Oil's surveys off the Transkei Coast. They call for a halt to all planned surveys, a review of EIA regulations, and the commissioning of a Strategic Environmental Assessment for the South African Exclusive Economic Zone.

The statement critiques 'Nature-based Solutions' (NbS) as a deceptive framework used by governments and corporations to justify 'net zero' targets without implementing deep emission reductions. It asserts that NbS rely on flawed assumptions about carbon sequestration and risk triggering massive land grabs in the Global South, citing the example of ENI in Mozambique. The author calls for structural changes, immediate emission cuts by developed nations, and the protection of Indigenous rights over market-based environmental schemes.