Search Climate Insights Directory

The document describes a proposed Climate Change Bill in South Africa introduced in October 2022. The Bill aims to strengthen the country's response to climate change through three main pillars: regulating the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions via carbon budgets, managing adaptation to climate-related risks such as floods and droughts, and defining the responsibilities of government departments at national, provincial, and local levels. The text argues that the Bill is essential for protecting constitutional rights, attracting climate finance, and ensuring accountability. To be effective, the document asserts that the Bill requires strong penalties for exceeding carbon budgets, clear timelines for implementation, transparency regarding emissions data, and science-based targets to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. It concludes by encouraging citizens to study the Bill, engage with policymakers, and share personal experiences of climate change to ensure the resulting law is robust.

The document is a memorandum from a coalition of non-governmental organisations and civil society groups calling for urgent reforms to the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) internal procedures. The authors argue that a lack of transparency and the exclusion of a majority of Members from decision-making processes have worsened over time, despite promises of reform. They assert that these systemic failures negatively impact billions of people and the environment, and that without procedural reforms, existing imbalances in WTO rules cannot be corrected and new detrimental rules may be introduced. The memorandum specifically targets the period leading up to and during the Cancun Ministerial.

The document argues that oil and gas activities threaten biodiversity at every stage, from exploration to end use, and calls for an immediate halt to new projects, particularly in high-biodiversity areas. It highlights the specific risks to the Amazon and the Verde Island Passage, and advocates for a just phaseout of fossil fuels to meet the 2050 goals of the Global Biodiversity Framework.

The research paper examines the public participation framework of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol, specifically focusing on the rules established by the Marrakech Accords. It identifies significant gaps in how information is made 'publicly available,' the lack of standardized environmental impact assessment (EIA) requirements, and the absence of formal redress mechanisms for stakeholders. The authors argue that current rules risk excluding local communities and NGOs, as most information is released after decision-making has occurred. To address these issues, the paper recommends the creation of a 'Good Practice Manual for Public Consultation and Disclosure' and the establishment of an independent watchdog mechanism similar to the World Bank's Inspection Panel.

The document outlines how climate-driven events like sea level rise, temperature increases, and extreme weather lead to human consequences such as dislocation, disease, and infrastructure damage, which in turn violate rights to life, health, water, and housing.

The document asserts that climate change violates fundamental human rights, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups, and argues that international law mandates effective remedies, including reparations. It criticizes the UNFCCC's voluntary funding approach and the explicit exclusion of compensation in the Paris Agreement and the Loss and Damage Fund. The authors propose a human rights-based approach to loss and damage that includes restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, and satisfaction, funded by the 'polluter pays' principle through mechanisms like windfall taxes on fossil fuel companies. It also emphasizes the need for universal social protection, debt cancellation for the Global South, and protections for climate-induced displaced persons.

The document outlines four key legal disputes from the ICJ climate justice hearings: the scope of governing law beyond the Paris Agreement, the applicability of human rights law to climate mitigation, the duty to prevent transboundary environmental harm, and the legal basis for climate reparations.

The document argues that the success of the global plastics treaty depends on inclusive participation, moving beyond the limitations of the existing Major Groups and Other Stakeholders (MGS) system. It analyzes previous Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and regional instruments, such as the Aarhus Convention and Escazú Agreement, to identify best practices for accreditation, speaking rights, and funding. The brief emphasizes the need for protected participation for Indigenous Peoples, waste pickers, women, and youth, who are disproportionately affected by plastic pollution. It concludes with specific recommendations for UN Member States and international bodies to implement open accreditation, provide financial support for stakeholders, and ensure transparency through public meetings and hybrid access.

The document outlines a series of requirements for the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to ensure transparency and inclusivity. Key recommendations include open accreditation, the right for stakeholders to make text proposals, and the inclusion of public representatives within the INC Bureau. It emphasizes the need for funding to support participation, particularly for developing countries and informal sector workers, and calls for the recognition of Indigenous Peoples' governance systems through free, prior, and informed consent.

The document argues that the Loss and Damage Fund (LDF) must move beyond procedural participation to a human-rights-based framework that empowers the most affected communities. It recommends establishing robust modalities for Active Observers, creating a community access window for small grants, and implementing an independent grievance redress mechanism. The brief emphasizes that relying on World Bank standards for environmental and social safeguards or information disclosure is insufficient for the LDF's specific mission of climate justice.

The complaint argues that the State of Chile facilitated the forced eviction of Mapuche-Pehuenche communities from their ancestral lands in the Alto Bío Bío region to allow ENDESA to build the Ralco Hydroelectric Project. The petitioners claim that the state bypassed the Indigenous Law (Ley 19.253) and environmental conditions set by CONAMA, which required voluntary land swaps (permutas) approved by CONADI. Instead, the state used the 'Electric Law' (Ley Eléctrica) to impose flood easements and monetary compensation, which the petitioners describe as a form of 'ethnocide' that destroys their cultural, spiritual, and physical existence. They further allege a denial of justice by Chilean courts, which they claim have been ineffective or biased in favor of the company.

