Search Climate Insights Directory

The report uses a case study of Costa Rica's JI pilot projects to identify challenges in quantifying and verifying carbon sequestration, such as baselines and leakage. It argues that the CDM must integrate strong environmental and social safeguards, including public participation and benefit-sharing with local communities, to ensure sustainable development. The author proposes a phased evolution for the CDM, moving from project-specific credits to national baselines, and suggests limiting the use of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) to 1% of Annex I Parties' assigned amounts initially to prioritize domestic reductions.

The document outlines contrasting legal positions between major polluting States and a majority of other participants concerning the ICJ's Advisory Opinion on climate change. It focuses on whether the UN climate regime is the exclusive source of law, the binding nature of mitigation and adaptation obligations, the applicability of the transboundary harm principle, the role of human rights law, the rights of future generations, and the legal necessity of phasing out fossil fuels. It further examines the issues of State knowledge of climate risks since the 1960s, the possibility of attributing harm to specific States, and the resulting legal consequences, including reparations and cessation of harmful conduct.

The document argues that persons with disabilities are disproportionately vulnerable to climate change and are frequently overlooked in policy-making. It provides a reference guide of human rights obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and the Sendai Framework, alongside a compilation of UNFCCC decisions—including the Paris Agreement—that recognize the need to engage persons with disabilities in mitigation, adaptation, and capacity-building efforts.

The document asserts that the phaseout of fossil fuels is a legal requirement under customary international law, human rights law, the law of the sea, and climate treaties like the Paris Agreement. It argues that States must use all available means to prevent significant climate harm, including curbing fossil fuel production, licensing, and subsidies. The authors emphasize that developed States bear a higher burden of responsibility and must provide financial and technological support to developing nations for a just transition. Furthermore, the letter claims that climate obligations are 'erga omnes' and should take precedence over investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims.

The document asserts that the phase-out of fossil fuels is a legal requirement derived from customary international law, human rights law, environmental law, and the law of the sea. It emphasizes that states must employ all available means to prevent significant climate damage, prioritize emissions reduction at the source over speculative technologies, and ensure a just transition, particularly for the least developed countries and small island developing states. The authors argue that these obligations are 'erga omnes' and should prevail over investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms.

The document synthesizes the work of UN human rights treaty bodies (HRTBs) in addressing climate change, specifically focusing on Concluding Observations issued to States. It highlights that while climate change is not explicitly in key human rights treaties, HRTBs increasingly use their monitoring roles to argue that protecting human rights requires specific climate action. The report details recommendations across several themes, including the disproportionate impacts on women, children, and indigenous peoples, the need for gender-sensitive and child-sensitive climate strategies, and the obligation of some States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel extraction to meet human rights standards. It provides detailed analysis of the three most active bodies: CEDAW, CESCR, and CRC.

The document outlines the CESCR's monitoring of the ICESCR, highlighting how climate change threatens substantive rights such as the right to water, food, and health. It details the Committee's increasing use of Concluding Observations to urge States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, transition to renewable energy, and protect vulnerable groups, particularly indigenous peoples, from climate impacts.

The report outlines how the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) interprets the 1989 CRC Convention to protect children from climate change. It highlights that while the Convention implicitly protects rights to life, health, and education, the Committee has explicitly urged States to place children's health at the center of climate strategies and to ensure children's participation in decision-making. The document analyzes 24 Concluding Observations from the past decade, noting a trend of recommendations directed toward climate-vulnerable developing countries, focusing on adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and the integration of child-sensitive strategies into national plans.

The briefing counters arguments from 'big polluters' regarding the ICJ's climate advisory proceedings, asserting that the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement do not displace customary international law, human rights obligations, or the duty to prevent transboundary harm. It argues that states have a legal obligation to phase out fossil fuels to meet these duties and that historical emissions since the 1960s are legally relevant due to scientific foreseeability. The document concludes that states must be held responsible for climate-related injuries through cessation of wrongful conduct and reparations, which could include debt cancellation and ecosystem restoration.

The document serves as a reference tool to track the recognition of Indigenous Peoples' rights and traditional knowledge within the UNFCCC process, highlighting over 60 decisions and the establishment of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform.

