Search Climate Insights Directory

A coalition of environmental and community organizations urges the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security to reject a $46.5 billion proposal for border wall construction, arguing that existing barriers have wasted billions of dollars, harmed border communities, and destroyed critical ecosystems.

The document is a comprehensive guide for small-scale fishing communities in South Africa to exercise their environmental rights. It details the legal framework—including the Constitution and the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA)—and explains how communities can engage in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and legislative processes. It specifically warns against the risks of offshore oil and gas exploration, mining, and the impacts of climate change, using case studies like the Deepwater Horizon spill and the 2022 Durban floods to illustrate environmental and socio-economic vulnerabilities. The guide provides practical steps for accessing information via the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) and highlights successful legal challenges against companies like Shell and Searcher to demonstrate the power of collective community action.

The document provides a comprehensive framework for small-scale fishing communities in South Africa to exercise their environmental rights against industrial developments. It details the legal landscape, including the Constitution and the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), and explains the processes for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and public participation. The guide highlights the risks associated with oil and gas exploration, mining, and power ships, while emphasizing the impacts of climate change on coastal livelihoods. It concludes with practical steps for legal challenges and accessing information via PAIA requests, illustrated by case studies involving Shell and Searcher.

The document provides a comprehensive guide for small-scale fishers in South Africa to exercise their environmental rights. It details the legal protections offered by the Constitution and acts like NEMA and MPRDA, explains the risks associated with oil and gas exploration, mining, and energy projects, and provides practical steps for engaging in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and legislative processes to ensure community voices are heard in ocean governance.

The document is a formal letter from a coalition of environmental and community organizations urging U.S. budget committees to oppose additional funding for the U.S.-Mexico border wall. The authors argue that the approximately $18.74 billion already spent has resulted in an ineffective barrier that harms border communities, violates tribal rights, and destroys critical biodiversity. They specifically highlight the use of the REAL ID Act to waive 83 laws, bypassing environmental and civil rights protections. The coalition calls for the rescission of these waivers and the funding of remediation efforts for existing damage.

The briefing warns that the Trump administration is attempting to weaken the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by empowering a presidential committee, referred to as the 'God Squad,' to prioritize development and special interests over the survival of endangered species. Earthjustice asserts that the ESA is a critical tool for combating the biodiversity crisis, noting that over one-third of U.S. flora and fauna are at risk. The organization highlights its history of successfully challenging Trump-era rollbacks in court and maintains that legal, scientific, and economic findings must precede any committee decision to remove species protections.

The document details the risks of offshore oil and gas exploration, focusing on the ecological damage caused by seismic surveys and exploratory drilling, the resulting threats to coastal livelihoods and Indigenous rights, and the broader implications for global climate regulation.

The report argues that COP29 failed to advance human rights-based climate action, citing a weak new climate finance goal, the operationalization of flawed carbon markets, and a restrictive civic environment in the host country. It highlights the removal of references to the right to a healthy environment and the lack of progress on just transition and gender justice, calling for stronger legal obligations and human rights safeguards in future UNFCCC processes.

The report provides a detailed overview of the EU's REACH and CLP regulations and the Chemical Strategy for Sustainability, alongside China's evolving environmental law system and its management of new and existing chemical substances. It highlights gaps in the EU's data availability and the nascent state of China's environmental risk assessment system, ultimately recommending institutionalised annual exchanges and capacity-building activities under the EU-China Environmental Policy Dialogue to share technical expertise and policy lessons.

The report argues that the EU's REACH Authorisation regime, designed to phase out the most hazardous chemicals, is undermined by widespread non-compliance and a lack of deterrent enforcement. It highlights that 40% of inspected companies fail to meet their obligations, yet authorities frequently rely on 'written advice' rather than dissuasive sanctions. Through case studies in France, Germany, and Spain, the document exposes a lack of transparency, with authorities often withholding enforcement data by citing commercial interests. It concludes that the European Commission and ECHA lack sufficient oversight of national enforcement, and recommends a stricter accountability framework, more frequent reporting, and the creation of public registries of infringements to incentivize compliance.

