Search Climate Insights Directory

The document discusses the relationship between corporate responsibility, human rights, and climate change, specifically focusing on how the Philippines' National Inquiry on Climate Change provides a model for understanding these synergies within the ASEAN context.

The report outlines critical research needs across natural sciences, social sciences, and legal analysis to support climate litigation. Key gaps include the need for localized attribution science, investigations into corporate disinformation and internal knowledge (including non-fossil fuel industries), and the quantification of economic damages. It also emphasizes the necessity of 'translational work' to bridge the communication gap between scientists, legal practitioners, and judges, particularly regarding legally relevant timeframes and standards of evidence.

A case study on the legal challenge 'Friends of the Earth v. Haaland', where plaintiffs alleged that the Biden administration violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by reinstating a lease sale for oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico based on outdated environmental analysis.

Three separate lawsuits were filed in early 2022 against the Argentinian Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development to stop offshore seismic testing by Equinor. These cases focus on the protection of the Southern Right Whale, the incompatibility of fossil fuel exploration with Argentina's Paris Agreement commitments and Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), and violations of the Escazú Agreement regarding public participation and environmental information. The court combined these three lawsuits on January 14, 2022.

ClientEarth is pursuing a 'world-first' derivative action against Shell's Board of Directors, arguing that the Board has breached its legal duties under the UK Companies Act by failing to properly prepare the company for the net zero transition. ClientEarth asserts that Shell's current climate strategy is insufficient, noting that its net zero target is not reflected in budgets and that its 'Energy Transition Strategy' focuses on 'carbon intensity' rather than absolute emissions reductions. The litigation seeks to compel the Board to align Shell's strategy with the Paris Agreement to protect the company's long-term commercial viability.

Three lawsuits were filed in Argentina against the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development to stop offshore seismic testing by Equinor. The cases raised concerns regarding the protection of the Southern Right Whale, climate impacts, Argentina's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement, and procedural rights under the Escazú Agreement. On 11 February 2022, the Federal Court of Mar del Plata ordered a halt to exploration based on the precautionary principle and violations of the rights to information and public participation, though it did not cite climate concerns. However, on 18 February 2022, a different court allowed activities to continue pending an appeal.

The document explores strategic litigation as a tool to bridge the gap between state-led anti-corruption efforts and environmental governance. It identifies three main trends: targeting corruption enforcement, improving NRM governance, and addressing transnational sustainability. While it can drive transparency and accountability, the author warns of risks including high costs, potential for abuse via SLAPP suits, and the challenge of enforcing court rulings in weak institutional settings.

The report defines 'climate-washing' as a subset of greenwashing specifically targeting climate change claims and examines the rising trend of litigation used to hold state and non-state actors accountable. It categorizes misleading communications into three areas: corporate/governmental commitments (such as net-zero pledges), product attributes (such as labeling natural gas as 'clean'), and the disclosure of financial risks and investments. The authors highlight a gap between public climate pledges and actual emission reductions, noting that many companies continue to invest in fossil fuels while advertising clean energy. The document provides recommendations for companies, policymakers, NGOs, and lawyers to combat disinformation and increase transparency.

The report presents a vision for a healthy planet based on solidarity, equality, and living within planetary boundaries. It argues that current economic metrics like GDP fuel environmental degradation and calls for a shift toward health and well-being. Based on a survey of over 900 youth from 89 countries, it highlights widespread climate anxiety and a perceived lack of youth agency in global governance. The authors propose specific policy pathways, including a Global Resilience Mechanism for social security, inclusive disaster risk reduction, and a rapid low-carbon transition. It emphasizes the need to move beyond tokenistic youth representation toward meaningful decision-making power and comprehensive climate education.

Global Legal Action on Climate Change (GLACC) filed a lawsuit against several Philippine government agencies, including the Climate Change Commission, seeking a writ of mandamus to force compliance with Republic Act 6716 and Act 7160. These laws mandate the maintenance of rainwater collectors and define local government water management responsibilities to mitigate flooding risks intensified by climate change. To avoid a court order, the defendant government departments signed a Memorandum of Understanding and submitted a work plan committing to the required actions.

