Search Climate Insights Directory

The 2023 Forest Declaration Assessment finds that while global protected area coverage is increasing, significant gaps remain in the legal recognition of Indigenous and local community lands, with 1.375 billion hectares still unrecognized. The report highlights a sharp contrast in Brazil, where political leadership under President Lula da Silva led to a 42% drop in Amazon deforestation in early 2022, while other regions face high risks of illegal logging due to corruption. It notes the emergence of demand-side measures like the EU's Regulation on deforestation-free products (EUDR) and a global rise in climate litigation to protect forests. However, environmental defenders remain the most targeted human rights defenders, with 194 killings recorded in 2022.

The document analyzes the gap between the formal legal recognition of climate justice and its practical application in Africa's mining and petroleum sectors. It highlights systemic failures in enforcement, the limitations of current judicial and administrative sanctions, and the marginalization of local communities. The report advocates for a shift toward 'active' judiciaries, the adoption of specific climate laws, and the strengthening of corporate due diligence to protect vulnerable populations from the environmental and social impacts of extractive activities.

A group of New York State legislators wrote to the U.S. Attorney General and Solicitor General requesting that the Department of Justice (DOJ) support the adjudication of climate-related state claims in state courts. The letter argues that the DOJ should reject the Trump Administration's previous positions and align with President Biden's executive order to hold polluters accountable. The authors highlight that the fossil fuel industry has consistently attempted to move these cases to federal court, despite multiple Circuit courts rejecting such arguments.

The report analyzes the proposed modernization of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), concluding that the reforms are too modest to support the energy transition. Key criticisms include the continued protection of fossil fuel investments in most contracting parties, the retention of a 20-year survival clause, and the failure to reform the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism. The authors argue that the 'flexibility mechanism' for fossil fuel carve-outs is limited in practice and that broad investment protection standards, such as Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET), remain out of step with modern treaty practice, potentially exposing states to significant financial liabilities for climate-related regulatory actions.

The Urgenda vs the Netherlands case resulted in a court order for the Dutch state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. The litigation navigated legal obstacles such as the principle of causation and the separation of powers, ultimately establishing that the state failed its duty of care. While the District Court relied on the Dutch Civil Code and hazardous negligence, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court grounded the decision in the positive obligation to protect human rights, specifically Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The briefing outlines the scientific consensus that human activities, primarily fossil fuel combustion, are unequivocally causing climate change, leading to unprecedented warming and extreme weather. It warns that current national commitments are insufficient to limit warming to 1.5°C, potentially leading to 2.8°C by 2100, which would severely threaten food security, health, and biodiversity. To avoid this, the document argues for urgent, transformative changes, including widespread electrification, a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels, and significant methane reductions by 2030. While noting that investment in fossil fuels still outweighs adaptation and mitigation funding, it highlights progress in the falling costs of solar, wind, and battery technologies, as well as the increasing adoption of electric vehicles and climate legislation.

The document examines the rise of 'greenwashing' litigation related to plastics, where companies are challenged over misleading claims about recyclability, biodegradability, and corporate sustainability. It details a proliferation of class actions in the US and Canada, NGO-led challenges in the EU and US, and increasing enforcement by regulators like the FTC and CMA. The briefing also identifies an emerging 'second generation' of lawsuits brought by shareholders who allege financial losses resulting from deceptive environmental statements.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that 'net zero' is a global scientific concept that should not be applied to individual entities, as doing so encourages the use of ineffective offsets and speculative technologies. CIEL recommends that standards for non-state entities require absolute emissions reductions, the inclusion of Scope 3 emissions, and a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels. The document specifically criticizes the fossil fuel industry for using net-zero pledges to mask continued production and warns that reliance on Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) and technological Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is risky and unproven. It advocates for mandatory regulation, transparent reporting, and the integration of human rights and climate justice into all net-zero frameworks.

The document highlights the critical role of youth activists in addressing the climate and economic crises, emphasizing that the burden of action should not fall on a single generation. It provides examples of youth-led initiatives, including students proposing climate legislation in Indiana, the global #FridaysForFuture movement, and legal challenges filed by young people in Portugal and Peru against government inaction regarding emissions and deforestation.

