Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that the proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT) poses significant risks to public health, water security, and local ecosystems, particularly if used to export coal. The author highlights that current design plans are conceptual and lack enforceable controls for dust and emissions. Key concerns include the consumption of 79.2 million gallons of water annually for dust control during a record drought, the release of up to 18,300 tons of coal dust per year within California from uncovered rail cars, and increased cancer risks from diesel particulate matter in West Oakland. Additionally, the report notes that the project's scale would cause significant traffic congestion at 55 at-grade rail crossings and create substantial noise pollution. The author concludes that these impacts were not addressed in the project's CEQA review.

A statement by Earthjustice emphasizing the intersection of Hispanic heritage and environmental justice, citing a survey that shows strong Latino support for environmental protection despite facing disproportionate pollution and health risks.

Earthjustice, representing a coalition of environmental and community groups, urges the City of Oakland to reject the development of a coal export terminal at the former Oakland Army Base. The letter asserts that the project would disproportionately burden the low-income, predominantly African American community of West Oakland with particulate matter and diesel pollution, while violating California's greenhouse gas reduction goals. It argues that proposed mitigations, such as covered rail cars, are ineffective and that the project is an economic risk due to declining global coal demand. Finally, the document claims the project lacks necessary environmental review under CEQA and NEPA and that the City possesses the legal authority to ban the terminal to protect public health.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several environmental justice alliances, submitted a formal objection to the Department of Environmental Affairs' draft Air Quality Offsets Guideline (January 2015). The CER argues that the proposed offsets are actually forms of compensation that lack a legislative framework and could be used by polluters to avoid legal compliance with emission standards.

A coalition of 290 organizations and individuals opposes H.R. 1734, asserting that the bill would weaken the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2014 coal ash rule. The signatories argue the legislation would delay health protections, eliminate public access to information, and remove national standards for drinking water protection, thereby increasing risks to vulnerable communities and the environment.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) has identified significant discrepancies in the National Air Quality Officer's (NAQO) decisions regarding Eskom's applications for postponement of minimum emission standards (MES). The CER highlights inconsistencies between the postponement periods and emission limits sought by Eskom and those actually granted, as well as a lack of clear commencement dates for certain standards. Specifically, the CER notes that for several power stations, the NAQO appears to have granted open-ended postponements for SO2 emissions 'until decommissioning' or implicitly granted 2020 MES postponements that were not explicitly requested. The document seeks formal clarification on these administrative inconsistencies to advise environmental justice organisations and impacted community groups.

The document argues that the current 75 ppb ozone standard is insufficient to protect public health, particularly for sensitive populations like children and asthmatics. It advocates for a 60 ppb primary standard based on scientific evidence of lung function decrements and inflammation at that level. It also calls for a separate secondary standard of 7 ppm-hrs using the W126 metric to protect vegetation and ecosystems, specifically in Class I areas.

The Legal Resources Centre (LRC) and a coalition of civil society and community organisations are urging the South African National Assembly to reject the Mining and Petroleum Resources Development Amendment Bill 15B of 2013. Following President Zuma's referral of the bill back to Parliament, the LRC argues that the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) and provincial legislatures failed to facilitate reasonable public participation, violating sections 72 and 118 of the Constitution. The LRC specifically highlights that the bill removes community participation in mining and eliminates requirements for addressing socio-economic needs. They contend that the bill was influenced by 'lobbying and influence peddling' from the mining industry and the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) outside of parliamentary processes. The LRC demands a fresh start to the legislative process to ensure meaningful consultation with affected mining communities, particularly regarding living customary law and the principle of community consent.

The report examines the vulnerability of U.S. coastal oil refineries to sea level rise and storm surge, focusing on five major companies: Valero, Phillips 66, Exxon Mobil, Marathon Petroleum, and Chevron. It argues that these companies fail to adequately disclose material physical climate risks to the SEC, despite guidance issued in 2010. The analysis uses SLOSH MOM modeling to demonstrate that current and future sea level rise increases the likelihood of facility inundation and operational disruptions. The report highlights the resulting financial risks for investors and the environmental and health risks for neighboring communities, particularly those in the Gulf Coast region.

