Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that States have a legal obligation under international climate change law and human rights law to implement effective, science-based measures to mitigate climate change, specifically through the phase-out of fossil fuels and the regulation of non-state actors. It asserts that failure to do so constitutes an internationally wrongful act, triggering responsibilities for cessation of harm and full reparation, including financial compensation for loss and damage.

The report estimates that governments in Los Angeles County will need to spend at least $12.5 billion through 2040 to adapt to climate change, with municipal governments bearing the largest share. The highest costs are associated with stormwater management to mitigate flooding ($4.3 billion) and combating urban heat islands through cool pavements ($2.5 billion) and tree planting ($1.4 billion). The study highlights that these costs disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of color, and argues that fossil fuel companies should be held legally accountable for these expenses.

Natural Justice argues that the ICJ should recognize a State's obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions based on a 'fair share' principle and ensure a just transition from fossil fuels. The document emphasizes that Africa is the most vulnerable continent despite contributing less than 4% of global emissions, facing projected annual loss and damage costs between US$ 290 billion and $440 billion by 2030. It asserts that high-income, high-emitting States owe legal obligations to provide financial support via grants rather than loans and must provide reparations—including compensation and restitution—for internationally wrongful acts that cause climate harm.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submits that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should interpret State climate obligations through a harmonized lens of multiple legal frameworks. CIEL contends that while the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement are relevant, they do not displace other primary rules such as the duty to prevent transboundary harm, human rights law, the law of the sea, or the law of State responsibility. The document asserts that these obligations apply concurrently and that compliance with climate treaties alone does not discharge a State's broader duties under international law, particularly regarding human rights and the protection of the marine environment.

The document asserts that international law provides no basis to restrict State climate obligations to present generations. It argues that the rights of future generations are rooted in the UN Charter, various international environmental agreements, and the jurisprudence of the ICJ and other international bodies. The submission emphasizes that the principles of prevention and precaution require States to act now to avoid irreversible climate harm and warns against relying on speculative future technologies to meet mitigation targets. It includes the Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations, which provide a framework for the obligations of States and non-State actors to ensure intergenerational justice.

The case Aji P. v. State of Washington involved a constitutional complaint by youth petitioners who argued that Washington's reliance on fossil-fuel-based energy and transportation systems infringed upon their "fundamental right to a healthful and pleasant environment". The claim was dismissed by the King County Superior Court and the Washington Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Washington ultimately denied the petition for review without providing reasons. However, Chief Justice Steven Charles González dissented, arguing that the court should have decided whether climate change impacts are remediable under state law and that the lower court had "unnecessarily expand[ing] the political question doctrine".

Six Alaskan children sued the State of Alaska, arguing that the state's failure to limit greenhouse gas emissions violated the public trust duty established in Art. VIII of the Alaska Constitution. The Superior Court of Alaska dismissed the case in 2012, ruling it non-justiciable as it involved political questions. The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the dismissal in 2014, though it differed in reasoning, concluding that a declaratory judgment would not settle the dispute as it would have no impact on the state's conduct or emissions.

The document details the case of Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea, where 19 members of 'Youth4ClimateAction' challenged the constitutionality of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth. The applicants argue that the government's failure to maintain sufficient greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets violates rights to human dignity, equality, and a healthy environment. Specifically, they contest the President's authority to modify targets via decree, claiming it constitutes an unconstitutional 'blanket delegation' of power and fails to meet the minimum protective measures required to mitigate climate change impacts, which are noted to be particularly severe in South Korea.

The document provides a preliminary legal mapping of the procedural and substantive requirements for a delictual claim against Carbon Majors in South Africa. It examines jurisdictional hurdles, such as the need to attach assets for foreign defendants, and the potential for state immunity defenses for state-owned companies. Substantively, it analyzes the elements of delictual liability—wrongfulness, fault, and causation—suggesting that South African courts' flexible approach to factual causation and the use of attribution science could support such claims. It also discusses parent company liability and the possibility of holding a select group of joint wrongdoers severally liable for the full extent of damages.

The document argues that international investment agreements (IIAs) and the ISDS mechanism act as legal barriers to climate action by allowing fossil fuel companies to sue governments for compensation when regulations impact their returns. It outlines a three-part framework for States: removing risk through treaty termination, carveouts, or removal of ISDS clauses; reducing risk via the adoption of 'right to regulate' provisions, interpretative statements, and the careful design of climate measures; and responding to active claims using jurisdictional challenges, the 'necessity defense', and arguments against the 'legitimate expectations' of investors. The toolkit emphasizes that the urgent need to limit warming to 1.5°C may justify the termination of treaties like the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) based on a fundamental change of circumstances.

