Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that transnational corporations (TNCs) like Chevron, Total, and Shell maintain a 'global architecture of impunity' through sophisticated lobbying networks that capture international governance. It specifically highlights the role of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) in influencing the UN Human Rights Council's negotiations for a binding treaty on TNCs and human rights. The document details environmental and human rights violations in the Global South, including oil pollution in Ecuador and Nigeria, and fossil fuel projects in Uganda and Mozambique, while demanding the exclusion of corporate lobbyists from treaty negotiations to ensure accountability.

The report argues that TNCs like Chevron, Total, and Shell maintain a 'system of impunity' by leveraging powerful lobbying organizations, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), to shape international law. It documents severe human rights and environmental abuses linked to these companies in Ecuador, Mozambique, Uganda, Nigeria, and Palestine. The document specifically critiques the current UN negotiation process for the Binding Treaty, claiming that the inclusion of corporate lobbyists as 'stakeholders' creates a conflict of interest that dilutes accountability mechanisms and prioritizes corporate profit over human rights and planetary health.

The document advocates for South Korea to set a 2035 emissions reduction target of at least 61% relative to 2018 levels to ensure alignment with its 2050 carbon neutrality goal. It emphasizes that a credible NDC must be supported by sectoral pathways in power, industry, and transport to provide the policy certainty required to unlock private sector investment. Key recommendations include phasing out coal power by 2035, reforming the Korea Emissions Trading System (K-ETS) to increase carbon price signals, and accelerating the deployment of breakthrough technologies like hydrogen steelmaking and electrified steam crackers. The briefing also stresses the importance of structured collaboration between the government, businesses of all sizes, and subnational authorities to ensure the NDC is investible and implementable.

ClientEarth advocates for the UK government to mandate the development, disclosure, and implementation of transition plans aligned with the Paris Agreement. The organization argues that a 'comply or explain' framework is insufficient and that mandatory requirements are necessary to prevent 'greenwashing' and 'say-do gaps'. It specifically highlights the need for pension schemes to manage systemic climate risk through Paris-aligned anchors and robust stewardship. ClientEarth further asserts that legal risks for directors are often overstated due to the 'dishonesty standard' in English law, and that alignment with the 1.5°C goal is essential for the UK to fulfill its international obligations following the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion.

The report examines climate litigation in the oil and gas sectors of Latin America and the Caribbean, highlighting a strong reliance on human rights and constitutional frameworks. While the region leads the Global South in climate cases, it faces significant barriers including institutional weaknesses, violence against environmental defenders, and a gap in scientific evidence. The study contrasts these with Global North trends, such as 'climate washing' and corporate-focused lawsuits, and discusses the potential for transnational litigation to hold Northern companies accountable for Southern impacts.

The submission argues that South Africa's draft second NDC lacks sufficient ambition and fails to reflect the 'highest possible ambition' required by the Paris Agreement. It proposes more stringent emission targets—350 Mt CO2e for 2025-2030 and 248 Mt CO2e for 2031-2035—based on 'fair share' calculations and the best available science. The document highlights legal risks under the South African Constitution, the Climate Change Act, and NEMA, while criticizing the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) for a non-transparent process that delayed the release of the underlying technical report. It further calls for a stronger focus on phasing out fossil fuels, enhancing climate adaptation for vulnerable groups, and incorporating climate justice principles from the Presidential Climate Commission's recommendations.

The briefing evaluates the draft second NDC from the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) and the recommendations from the Presidential Climate Commission (PCC), arguing that the DFFE's targets lack sufficient ambition and scientific justification compared to the PCC's evidence-based approach.

The Francophone court of first instance in Brussels ruled that the Belgian federal government and the regional governments of Wallonia, Brussels, and Flanders breached their duty of care under the Belgian Civil Code and violated Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court found this breach was based on ineffective climate governance, mixed results in emission reductions, and ignored warnings from the European Union. However, the court rejected the plaintiffs' request to set specific binding emission targets, citing the principle of separation of powers. The case is currently pending following an appeal filed on 17 November 2021.

