Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines how global warming threatens fundamental human rights—including the rights to food, water, health, and housing—and explores the legal frameworks available for redress. It reviews international environmental law, the outcomes of the 2009 Copenhagen Conference, and existing jurisprudence from human rights tribunals. The authors argue that climate-related harms are not 'new territory' for litigation but fit within established legal principles. The paper specifically evaluates the CESCR's current work and proposes eleven recommendations to better anchor climate change in the Committee's state reporting, general comments, and the use of its Optional Protocol for individual and inter-state complaints.

Earthjustice successfully sued to stop the Seminole Electric Cooperative from building a new coal plant in Palatka, Florida, after the company understated projected air pollution levels. This action prevented the last planned coal plant in the state from being built and led the company to explore alternatives, including a potential 1 to 5 megawatt solar energy project in southwest Florida supported by federal clean-energy bonds.

Friends of the Earth welcomes the Supreme Court's decision to review a 2003 EPA ruling that denied the agency's authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The organization argues that the lack of regulation has coincided with a 16 percent increase in global warming emissions since 1990 and contributed to severe weather events and economic losses, such as the $57.6 billion in insurance losses from 2005 hurricanes.

Earthjustice and a coalition of organizations successfully challenged the Bush-era EPA's 2003 denial of a petition to limit carbon emissions from cars and trucks. This led to the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which defined carbon emissions as "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act and required the EPA to set limits if they threaten public health or welfare. Consequently, the EPA determined in 2009 that carbon pollution endangers the public and established the first federal carbon pollution limits for vehicles in 2010, a move upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2012.

The authors propose using the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to hold the United States accountable for climate change impacts on the Inuit. They argue that U.S. emissions, representing approximately 25% of global totals, have caused sea ice retreat and permafrost thaw, threatening Inuit culture and violating rights such as the right to life, health, and property. While the IACHR cannot mandate emission cuts or compensation, a formal finding of human rights violations would provide moral and political leverage and support future litigation.

The document advocates for banning fossil fuel advertisements to prevent the industry from using greenwashing and disinformation to maintain its 'social license to operate'. It highlights existing partial bans in France and efforts in 10 countries, including Australia, Canada, Ireland, and South Africa, as well as over 50 cities. The text compares the fossil fuel industry to the tobacco industry, suggesting that similar regulatory tools are needed to protect public health and enable climate action. It also discusses the role of litigation, corporate campaigns like Clean Creatives, and the targeting of advertising finances to dismantle the industry's influence on public opinion.

The synopsis asserts that the petroleum industry was unequivocally warned of climate change by 1968 and that internal documents from companies like Exxon show a stark contrast between their internal scientific certainty and their public campaigns of disinformation. It highlights that while these companies protected their own infrastructure from rising sea levels and warming, they funded 'AstroTurf' organizations and misinformation plans to ensure the public viewed climate science as uncertain. The document also notes that attribution science now allows for the tracing of specific climate impacts to individual companies, providing a legal basis for accountability.

The document examines the increasing risk of climate-related lawsuits against fossil fuel companies and utilities, focusing on how these risks impact directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance. It highlights the potential for shareholder and derivative suits based on financial non-disclosures and the evolving standard of care for corporate leadership. A central concern is the use of 'pollution exclusions' by insurers to deny coverage for climate-related claims, which could leave directors and officers personally liable for damages.

The document presents a collection of statements from legal experts and policy advisors asserting that international law, supported by rulings from bodies such as the International Court of Justice, requires states to phase out fossil fuels to prevent climate harm and protect human rights.

The document argues that a small number of fossil fuel and cement producers, termed 'Carbon Majors', are responsible for a significant portion of global greenhouse gas emissions and the subsequent climate crisis. It details how these entities' activities and disinformation campaigns have led to severe human rights violations, particularly in the Philippines, where climate-induced disasters like Typhoon Haiyan have caused immense loss of life and livelihood. The text leverages international human rights law, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the 'Carbon Majors' study to establish a framework for corporate accountability and legal liability for climate damages.

