Search Climate Insights Directory

Ten youth claimants filed a complaint against the State of Hessen in September 2021, arguing that the lack of a contemporary climate legislature and specific greenhouse gas reduction paths violated their fundamental rights and future freedoms. They contended that the state failed to implement measures to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and did not specify permissible emission quantities. On 18 January 2022, the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the case, ruling that there was no violation of the claimants' rights under the Basic Law, noting that federal law's sectoral control approach made vertical coordination between the federal government and states less critical.

The report analyzes how the Brazilian Judiciary can combat land grabbing in the Amazon through two primary functions: the administrative control of land registries and the judicial resolution of possessory actions. Using Pará as a case study, it highlights the effectiveness of administrative cancellations of fraudulent titles but notes a lack of transparency in data and a failure to coordinate with the Executive branch for land restitution. The document also critiques the prevalence of a 'civilist' view of possession in courts, which often ignores the specificities of agrarian and ethnic possession, potentially legitimizing illegal occupations. It concludes by examining strategic litigation, including climate damage claims and the protection of conservation units, as tools to deter land grabbing.

The brief, submitted by ClientEarth and The Shareholder Commons, opposes efforts by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) to eliminate SEC Rule 14a-8. The authors argue that climate change represents a systemic financial risk that is material to all businesses, affecting them through physical damages, transition risks, and litigation. They contend that a divergence of interests exists between corporate managers, who may prioritize short-term gains, and diversified shareholders, who are exposed to broader economic instability (beta risk). The brief asserts that Rule 14a-8 is a critical tool for investor stewardship, allowing shareholders to hold management accountable and mitigate catastrophic systemic risks.

The paper proposes a 'corporate climate accountability loop' to identify gaps in current corporate climate governance and suggests a transition from voluntary, conflicted systems toward mandatory, independent, and legally enforceable regulatory frameworks.

The text defends environmental protest and civil disobedience as essential democratic instruments for addressing the climate and biodiversity crises. It highlights the role of movements like Fridays for Future and Extinction Rebellion in mainstreaming climate action while warning against a global trend of criminalising activists through repressive legislation. The author criticises 'greenwashing' and 'citizenwashing' by private and public sectors, particularly within the COP framework, and calls on the EU to uphold the Aarhus Convention to ensure genuine public participation in environmental decision-making.

ClientEarth defends the proposed IED compensation right, which allows individuals suffering health damage from illegal pollution to seek remedy. The document clarifies that the right does not reverse the burden of proof, as victims must still provide evidence of health damage, an IED violation, and a link between the two. It further argues that the right is distinct from the Environmental Liability Directive, which excludes individual compensation, and asserts that the measure will incentivize legal compliance without causing excessive litigation.

A July 2023 survey of 400 likely voters in Pennsylvania indicates that 65% believe human activity causes climate change and 73% believe Pennsylvania taxpayers face increased costs due to its effects. A significant majority (90%) believe oil and gas companies should pay at least some of the costs for local community adaptation, and 69% support suing these companies to ensure they pay their share. Additionally, 69% of respondents would be more likely to support a political candidate who advocates for suing oil and gas companies to fund infrastructure rebuilding and prevention of climate-related damage.

The survey finds that a majority of Pennsylvania likely voters attribute climate change to human activity and support holding oil and gas companies financially responsible for climate adaptation costs.

Pennsylvania's municipal governments are projected to spend at least $15.47 billion by 2040 to adapt to climate change, with stormwater drainage capacity representing the largest expense at $7.8 billion. The report highlights that these costs will disproportionately affect rural, high-poverty, and Environmental Justice areas, with some small municipalities facing annual per capita costs exceeding $1,000. The authors argue that major oil and gas companies should be held legally accountable for these costs rather than taxpayers.

The document addresses the mass exit of insurers from the Net Zero Insurance Alliance (NZIA) following threats of antitrust legal action from 23 US state attorneys general. It asserts that climate change is already destabilizing the insurance business model through soaring catastrophe losses, particularly in North America, and urges insurers to stop funding climate-denying politicians and phase out fossil fuel support.

The document argues that current economic systems are failing and that large-scale economic reform requires broad public support, which can be generated through participatory mechanisms. It defines a 'social contract' as an agreement between state and society on rights, responsibilities, and resource distribution, suggesting that a new 'eco-social contract' is needed to prioritize the planet and people over profit. The briefing details various innovative mechanisms for citizen engagement—such as citizen assemblies, participatory budgeting, and just transition processes—and identifies five key tools best suited for driving economic reform. It emphasizes the need to expand these mechanisms to the Global South and frontline communities to restore trust and create a 'social mandate' for a just and sustainable transition.

