Search Climate Insights Directory

Milieudefensie, an association representing 80,000 members, asserts that Royal Dutch Shell plc is legally liable for its substantial contribution to global climate change. The document claims Shell has been aware of the causal link between fossil fuels and global warming since at least 1986, yet continues to prioritize oil and gas growth over sustainable energy. Milieudefensie demands that Shell align its investment decisions with the Paris Agreement, phase out oil and gas production, and reduce scope 3 emissions to zero by 2050. The letter argues that Shell's current strategy—which assumes fossil fuels will meet over 50% of energy demand by 2050—is unlawful under Dutch law and violates human rights. It further alleges that Shell has engaged in misleading PR and lobbying to obstruct climate policies in the EU and US.

The report 'A Crack in the Shell' by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) uses internal documents to demonstrate that Royal Dutch Shell had early and urgent notice of climate risks associated with fossil fuels. It highlights a dichotomy between Shell's internal scientific understanding—which acknowledged the link between CO2 and global warming as early as the 1950s and 60s—and its public efforts to sow doubt through industry groups like the Global Climate Coalition and the American Petroleum Institute. The document further argues that Shell continues this pattern by promoting the 'Sky Scenario' to appear aligned with the Paris Agreement while continuing to invest in fossil fuel expansion, including in the Arctic.

The document argues that the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines has the jurisdiction to investigate 'Carbon Majors'—major fossil fuel and cement producers—for their role in climate change. It asserts that these companies contributed significantly to global warming despite knowing the risks, thereby violating fundamental human rights including the rights to life, health, food, and water. The amici argue that under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the 'Polluter Pays' principle, these corporations are accountable for the resulting damages. The text also outlines state obligations under international law and the Public Trust Doctrine to protect citizens from environmental harm and to seek natural resource damages for atmospheric recovery.

The document argues that the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines has the jurisdiction to investigate the 'Carbon Majors'—major fossil fuel companies—for their role in driving climate change and subsequent human rights violations. It asserts that these companies knew of the climate risks associated with their products for decades but promoted misinformation. The briefs argue that climate change threatens fundamental rights in the Philippines, including the rights to life, health, food, and water, and that these companies should be held accountable under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the 'Polluter Pays' principle.

The document describes Exxon's legal strategy of initiating discovery processes in Texas against public officials and attorneys from California and Massachusetts. The author characterizes these actions as intimidation tactics designed to disrupt lawsuits filed by California jurisdictions against fossil fuel producers for their role in the climate crisis. It highlights previous failed attempts by Exxon to claim a conspiracy involving NGOs and prosecutors in New York and Massachusetts, and argues that the company is attempting to use municipal bond disclosures to allege fraud against the cities suing it.

The report synthesizes documentary evidence to show that major oil and gas companies were aware of the climate risks associated with their products as early as the 1950s. It argues that these companies had the capacity to foresee harms and the opportunity to mitigate them through technology and public warnings, but instead engaged in coordinated campaigns to sow scientific doubt. The document links this conduct to legal frameworks of responsibility in tort and human rights law, noting that attribution science now allows for the quantification of specific corporate contributions to global climate impacts.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) informs the South African Department of Energy that the Thabametsi and Khanyisa coal-fired power stations, both preferred bidders under the Coal Baseload IPP Procurement Programme (CBIPPPP), and the proposed KiPower station do not meet the legal qualification criteria for financial close. The CER highlights that a North Gauteng High Court ruling established that a full climate change impact assessment (CCIA) is a necessary part of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for coal-fired plants. Thabametsi's CCIA indicated the plant would be one of the highest greenhouse gas emitters in the country and faces high water availability risks. Khanyisa and KiPower have failed to conduct CCIAs. The letter also notes that these projects are located in the water-stressed Olifants River Catchment and the Highveld Priority Area, where air quality is out of compliance with health standards. The CER requests clarification on whether the financial close deadline has been suspended pending the updated Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and Integrated Energy Plan (IEP).

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) has challenged the Development Bank of Southern Africa's (DBSA) financing of the Thabametsi coal-fired power plant. The CER highlights a March 2017 North Gauteng High Court ruling that suspended the project's environmental authorisation because climate change impacts were not adequately considered. The CER notes that Thabametsi's own assessments indicate it would be one of South Africa's highest greenhouse gas emitters and faces high water availability risks. The document argues that financing new coal projects contradicts the DBSA's stated goals of supporting a low-carbon economy and its status as a UN Green Climate Fund entity, warning that the plant is likely to become a stranded asset given South Africa's commitments under the Paris Agreement.