ClientEarth brought a derivative action against Shell's Board of Directors in the High Court of England and Wales, arguing that the company's Energy Transition Strategy was inadequate and breached sections 172 and 174 of the Companies Act 2006. The claim alleged failures in setting Scope 3 targets, over-reliance on carbon capture and nature-based solutions, and non-compliance with a Dutch court order. Despite support from institutional investors managing over half a trillion USD in assets, the High Court refused permission to continue the claim, citing a lack of formal expert evidence and the wide discretion afforded to directors in management decisions. The Court of Appeal subsequently refused permission to appeal this decision.

The 2024 state of global environmental governance is characterized by a 'polycrisis' of geopolitical tension, climate disasters, and economic instability. While some progress was made in Indigenous Peoples' participation and the establishment of the Cali Fund for biodiversity, major negotiations on plastic pollution and chemicals failed to reach landmarks. Climate finance remains a central point of contention, with the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) of USD 300 billion per year by 2035 falling short of developing countries' expectations. The report highlights a growing trend of environmental litigation at global courts and the persistent challenge of 'siloed' governance, where the three Rio Conventions operate independently despite the interconnected nature of climate, biodiversity, and land degradation.

ClientEarth advises a UK pension scheme's trustees to cease providing bond capital to energy companies unless they have credible net-zero transition plans and enforceable bond covenants. The letter asserts that climate change represents a material financial risk—including physical, transition, and litigation risks—that trustees must manage to meet their legal fiduciary duties and protect beneficiaries' interests.

ClientEarth asserts that banks providing financial services to fossil fuel expanders like Saudi Aramco are contributing to climate-related human rights impacts. The organization argues that such financing violates the UN Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines, creating significant legal risks through emerging mandatory human rights due diligence laws and greenwashing litigation. ClientEarth proposes specific 'red-lines,' including an immediate end to financing new fossil fuel exploration and requiring clients to publish Paris-aligned transition plans by H1 2024.

ClientEarth calls for global leaders at COP28 to implement bold legal actions to phase out fossil fuels. The organization emphasizes the need to eliminate the $7 trillion in global fossil fuel subsidies reported by the IMF for 2022 and to combat greenwashing and disinformation used by the fossil fuel industry to delay climate action. ClientEarth advocates for bans on fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship, citing precedents such as the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and its own legal actions against companies like BP, KLM, and Total.

The document identifies positive progress in international climate policy across awareness, governance, business, energy, and industry, arguing that these shifts—driven by new actors and strategies—show that rapid change is possible to maintain the 1.5°C target.

The document analyzes the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), highlighting a significant misalignment between its aggressive production expansion plans and the 1.5°C global warming limit. It details how ADNOC is increasingly relying on international equity, bonds, and bank financing, thereby exposing global investors to transition and litigation risks. The brief maps these financial connections across upstream, midstream, and downstream operations and recommends that investors and banks push for greater transparency and a cessation of new fossil fuel infrastructure to mitigate these risks.

The Montana District Court ruled in favor of sixteen youth claimants, finding that the 'Climate Change Exception' in the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) is unconstitutional because it violates the claimants' fundamental right to a clean and healthful environment. The court determined that Montana's greenhouse gas emissions, linked to the MEPA limitation, are a substantial factor in causing climate impacts in the state. While the court granted declaratory relief, it dismissed claims for injunctive relief, such as a remedial climate plan, citing the political question doctrine.

The document details the case of Sagoonick v. Alaska, where the Alaskan Supreme Court upheld a lower court's dismissal of a claim by 16 young Alaskans. The plaintiffs had petitioned the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to reduce carbon emissions to 85% below 1990 levels by 2050. The court ruled that the claims for injunctive relief were non-justiciable political questions and that declaratory relief was inappropriate on prudential grounds. A dissenting opinion argued that the Public Trust doctrine provides a right to a liveable climate.

The Urgenda Foundation successfully sued the State of the Netherlands, resulting in a final Supreme Court ruling that the government must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 relative to 1990 levels. The courts determined that while the state has discretionary power, it has a duty of care to protect its citizens from the dangers of climate change, and its previous 20% target was insufficient and lacked scientific justification. The judiciary rejected the government's arguments regarding the separation of powers, ruling that the order did not mandate specific legislation but rather a result that the state is free to achieve through various means.