The document examines how climate change is creating a home insurance crisis in the U.S., characterized by skyrocketing premiums and widespread policy non-renewals. It asserts that 'Big Oil' companies, who knew about the risks of fossil fuels as early as 1954, are responsible for these conditions. The report highlights specific state-level crises in Florida, California, and Hawaiʻi, and advocates for policy solutions—such as subrogation and legislative surcharges—to shift the financial burden from policyholders to the fossil fuel industry.

The authors contend that the ICJ has a legal and moral imperative to name fossil fuels as the root cause of climate change and mandate their phase-out. They argue that international law, including the transboundary harm and precautionary principles, requires States to constrain fossil fuel production and hold corporate polluters accountable. The text highlights recent advisory opinions from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) as precedents for a heightened due diligence standard regarding climate emissions. The authors criticize the political reluctance within the UNFCCC and the UN Human Rights Council to explicitly mention fossil fuels, asserting that legal clarity from the ICJ is necessary to overcome political paralysis and protect human rights, particularly for climate-vulnerable Pacific Island States.

A letter from Oregon's congressional delegation requesting the repeal of Executive Order 14260, which they argue illegally undermines the sovereignty of states and localities to pursue tort cases against oil and gas companies for climate deception and pollution.

A group of state Attorneys General requests that the U.S. Department of Justice recommend legislation to shield energy companies from climate-related liability and restrict federal funding for states pursuing climate lawsuits. The authors argue that such "climate lawfare" undermines national security and economic prosperity by targeting traditional energy resources like oil, natural gas, and coal.

The document reports on a significant shift in the oil market as OPEC+ increases production, leading to lower prices and potential decline in US shale output. It highlights a landmark German court ruling establishing that high-emitting companies can be held liable for climate damages and discusses various challenges facing the LNG and gas power sectors globally, alongside regulatory uncertainties for hydrogen in the US and EU.

The brief analyzes rate hikes by State Farm in California, noting that an approved 17% increase will raise average premiums by $737 by 2025, and a requested further 11% increase could raise them by $1,015 by 2026 compared to 2023. It highlights extreme increases in high-risk zip codes, such as Calabasas, and argues that the fossil fuel industry is responsible for the climate-fueled disasters driving these costs.

The 2025 Climate Litigation Lab, hosted by Surge Africa and partners, addressed the systemic use of SLAPP suits by corporations and governments to intimidate climate activists in Africa. The event resulted in the launch of an Africa-specific SLAPP Toolkit and the development of strategies for legal advocacy, strategic communications, and regional solidarity to protect environmental defenders.

A growing number of US communities and governments are suing fossil fuel companies, arguing they misled the public about climate change. These 'polluter pays' cases seek compensation for climate damages, mirroring the 1990s tobacco litigation. While most cases are in the US, a significant case in Peru involving RWE highlights global implications. The fossil fuel industry is responding with lobbying for legal immunity and efforts to discredit litigants, though some cases, such as Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, are advancing toward trial.

The report presents evidence that major fossil fuel companies possessed accurate knowledge of the catastrophic effects of their products on the global climate as early as the 1980s but instead funded campaigns of disinformation and deception. It highlights specific internal documents from Shell and ExxonMobil, a 1998 American Petroleum Institute 'Roadmap' to increase public uncertainty, and allegations of a criminal hacking scheme targeting climate advocates. The Union of Concerned Scientists calls for these corporations to cease greenwashing, pay for climate damages, and accelerate a global phaseout of fossil fuels.

The document reports a decline in Chinese crude oil consumption and LNG imports, alongside significant economic and regulatory volatility in the US oil and gas sector. It highlights corporate shifts at Shell and BP, the risk of USD 2.3 trillion in stranded fossil fuel assets, and various international developments in LNG and carbon capture.

The document argues that the British Columbia government should apply its strategy of recovering healthcare costs from harmful product manufacturers—such as those in the tobacco and opioid industries—to the fossil fuel sector. It highlights significant health and financial burdens on BC's healthcare system, including costs from the 2021 heat dome, wildfire smoke, and the spread of infectious diseases due to warming temperatures. The authors contend that fossil fuel companies have profited while engaging in misinformation, and they call for a ban on fossil fuel advertising and the recovery of expenses from the oil and gas industry.

A coalition of organizations calls on Democratic leadership to reject efforts by the Trump administration and the fossil fuel industry to secure blanket waivers of liability for climate-related damages and deception.