The Supreme Court of Spain rejected a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by environmental activists who argued that Spain's National Energy and Climate Plan failed to align with the Paris Agreement and IPCC recommendations. The court ruled that the government's inactivity persists because it has not fully complied with the Paris Agreement, allowing the challenge to the plan's ambition to proceed.

The case of Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan centered on the government's failure to implement the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 and the Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (2014-2030). The Lahore High Court ruled in September 2015 that this delay violated citizens' fundamental rights to life and human dignity. To ensure compliance, the court mandated the appointment of climate change point-persons in government ministries and established a Climate Change Commission. By January 2018, a report indicated that 66% of the priority actions from the Framework had been implemented between September 2015 and January 2017. The case is noted for emphasizing climate adaptation rights in the global south.

A group of German youth successfully challenged the Federal Climate Protection Act, leading the Federal Constitutional Court to rule that the law violated fundamental rights by failing to specify sufficient emission cuts beyond 2030.

The Administrative Court of Paris ruled that the French government's failure to implement effective measures to address climate change caused ecological damage. In October 2021, the court ordered the State to take immediate and concrete actions by December 31, 2022, to comply with emission reduction commitments and repair damage by subtracting excess emissions from its 2021 and 2022 targets.

The Supreme Court of Nepal ordered the government to enact a new climate change law after finding that the Environmental Protection Act of 1997 was inadequate for mitigation and adaptation. The court ruled that inaction violated constitutional rights to a dignified life and a healthy environment, as well as international commitments under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Following the decision, Nepal passed the Environment Protection Act of 2019 and the Forests Act of 2019.

The report provides a comprehensive 'behind-the-scenes' look at the litigation brought by Milieudefensie and over 17,000 co-plaintiffs against Royal Dutch Shell. On May 26, 2021, the District Court of The Hague ruled that Shell must reduce its net carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. The court based its decision on a 'duty of care' and the necessity to respect human rights, aligning corporate policy with the Paris Agreement. The document serves as a manual for other climate litigants, detailing strategies for funding, community mobilization, and legal argumentation, while analyzing Shell's defenses and the broader implications for corporate accountability and the energy transition.

The report documents the legal victory of Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC, where the District Court in The Hague ordered Shell to reduce its net carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. It explains the use of the 'duty of care' and human rights arguments to hold a corporate actor liable for its contribution to climate change, including Scope 3 emissions. The document also provides a 'mini-toolkit' for other NGOs planning strategic climate litigation, covering research, fundraising, and media strategies.

The document argues that Shell engaged in a campaign of deception regarding climate change despite internal reports as early as 1988 warning that impacts could be the greatest in recorded history. It highlights a contradiction between Shell's public net-zero pledges and its financial investments, noting that between 2010 and 2018, only 1.3% of capital expenditures went to low-carbon projects. Furthermore, the briefing asserts that Shell's nature-based offset plans are unrealistic, requiring forest planting on a scale comparable to the size of Spain or Brazil.

The document examines the legal frameworks governing shareholder resolutions in thirteen European countries, focusing on how investors can compel companies to adopt Paris-aligned climate strategies. It identifies a recurring tension between the general management powers of corporate Boards and the reserved rights of shareholders to amend a company's Articles of Association. The guide argues that framing climate 'asks'—such as net-zero commitments, transition plans, 'Say on Climate' votes, and lobbying disclosures—as amendments to the Articles of Association is often the most effective legal path to ensure resolutions are tabled at Annual General Meetings (AGMs). While the UK, Ireland, Spain, and Sweden are described as relatively simple jurisdictions for filing, others like France, Germany, and Austria require more nuanced framing to avoid infringing on Board competencies. The Netherlands is highlighted as the only jurisdiction among the thirteen where shareholders cannot legally compel a company to table a resolution without Board consent.

The document argues that progress on loss and damage (L&D) finance has been stalled by disagreements over liability and compensation. It proposes a near-term 'solidarity-based' approach to unlock funding without requiring strict legal liability, while advocating for the eventual creation of a formal L&D mechanism within the UNFCCC. The authors emphasize that L&D finance must be additional to mitigation and adaptation funding and should be distributed based on a needs-based approach prioritizing the most vulnerable populations.