The document argues that the UNFCCC has reached a 'critical breaking point' due to systemic failures in delivering climate justice and the undue influence of the fossil fuel industry. It proposes a shift from consensus-based to majority-based decision-making to prevent a few nations from blocking progress. The authors demand a strict Conflict of Interest Policy to exclude polluting industry lobbyists from official spaces and a 'rightsizing' of COPs to end their transformation into 'global trade fairs'. Additionally, the statement calls for enhanced compliance mechanisms for Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), greater transparency in negotiations to end 'closed doors' meetings, and the protection of human rights for participants. It suggests strengthening international climate governance by aligning the UNFCCC with the other Rio Conventions and pursuing complementary legal pathways, such as the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Global Plastics Treaty, to achieve a full fossil fuel phase-out.

The document argues that a small number of fossil fuel and cement producers, termed 'Carbon Majors', are responsible for a significant portion of global greenhouse gas emissions and the subsequent climate crisis. It details how these entities' activities and disinformation campaigns have led to severe human rights violations, particularly in the Philippines, where climate-induced disasters like Typhoon Haiyan have caused immense loss of life and livelihood. The text leverages international human rights law, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the 'Carbon Majors' study to establish a framework for corporate accountability and legal liability for climate damages.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submits that the Article 6.4 mechanism must focus on near-term emissions reductions and the phase-out of fossil fuels rather than carbon removals. CIEL warns that relying on removals risks temperature overshoot beyond 1.5°C, which could lead to irreversible tipping points. The submission critiques land-based removals for their impermanence and limited capacity, and describes engineered removals like BECCS and DACCS as speculative technologies that threaten food sovereignty, land rights, and biodiversity. It further argues that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) primarily serves to prolong fossil fuel reliance and has a history of underperformance. Finally, CIEL calls for the establishment of robust human rights safeguards and an independent grievance redress mechanism for all Article 6.4 activities.

The report argues that many high-emitting governments knew about the link between fossil fuel combustion and global warming as early as the 1960s, triggering legal duties to prevent harm long before the 1990s. It uses a timeline of scientific milestones and country-specific evidence to challenge claims by States that awareness only emerged in the late 1980s, linking this knowledge to the 'no-harm' principle of customary international law.

The document argues that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is a viable forum for indigenous Arctic peoples to seek redress for global warming impacts, such as melting sea ice and thawing permafrost, which threaten their rights to life, health, property, and culture. While the Commission cannot force emissions reductions or compensation, a formal finding of human rights violations would provide a legal basis for accountability and increase global pressure on major emitters like the United States.

The guide advises agency staff to build diverse internal coalitions and leverage existing company values regarding sustainability and social justice to advocate for the termination of fossil fuel client contracts. It emphasizes that an agency's client list is the primary driver of its carbon footprint, noting that a single oil company contract for the holding company IPG produced more carbon than the entire global holding company. Recommended actions include identifying supportive leadership, using non-confrontational questioning to highlight business risks, and utilizing staff-wide forums like townhalls or Slack to organize. The document links the fossil fuel industry to systemic racial injustice, arguing that commitments to racial justice are inconsistent with working for companies that disproportionately harm marginalized communities.

A group of over 100 sustainability experts and advocates is publicly demanding that Edelman, the world's largest PR firm, drop all fossil fuel clients, including ExxonMobil and Shell. The signers argue that Edelman's work for these companies spreads climate denial and misinformation, which obstructs government action and contradicts the firm's stated commitment to the Paris Agreement.

The report details how fossil fuel companies have historically used advertising to spread climate disinformation and currently engage in 'greenwashing' to mislead consumers about their transition to clean energy. It highlights a surge in global climate litigation, noting that as of May 2021, there were 1,841 cases across 39 countries. The document warns advertising agencies that they are not immune to litigation and may face talent loss or financial penalties for their complicity in these campaigns. It provides case studies of legal actions against BP, Shell, and other 'Big Oil' companies to illustrate the growing trend of holding polluters accountable for deceptive trade practices and human rights violations.

This report details ten landmark climate change cases across different countries, highlighting how courts are holding governments and corporations accountable. Key examples include the Urgenda case in the Netherlands, which established a state's legal duty to increase climate ambition, and the Milieudefensie v. Shell case, which held a private company liable for inadequate emissions reductions. The document explores diverse legal strategies, including human rights obligations, fiduciary duties of corporate boards, and the necessity of climate considerations in environmental impact assessments.