The report argues that many high-emitting governments knew about the link between fossil fuel combustion and global warming as early as the 1960s, triggering legal duties to prevent harm long before the 1990s. It uses a timeline of scientific milestones and country-specific evidence to challenge claims by States that awareness only emerged in the late 1980s, linking this knowledge to the 'no-harm' principle of customary international law.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) has developed a Climate Risk Assessment Letter to help pension fund beneficiaries engage trustees on the management of climate-related financial risks. The guide argues that failing to monitor these risks—which include regulatory, technology, and litigation risks—may constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. It highlights that global financial institutions and some national funds, such as those in Norway and Ireland, are already reassessing or divesting from fossil fuel assets to protect long-term returns.

The document argues that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is a viable forum for indigenous Arctic peoples to seek redress for global warming impacts, such as melting sea ice and thawing permafrost, which threaten their rights to life, health, property, and culture. While the Commission cannot force emissions reductions or compensation, a formal finding of human rights violations would provide a legal basis for accountability and increase global pressure on major emitters like the United States.

The report argues that the climate crisis is a human rights crisis, creating a legal obligation for States and corporations to provide effective remedy and reparations. It critiques the UNFCCC's voluntary approach to loss and damage, highlighting how it fails to uphold human rights standards and is hampered by debt injustice in the Global South. The document outlines legal pathways through international courts (ICJ, ITLOS, IACtHR) and national litigation to enforce accountability. Finally, it proposes six guiding principles for climate reparations—victim-centric, inclusive, intersectional, adequate, accountable, and trackable—drawing on lessons from other large-scale harm mechanisms.

Clean Creatives warns shareholders of Interpublic Group and Omnicom that their proposed merger consolidates significant risks linked to fossil fuel clients, including legal liabilities, reputational damage, and future revenue losses as energy markets transition.

The report details how fossil fuel companies have historically used advertising to spread climate disinformation and currently engage in 'greenwashing' to mislead consumers about their transition to clean energy. It highlights a surge in global climate litigation, noting that as of May 2021, there were 1,841 cases across 39 countries. The document warns advertising agencies that they are not immune to litigation and may face talent loss or financial penalties for their complicity in these campaigns. It provides case studies of legal actions against BP, Shell, and other 'Big Oil' companies to illustrate the growing trend of holding polluters accountable for deceptive trade practices and human rights violations.

This report details ten landmark climate change cases across different countries, highlighting how courts are holding governments and corporations accountable. Key examples include the Urgenda case in the Netherlands, which established a state's legal duty to increase climate ambition, and the Milieudefensie v. Shell case, which held a private company liable for inadequate emissions reductions. The document explores diverse legal strategies, including human rights obligations, fiduciary duties of corporate boards, and the necessity of climate considerations in environmental impact assessments.

The document argues that the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is incompatible with EU law and climate goals, citing the CJEU ruling in Case C-741/19 (Republic of Moldova v Komstroy) which found ECT ISDS provisions inapplicable to intra-EU disputes. It highlights the risk that investment tribunals may ignore this ruling and notes that the ECT modernization process is unlikely to succeed due to the requirement for unanimity among contracting parties. The author points to lawsuits by RWE and Uniper against the Netherlands over coal phase-out decisions, seeking over 2.4 billion euros, as evidence that the ECT hinders climate action. Consequently, the document calls for a coordinated EU withdrawal from the ECT and the use of an 'inter se' agreement to eliminate obligations that persist after withdrawal.

ClientEarth advocates for the implementation of comprehensive framework climate laws (FCLs) to bridge the gap between political ambition in NDCs and domestic action. The brief highlights that current climate commitments are insufficient, with a projected temperature rise of 2.4°C to 2.6°C even if existing NDCs are met. It calls on countries to submit science-driven NDCs by February 2025 and to enshrine these in binding national laws by COP30. The document also details recent international legal precedents from the ICJ, ITLOS, and ECHR that strengthen the legal obligations of states to protect human rights and the environment from climate harm.

The report advocates for the use of legal frameworks to bridge the gap between climate ambition and action following the COP28 Global Stocktake. It calls for the enactment of comprehensive national framework climate laws by COP30, the operationalisation of the loss and damage fund with a human rights focus, and a legally mandated phase-out of fossil fuels. ClientEarth emphasizes the role of international courts in clarifying state obligations and suggests adopting demand-reduction strategies for fossil fuels similar to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to combat greenwashing.