The document examines the relationship between environmental justice and the success of conservation strategies, specifically Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES). It argues that ignoring social dimensions—such as distributive equity, recognition of rights, and inclusive decision-making—increases the risk of project failure through social conflict and sabotage, whereas integrating these criteria improves ecological outcomes and long-term efficiency.

The document marks the 30th anniversary of the 1984 Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal, India, which released toxic gases from a pesticide factory, affecting over 500,000 people and causing more than 25,000 deaths. It criticizes Dow Chemicals, which acquired Union Carbide, for continuing to avoid accountability while promoting 'green' initiatives like 'green plastic' and 'climate smart agriculture'. The statement advocates for a legally binding UN system to judge corporations for ecocide and human rights violations.

The document commemorates the 30th anniversary of the Union Carbide industrial disaster in Bhopal, India, highlighting the long-term human and environmental toll and criticizing Dow Chemicals for avoiding accountability. It calls for a legally binding UN system to judge corporations for ecocide and human rights violations, framing the struggle of Bhopal survivors as a catalyst for the global environmental justice movement.

The document examines how extraterritorial obligations (ETOs), as clarified by the Maastricht Principles, are essential for holding states accountable for environmental destruction and climate change that impact human rights beyond their own borders. It highlights gaps in protection caused by globalization, specifically regarding transnational corporations and intergovernmental organizations. Using examples like tropical deforestation and shipbreaking in South Asia, the guide illustrates how state omissions and the failure to regulate non-state actors lead to severe human rights impairments. It concludes that a human rights-based approach to climate change is necessary to ensure equitable mitigation and protection for the world's most vulnerable populations.

This guide, published by Natural Justice in December 2014, provides an overview of regional and international grievance and advocacy mechanisms available to indigenous peoples and local communities. It categorizes these tools into UN human rights systems, regional human rights systems, international and regional financial institutions, industry-specific standards, and other advocacy opportunities, detailing eligibility, processes, and potential barriers for each.

The report profiles ten U.S. cities where residents live in close proximity to petroleum refineries, documenting systemic exposure to toxic air pollutants, high rates of cancer and asthma, and frequent industrial accidents. It highlights a pattern of 'significant violation' of the Clean Air Act by major refineries and notes that these facilities are often located in low-income and minority neighborhoods. The document calls for the EPA to implement more stringent air toxics standards and improved fenceline monitoring to protect public health.

The authors use domestic household water consumption in Bangalore to argue that urban hydrology is essentially 'social hydrology,' where the unequal distribution of piped water infrastructure acts as the primary driver of groundwater patterns, outweighing biophysical factors.

The letter argues that Sasol and Natref's court application to set aside air pollution regulations threatens public health and environmental rights, particularly in the Vaal Triangle and Highveld Priority Areas. The signatories contend that Sasol's high profitability makes its claims of prohibitive compliance costs immoral and that granting exemptions would set a dangerous precedent for other polluters, including Eskom.

The Friends of the Earth International General Assembly, meeting in Kandy, Sri Lanka, in October 2014, decided to end the membership of Amici della Terra (Friends of the Earth Italy) after 36 years, citing a divergence in their shared vision of environmental justice and mission.

The Friends of the Earth International (ATI) General Assembly, meeting in Kandy, Sri Lanka, in October 2014, decided to withdraw the membership of Amici della Terra. This decision followed an evaluation process and was based on the conclusion that the vision of environmental justice held by the federation and the mission and vision of Amici della Terra had become too divergent to sustain the membership after thirty-six years.

The document details the legal battle over the Spruce No. 1 mine, one of the largest proposed mountaintop removal sites. It highlights the EPA's historic 2011 veto of the mine based on potential harm to natural resources and overburdened low-income communities, and the subsequent court proceedings where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the EPA's authority to veto the project in April 2013.