Search Climate Insights Directory

The document provides evidence that major fossil-fuel companies had internal knowledge of anthropogenic climate change as early as the 1950s and 1960s, yet spent decades funding disinformation to manufacture public doubt. It details how these companies protected their own infrastructure from sea-level rise while publicly denying the science, and argues that current 'greenwashing' and 'carbon footprint' narratives continue this pattern of deception.

The brief contends that fossil fuel companies have engaged in a long-term strategy of deception, shifting from explicit denial to framing climate change as a manageable 'risk' and shifting responsibility to individual consumers. It provides evidence that companies like BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell promote themselves as clean energy leaders while maintaining massive investments in fossil fuels and funding third-party organizations to undermine climate science.

The research evaluates 168 NDCs against international environmental law, finding that some states use justifications—such as least cost pathways or emissions per GDP—that lack legal backing. By applying principles of harm prevention, precaution, and the Paris Agreement's ambition goals, the author argues that developed states must reach net-negative emission levels by 2030 to meet temperature goals. Among G20 nations, only India and Indonesia are identified as being able to temporarily increase emissions relative to 2010, while others have decreased emissions too slowly or increased them over the last decade.

The document argues that 'Big Food' companies face escalating risks across three domains: waste, climate, and health. It highlights the 'Brussels Effect,' where strict EU directives on single-use plastics and chemical safety set global standards. The report warns that failure to transition from linear 'take-make-waste' models to circular reuse systems exposes companies to legal action, financial penalties, and loss of brand value, particularly among millennial and Gen Z consumers.

The document argues that 'Big Food' companies face escalating risks across waste, climate, and health dimensions due to their 'addiction to single-use plastics'. It highlights a wave of new legislation in Europe, increasing public backlash, and emerging legal precedents in the US and EU that could lead to significant financial and legal liabilities. The brief warns investors that many companies are failing to disclose these material risks or are relying on 'false solutions' rather than reducing their plastic footprints.

The research argues that litigation against individual fossil fuel companies is an ineffective mitigation strategy because it ignores the systemic nature of growth-dependent capitalism and the ability of corporations to absorb legal costs. The author suggests that changing the law to provide systemic recourse and pursuing fossil fuel nationalisation would be more effective than pursuing individual offenders.

The document examines a landmark Australian Federal Court ruling where Justice Mordecai Bromberg found that the Federal Environment Minister owes a duty of care to young people to protect them from the climate crisis. While the court did not grant an injunction against the expansion of the Vickery coal mine, the ruling establishes a precedent for climate-based litigation under the law of negligence and requires the government to consider the impacts of climate change on youth when approving fossil fuel projects.

A August 2021 survey of 561 registered voters in Nevada indicates that a majority of respondents are worried about climate change and believe oil and gas companies should bear significant financial responsibility for climate-related infrastructure costs. The data shows that 68% of respondents believe oil and gas companies are not paying their fair share of climate costs, and 61% approve of the Nevada Attorney General suing these companies for misleading the public. After receiving more information about industry disinformation and local impacts, the percentage of respondents holding oil and gas companies more responsible for climate change increased from 28% to 42%, and those who believe the industry should be most responsible for infrastructure costs rose from 14% to 34%.

ClientEarth argues that current Solvency II Pillar 1 capital requirements do not adequately capture financial risks from climate change, including transition risks for fossil fuel assets and systemic disruption risks. The document highlights the UK Government's review of Solvency II, which acknowledges that the solvency capital requirement (SCR) and matching adjustment may need amendments to better reflect long-term climate risks and stranded assets. ClientEarth calls on the European Commission to implement similar enhancements to ensure the resilience of EU insurers and maintain a level playing field with the UK.

A letter from a Stockholm Environment Institute scientist to the Massachusetts Attorney General arguing that Harvard's fossil fuel investments are misaligned with the Paris Agreement and contribute to global health and environmental crises.

The July 2021 poll indicates strong support among Pennsylvania likely voters for holding oil and gas companies legally accountable for climate change damages. A majority of respondents believe these companies are not paying their fair share of costs and that businesses and large corporations are the primary cause of climate change. The poll also tests the impact of various messaging strategies on public support for litigation, finding that arguments regarding corporate disinformation and public health costs generally increase support for suing oil and gas companies.

ClientEarth argues that Lloyd's of London's 2020 ESG Report fails to align the insurance market with the Paris Agreement goals. The letter highlights gaps in the 'Climate Targets', such as the lack of restrictions on oil and gas (outside tar sands and the Arctic) and the absence of scope 3 emissions targets. ClientEarth asserts that the Society of Lloyd's has a legal duty under PRA Solvency II rules and the 'prudent person principle' to manage climate risks, which include physical risks making assets uninsurable and transition risks leading to stranded assets. The document questions whether the Climate Targets are binding and calls for transparent public disclosure of managing agents' compliance.

A statement by Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) regarding a landmark legal victory against Shell, where a Dutch court ordered the company to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% within ten years to align with the Paris Agreement.

ClientEarth warns that proposed changes to the UK's judicial review process could prevent environmental groups from holding the government accountable and limit the court's ability to reverse unlawful decisions.

ClientEarth is supporting five Polish citizens in lawsuits against the Polish government, claiming that the state's failure to address climate change violates personal rights under the Polish Civil Code and human rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. The claimants seek a legally enforceable right to a healthy environment and a commitment from Poland to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 61% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2043 to align with the Paris Agreement's 1.5 degree goal. The document highlights Poland's heavy reliance on coal, with 70% of electricity coming from coal and significant public subsidies for fossil fuels, as well as the specific climate-related impacts—such as droughts, floods, and wildfires—experienced by the claimants.

A group of Connecticut-based academics and professionals expresses support for legal action against ExxonMobil, alleging the company spent decades spreading disinformation about climate change despite internal knowledge of the risks since the 1960s. The letter highlights specific climate threats to Connecticut, including increased extreme heat and tidal flooding, and argues that the company should pay for damages and adaptation measures.

The authors contend that human rights law is often underutilised or dismissed as unfit for contemporary challenges because it is viewed primarily as a tool for individual protection against state interference. They argue for a shift toward recognizing 'positive obligations'—the duty of states to actively protect rights—to address collective crises. By citing climate litigation in the Netherlands, Ireland, and France, as well as food security cases in India, the text demonstrates how legal frameworks can hold governments accountable for failing to meet their obligations, thereby bridging the gap between political aspiration and concrete action.

Attorneys General from Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia have urged US Attorney General Merrick Garland to withdraw or reverse Department of Justice (DOJ) amicus briefs filed during the previous administration. These briefs supported fossil fuel defendants in climate litigation, arguing that state-law claims were preempted by federal law or should be removed to federal court. The signers argue these positions undermine efforts to hold companies accountable for a "decades-long deception campaign" regarding climate dangers and contradict President Biden's pledge to support plaintiff-driven climate litigation.

The document outlines the legal case Friends of the Earth Netherlands v Royal Dutch Shell plc, arguing that Shell's current net-zero strategy is insufficient compared to IPCC standards. It details the legal basis of the claim—centered on Dutch civil law and human rights—and warns investors of the reputational and financial risks associated with climate litigation and emerging EU due diligence legislation.

A March 2021 poll of 640 registered voters in Washington State shows high levels of concern regarding climate change and strong support for holding oil and gas companies financially responsible for climate impacts. A majority of respondents (73%) believe oil and gas companies are not paying their fair share of climate costs, and 61% support suing these companies for damages. After receiving additional information about industry disinformation, the proportion of respondents who believe oil and gas companies should be most responsible for upgrading state infrastructure rose to 37%.