Project Drawdown asserts its commitment to science-based climate action and the defense of scientific evidence against disinformation, particularly in anticipation of the Trump administration's likely promotion of fossil fuels and weakening of environmental laws. The organization intends to shift its focus toward celebrating climate leadership found in cities, towns, private companies, and community-led initiatives rather than federal leadership.

The assessment finds that SMB's mining operations in the Boké region have caused severe environmental degradation, including deforestation and water pollution, and have negatively impacted local health and livelihoods. The report concludes that SMB has failed to comply with several Guinean laws, including the 2019 Environmental Law and the 2011 Mining Code, particularly regarding community compensation and environmental protection.

ClientEarth advocates for a shift from siloed environmental policies to comprehensive, legally binding frameworks that integrate biodiversity into all sectors of governance. The briefing emphasizes the need for human rights-based approaches, particularly for Indigenous Peoples, and highlights the importance of accountability mechanisms and the role of strategic litigation and regulation, such as the EU's Nature Restoration Law and Deforestation-free Products Regulation, in achieving global biodiversity targets.

The memorandum argues that while South African law does not yet have a specific statute requiring directors to prepare for climate change, existing fiduciary duties, the duty of care and diligence, and emerging legislation like the Climate Change Act 22 of 2024 create a legal basis for accountability. It highlights that South African courts are increasingly relying on non-binding governance standards, such as the King IV Report, and international obligations to interpret directors' duties. The document outlines several avenues for liability, including derivative actions under section 165 of the Companies Act, piercing the corporate veil under section 20(9), and criminal liability under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA). It concludes that directors should proactively manage climate risk to avoid potential litigation as legal frameworks evolve.

This document is a formal appeal submitted by groundWork and the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA) to the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment. The appeal seeks to set aside an Amended Environmental Authorisation (Amended EA) granted on 2 August 2024 to Phinda Power Projects (Pty) Ltd for a 320MW Emergency Risk Mitigation Power Plant in Alton, Richards Bay. The Appellants argue that the decision was unlawful, procedurally unfair, and failed to adequately assess the environmental and climate impacts of switching the plant's fuel source and technology.

The document critiques proposed amendments to the Pest Control Products Regulations, asserting they fail to enhance environmental protections or public transparency. The authors argue that the regulations would illegally restrict access to confidential test data to Canadian residents for 'research purposes' only, undermining the Pest Control Products Act. They further claim the amendments do not mandate the consideration of cumulative environmental effects or species at risk, failing to advance Canada's commitments under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Finally, the statement calls for separate domestic maximum residue limits (MRLs) and the elimination of the default GMRL to ensure better compliance and safety.

The document argues that the EU is currently in breach of the Aarhus Convention because the public and environmental NGOs lack a viable legal mechanism to challenge state aid decisions that violate environmental law. It explains that current CJEU admissibility standards effectively exclude NGOs, and that national court actions are insufficient substitutes. The briefing addresses business concerns, stating that a new review procedure would not be suspensive (meaning aid can still be granted and spent during litigation) and would not compromise confidential business information. It evaluates three options proposed by the Commission to grant access to justice, favoring the amendment of the EU Aarhus Regulation as the most legally certain and democratic solution.

The document argues that recent Supreme Court rulings have shifted power from subject matter experts in federal agencies to the judiciary, creating regulatory instability and making it harder to defend environmental protections. It specifically analyzes the blocking of the Good Neighbor Rule, the elimination of Chevron deference, the expansion of statutes of limitations for challenging regulations, and the restriction of agency-led civil penalty enforcement. The author contends that these changes will lead to a 'tsunami of lawsuits' and a patchwork of conflicting legal interpretations, necessitating more rigorous technical and legal justifications for new agency rules.

The document analyzes Ghana's mechanisms for stakeholder engagement in mining, including parliamentary ratification and public hearings, and evaluates dispute resolution options such as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and judicial recourse. It highlights critical gaps, such as the exclusion of environmental disputes from ADR and the lack of prosecutorial power for the Minerals Commission.

The Wild Coast community and civil society organisations, including Natural Justice and Greenpeace Africa, are challenging an SCA order in the Constitutional Court. They argue that the order allowing Shell to seek a decision on renewing its exploration rights is unfair and fails to protect human rights, cultural beliefs, and the environment. The challenge seeks to ensure that any exploration is subject to proper environmental permission and meaningful consultation with local residents.