The briefing advocates for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty based on three pillars: non-proliferation of new fossil fuels, a fair phase-out of existing production, and a global just transition. It positions the treaty as a necessary supply-side complement to the Paris Agreement, arguing that current production plans exceed the 1.5°C carbon budget. The document outlines a business case for support, citing risks such as stranded assets and increased climate litigation, while proposing specific actions for companies, including public advocacy and the implementation of absolute emission reductions.

The briefing advocates for business support of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, asserting that a global mechanism to phase out coal, oil, and gas is essential to avoid overshooting 1.5°C. It highlights that current government production plans exceed 1.5°C limits and that existing reserves alone would result in seven times the emissions allowed by the remaining carbon budget. For businesses, supporting the treaty is presented as a way to reduce physical and transitional risks, unlock renewable energy investment, provide integrity to net zero pledges, and improve corporate reputation among employees and stakeholders.

The Union of Concerned Scientists analysis finds that 48% of the rise in fire-danger conditions in western North America since 1901 and 37% of the cumulative burned forest area since 1986 are attributable to emissions from the 88 largest fossil fuel companies and cement manufacturers. In Arizona, over 10,000 wildfires burned nearly 2.5 million acres between 2017 and 2021, with the 2020 Bighorn Fire alone costing over $36 million. The document argues for holding these companies accountable and urges state governments to implement policies for forest health, community safety, and equitable resilience investments.

The Union of Concerned Scientists analysis finds that emissions from the 88 largest fossil fuel companies and cement manufacturers are responsible for 48 percent of the rise in fire-danger conditions in western North America since 1901 and 37 percent of the cumulative burned forest area since 1986. In New Mexico, over 4,000 wildfires burned more than 800,000 acres between 2017 and 2021, with the 2022 Calf Canyon/Hermit’s Peak Fire becoming the state's largest on record. The document argues that these companies should be held accountable for the costs of climate change and recommends that state governments implement policies to reduce human-ignited fires, increase forest health resources, protect community health, and prioritize equitable investments for low-income communities.

The brief asserts that Defendants had actual knowledge of the catastrophic risks of fossil fuel combustion as early as the late 1950s, confirmed through internal research and industry-wide consensus. It details a coordinated strategy to manufacture doubt via public relations campaigns, funding of contrarian scientists, and the use of 'shadow groups' to undermine scientific consensus. The document highlights a contradiction where companies protected their own physical assets from sea-level rise while publicly denying such risks. Finally, it argues that current 'net zero' pledges and natural gas promotions constitute ongoing greenwashing and deception.

The document defines greenwashing in the financial sector as false or misleading representations of environmental impact and warns that it can misallocate capital and undermine the Paris Agreement. It outlines five categories of evolving regulation—disclosure, labelling, ratings, taxonomies, and net zero integrity—and classifies enforcement actions into brand, product, financing, and reporting greenwashing. To mitigate risk, the guide proposes 'five pillars' of guarding against greenwashing: screening claims, ensuring transparency, aligning internal actions with public image, monitoring regulatory changes, and adhering to fiduciary duties.

The document outlines the critical role of scientific research in climate litigation, emphasizing how experts can help hold corporations and governments accountable for climate damages and disinformation. It identifies key research priorities—such as attribution science and the study of climate obstruction—and provides actionable ways for scientists to engage, including serving as expert witnesses, contributing to amicus briefs, and designing research specifically relevant to legal proceedings. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Science Hub for Climate Litigation is presented as a central resource to bridge the gap between the scientific community and legal practitioners.

ClientEarth is pursuing a 'world-first' derivative action in the High Court of England and Wales to hold Shell's Board of Directors personally liable for mismanaging climate risks. The claim argues that Shell's energy transition strategy is insufficient, as its net-zero targets are not reflected in budgets and its reduction targets focus on 'carbon intensity' rather than absolute emissions. ClientEarth asserts this mismanagement breaches the UK Companies Act, specifically Section 172, which requires directors to promote the company's long-term success. The action is supported by various institutional investors from the UK, Sweden, France, Belgium, and Denmark.

The document presents data from a 2019 nationwide survey and several state-level polls showing that a majority of US voters believe oil and gas companies should pay for climate change damages. It highlights that support for suing these companies and requiring them to cover costs often increases after respondents are informed about the industry's history of deception.