The document advocates for a land-use planning framework that separates terrestrial carbon sequestration from industrial emission reductions due to the temporary nature of the former. It emphasizes that mitigation must prioritize food sovereignty, legally enforce the land rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, and avoid using land-sector targets to offset continued fossil fuel emissions. The paper critiques current Kyoto Protocol accounting as overly complex and prone to loopholes, suggesting instead the use of direct indicators like hectares of forest maintained. Specific recommendations include addressing high meat consumption and synthetic fertilizer use in developed countries to achieve permanent emission reductions in agriculture.

The briefing contends that addressing international drivers of deforestation is essential for the success of REDD+ and is legally permissible under both UNFCCC and WTO frameworks. It asserts that UNFCCC Article 3.5 does not prohibit trade-impacting measures as long as they are not arbitrary or disguised restrictions. Furthermore, it highlights that the WTO allows trade-related measures to protect the environment, specifically citing GATT Article XX exceptions for protecting life, health, and exhaustible natural resources. The authors point to at least fifteen existing Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) that incorporate trade measures as precedent, arguing that collective action within the UNFCCC would demonstrate the 'good faith negotiations' often required by WTO arbitration panels. The document concludes that ignoring international drivers due to perceived WTO conflicts risks 'leakage' and undermines the goal of halting forest loss.

The document argues that the UNFCCC has reached a 'critical breaking point' due to systemic failures in delivering climate justice and the undue influence of the fossil fuel industry. It proposes a shift from consensus-based to majority-based decision-making to prevent a few nations from blocking progress. The authors demand a strict Conflict of Interest Policy to exclude polluting industry lobbyists from official spaces and a 'rightsizing' of COPs to end their transformation into 'global trade fairs'. Additionally, the statement calls for enhanced compliance mechanisms for Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), greater transparency in negotiations to end 'closed doors' meetings, and the protection of human rights for participants. It suggests strengthening international climate governance by aligning the UNFCCC with the other Rio Conventions and pursuing complementary legal pathways, such as the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Global Plastics Treaty, to achieve a full fossil fuel phase-out.

The document analyzes the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, detailing the scientific consensus on global warming and the diplomatic tensions between industrialized and developing nations during its creation. It highlights the lack of binding emissions targets and the complexities of the financial mechanism and technology transfer.

The document examines how Peru's regulatory framework for the timber industry facilitates illegal logging, which in turn threatens the success of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) efforts. It highlights that illegal logging may account for up to 80% of exported timber and that 68.3% of supervised logging concessions have been cancelled or are under investigation for serious violations. The author argues that project-level improvements are insufficient to prevent 'leakage' (emissions shifting to other areas) or ensure 'permanence' (long-term emission reductions) without national-level legal reform and clearer international guidelines from the UNFCCC on Safeguard Information Systems (SIS).

The report argues that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) lacks substantive new environmental obligations and relies on enforcement mechanisms that have historically proven ineffective in other U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs). It highlights the absence of a reference to climate change and the elimination of independent oversight bodies, such as a Secretariat. Furthermore, the document identifies Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) as a significant threat, noting its potential to 'chill' environmental regulation and allow corporations to sue governments over public interest laws.

Over 400 scientists have called on Hill+Knowlton Strategies and its parent company WPP plc to drop fossil fuel clients, arguing that representing companies like Saudi Aramco and ExxonMobil is incompatible with the agency's role in leading public communications for the COP27 UN climate talks. The signatories claim the agency has enabled disinformation campaigns and that its clients' plans to increase production contradict the goals of the UNFCCC.

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 briefing argues that the EU must move beyond simply cleaning up its own supply chains to create 'win-win' Forest Partnerships with developing countries. These partnerships should address root causes of deforestation—such as poverty and weak land tenure—while supporting Indigenous Peoples, small-scale producers, and nature-based solutions to meet Paris Agreement and CBD objectives. The authors recommend leveraging the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) for funding and using 'Forest Diplomacy' to encourage other major consuming regions to adopt similar measures.

The Minerals and Mining Policy of Ghana outlines a strategic framework to balance mineral exploitation with sustainable economic, social, and environmental development. It details the transition from state-controlled mining (1957-1983) to a privatized sector, emphasizing the need to diversify the mineral base beyond gold, diamonds, manganese, and bauxite. The policy sets objectives to enhance local value addition, improve geo-scientific data, and support artisanal and small-scale mining, which is reserved for Ghanaian citizens. It establishes regulatory roles for agencies like the Minerals Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency, while committing to international climate goals, including the UNFCCC. Fiscal policies aim for a transparent regime that balances investor attraction with the optimization of government revenue, while social policies focus on community participation, sustainable livelihoods for displaced persons, and the prevention of child labour.