The document argues that SMBC's involvement in the EACOP project contradicts its own environmental and human rights commitments, exposing the bank and its directors to litigation, reputational damage, and stranded asset risks. It details specific human rights abuses and environmental threats associated with the pipeline and demands a full withdrawal from the project.

The document argues that SMBC's role as a financial advisor and lead arranger for the EACOP project contradicts its own environmental and human rights commitments. It highlights risks including human rights abuses, biodiversity loss, and the potential for the pipeline to become a stranded asset in a net-zero transition. The authors warn that continuing this support could lead to greenwashing accusations, legal liability for directors under Japanese law, and severe reputational damage, especially as other global financial institutions withdraw their support.

The document argues that SMBC's reported role in the EACOP project exposes the group to reputational, financial, and legal liabilities, while contradicting its own environmental and human rights commitments.

The document analyzes the African perspective on 'loss and damage'—climate impacts that cannot be avoided through mitigation or adaptation. It highlights the failure of existing mechanisms like the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) and the Santiago Network to provide sufficient financial support, noting that developed countries resist dedicated funding due to concerns over legal liability. The authors recommend that African nations establish a transparent, inclusive position on the mandate of a potential Finance Facility, explore climate litigation against 'carbon majors', and integrate loss and damage assessments into their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) dismissed an appeal by 37 youth claimants who argued that the EU's climate regime violated fundamental rights and international obligations. The court rejected the claims on standing grounds, ruling that the applicants did not meet the 'individual concern' requirement under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The court maintained that the general effects of climate change do not grant individual standing to challenge measures of general application.

The legal commentary details the attempts by the NGO Environment Jeunesse to launch a class action on behalf of Quebecers aged 35 and under, alleging that the Canadian Government's failure to set adequate greenhouse gas emission targets violated fundamental human rights. Both the Quebec Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the application. The Superior Court found the age limit of 35 to be "arbitrary" and "not objective". The Court of Appeal further ruled that the action was an attempt to compel legislative action, which would violate the doctrine of Separation of Powers, and noted that global warming affects the entire Canadian population, making the specific class composition difficult to justify. The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The document details a legal challenge brought by six Portuguese children against Portugal and 32 other European states before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The applicants argue that the states' failure to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C violates their rights to life, privacy, and protection from discrimination. The ECtHR has fast-tracked the case and, on its own initiative, included Article 3 (prohibiting inhuman and degrading treatment) as a possible violation due to the severity of climate impacts on the applicants.

The Federal Court of Germany ruled that parts of the Federal Climate Protection Act (KSG) were incompatible with fundamental rights because they lacked provisions for updating greenhouse gas emission reduction targets from 2031 onwards. While the court found that the government breached obligations by omitting post-2030 targets, it declined to compel a limit of 1.5°C over 2°C, citing IPCC uncertainty and legislative discretion. The court also affirmed that national climate action is required regardless of whether such action alone can stop global climate change, and it granted standing to complainants from Nepal and Bangladesh, though it did not establish a specific duty of protection for people abroad under the Basic Law.

The case of La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen involved a claim by fifteen Canadian youths asserting that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and support for fossil fuel industries were incompatible with a stable climate and violated their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the public trust doctrine. The Federal Court of Canada dismissed the claim, ruling that the Charter-based arguments were not justiciable because they sought judicial intervention in overall government policy and that the public trust doctrine was not supported in Canadian law.

The Green Economy Coalition calls for a new social contract to replace current economic systems that subsidize nature's destruction by $1.8 trillion annually. The proposal outlines five areas of action: recognizing economic dependence on nature, adopting green and fair economy principles, utilizing the Green Economy Tracker for policy interventions, ensuring inclusive citizen engagement in transitions, and renewing the social contract through mechanisms like ecological constitutions and social compacts.

The Philippines Commission on Human Rights (CHR) concluded a seven-year inquiry finding that 47 'Carbon Majors' companies contributed significantly to global emissions and engaged in 'willful obfuscation' of climate science despite knowing the risks since at least 1965. The report details severe human rights impacts in the Philippines, including threats to the rights to life, health, food security, and water, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups such as women, children, and Indigenous Peoples. The CHR asserts that these companies, and the financial institutions that fund them, have a responsibility to respect human rights and provide remediation for climate-driven harms. It recommends that states implement punitive laws for environmental harm, put a price on pollution, and transition to renewable energy by 2030 to meet the 1.5°C limit.