The brief contends that a stable climate system is a necessary precondition for the exercise of fundamental rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property. It supports this position by citing international agreements, including the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC, as well as jurisprudence from foreign courts and U.S. state constitutions that link environmental health to human rights.

ClientEarth warns BP directors of potential lawsuits under the UK shareholder compensation framework if BP's claim that its base case is the "most likely path for energy to 2035" is found to be misleading or reckless, especially if internal evidence contradicts this public statement.

ClientEarth argues that the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines has the jurisdiction to investigate the Carbon Majors because climate change threatens fundamental civil and political rights. The brief asserts that there is a linear causal relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, and that the Carbon Majors' emissions have contributed significantly to this process. It recommends that the Philippine government ratify the Paris Agreement and that the Carbon Majors publish business plans aligned with a warming limit of well below 2 degrees Celsius, in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

The document argues that a shift in US climate policy under Donald Trump increases financial risks for investors and businesses, regardless of whether the US formally withdraws from the Paris Agreement. It identifies three primary risk categories: physical risks from increased global emissions, transition risks as the global shift to a low-carbon economy continues, and policy/legal risks including unpredictable litigation. The briefing concludes by recommending that the business community publicly pressure the US administration to maintain its climate commitments and stay in the Paris Agreement.

The brief examines the application of transitional justice mechanisms to climate change, arguing that while litigation and amnesties are currently used, neither is sufficient alone. It suggests that legal pressure can force recognition of injustices, while amnesties may secure the cooperation of powerful actors, but both require integration with reparations, truth-seeking, and institutional reform to maintain long-term political legitimacy.

A group of legal scholars supports California SB 1161, which would revive certain civil claims under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) related to climate science misinformation. The authors argue that fossil fuel companies may have misled the public about climate risks as early as the 1950s and that the bill's time-limited revival of causes of action is a reasonable way to ensure these cases are decided on their merits rather than being barred by the statute of limitations.

CIEL President Carroll Muffett supports the collaboration of US state Attorneys General in investigating fossil fuel companies for climate deception, noting that five jurisdictions—New York, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, and the US Virgin Islands—have confirmed investigations into Exxon.

The report examines the systemic risk posed by credit rating agencies' failure to account for climate change in their methodologies. It argues that by assuming a 'business-as-usual' scenario of $\ge 4^{\circ}C$ warming rather than a dynamic trajectory aligned with a $2^{\circ}C$ goal, agencies are artificially inflating the credit ratings of fossil fuel projects. Using a case study of the Adani Abbot Point Terminal in Australia, the document demonstrates how generic project finance methodologies ignore risks such as stranded assets, decreased coal demand, and physical climate impacts. The report concludes that this failure not only threatens global financial stability by creating a 'carbon bubble' but also exposes rating agencies to significant legal liability under the Dodd-Frank Act and common law.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) faces significant legal, financial, and reputational risks due to its investments in fossil fuel companies. CIEL highlights that GPFG invests in 44 of the 90 'Carbon Majors' responsible for 63% of industrial greenhouse gas emissions from 1854-2010, increasing the likelihood of successful climate change litigation. The document specifically calls for immediate divestment from coal, citing the industry's financial decline, systemic demand drops in the US, and severe environmental and human rights abuses in India and China. Furthermore, CIEL asserts that continued fossil fuel investment contradicts Norway's international obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its commitment to inter-generational equity.

The letter warns BHP Billiton's leadership that funding climate denial and obstructing climate action may lead to personal civil or criminal litigation and impact Directors and Officers (D&O) liability insurance coverage.

The letter argues that fossil fuel companies responsible for the majority of global industrial emissions may have funded climate denial and disseminated misleading information, potentially exposing their directors and officers to personal civil or criminal litigation risks that could impact D&O insurance coverage.

The workshop explored how the tobacco industry's history of disinformation and the subsequent legal breakthroughs—specifically the discovery of internal documents—could inform strategies to hold fossil fuel companies accountable. Participants discussed various legal avenues, including public nuisance and RICO lawsuits, the scientific challenges of attributing specific climate damages to individual producers, and the need for a compelling public narrative to move beyond scientific evidence and mobilize public action.