Search Climate Insights Directory

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and Natural Justice (NJ) argue that the proposed MIR for onshore exploration in South Africa lacks the specificity, enforceable standards, and climate integration necessary to protect environmental integrity and community interests. They recommend mandatory greenhouse gas accounting, a regional cumulative impact assessment, and a comprehensive public health baseline. Technical experts in the document highlight critical gaps in groundwater monitoring, the absence of a risk-based 'traffic light protocol' for induced seismicity, and the need for transparent chemical disclosure of fracturing fluids. The authors ultimately argue that hydraulic fracturing is incompatible with South Africa's climate commitments and water scarcity, suggesting it should be prohibited.

The document argues that the European Commission is increasingly abandoning impact assessments (IAs) and public consultations under the guise of 'political urgency', which ClientEarth claims increases legal risks and the likelihood of unintended environmental and social consequences. It recommends strictly limiting IA exemptions, increasing transparency by publishing assessments earlier in the legislative process, and ensuring balanced stakeholder representation to prevent corporate capture. Additionally, it criticizes the use of 'Omnibus' proposals for simplification, suggesting instead that the Commission focus on removing truly duplicative requirements and tying EU funding to law compliance.

The document analyzes the ICJ's advisory opinion to argue that States must prioritize reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the source over speculative technologies like geoengineering and carbon offsets. It outlines how the ICJ's standards of 'stringent due diligence' and the 'precautionary principle' can be used in litigation to hold States and corporations accountable for ineffective climate strategies that delay the phase-out of fossil fuels.

The document analyzes the implications of the ICJ's advisory opinion on States' obligations to prevent environmental harm, specifically focusing on the cessation of fossil fuel subsidies and the regulation of private finance. It argues that States may commit internationally wrongful acts by continuing to fund fossil fuel production or failing to regulate private financiers. Additionally, it outlines binding obligations for developed States to provide financial assistance to developing countries for climate adaptation and mitigation under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. The briefing concludes by categorizing various types of climate litigation—including cases against public agencies, central banks, and private financial institutions—where these legal findings are applicable.

The document translates the ICJ's advisory opinion into practical tools for climate litigation, focusing on the 'stringent due diligence' States must exercise to regulate private actors, particularly in the fossil fuel industry. It highlights that States may be in breach of international obligations if they fail to prevent significant climate harm through the production, licensing, or subsidizing of fossil fuels. The brief also connects these findings to specific case categories, including licensing, duty to regulate, corporate frameworks, accountability for loss and damage, and greenwashing, emphasizing the 1.5°C temperature goal as a legal standard.

The document analyzes how the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion (AO) establishes a 'stringent due diligence' standard for States to prevent significant harm to the climate system. It argues that regulatory rollbacks, such as easing emission standards or removing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirements, may constitute internationally wrongful acts. The note provides specific legal excerpts from the AO and applies them to various categories of litigation, including challenges to diluted mitigation standards, weakened land-use protections, and procedural rollbacks. A detailed annex examines recent regulatory shifts in India—including thermal power emission norms, forest governance changes under the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act 2023, and EIA exemptions—as examples of conduct that may breach the ICJ's established standards.

The document provides a structured analysis of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion (AO) delivered on 23 July 2025, specifically focusing on how its findings can be applied to climate adaptation litigation. It details binding obligations under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, the intersection of adaptation with human rights law, and the ICJ's rejection of arguments that the cumulative nature of climate change exempts individual States from responsibility. The guide also categorizes types of litigation—including human rights-based cases, national planning challenges, corporate accountability, and infrastructure projects—where these legal excerpts are most applicable.

The document analyzes the legal implications of the ICJ's 2025 advisory opinion for 'government framework cases,' which target emissions reduction targets and regulatory frameworks. It details how the ICJ clarified that 1.5°C is the primary temperature goal of the Paris Agreement and established a 'stringent' due diligence standard for States in preparing and implementing Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The guide highlights that NDCs must reflect a State's 'highest possible ambition' and be capable of making an adequate contribution to the 1.5°C goal. It also emphasizes the application of customary international law regarding the duty to prevent significant transboundary harm and the duty to cooperate, regardless of treaty membership. Furthermore, the document connects climate action to human rights obligations and intergenerational equity, providing a legal basis for courts to order remedies such as the adoption of consistent NDCs or full reparation.

The ICJ AO Litigation Notes Digest synthesizes the International Court of Justice's 2025 advisory opinion, establishing that States have stringent due diligence obligations to prevent significant harm to the climate system. It clarifies that the 1.5°C goal is the primary temperature target under the Paris Agreement and that the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a precondition for other human rights. The digest details the legal consequences of breaches, including obligations of cessation and reparation, and emphasizes that climate obligations are erga omnes, meaning all States have a legal interest in their protection.

The document analyzes how the 2026 Omnibus directive weakened the CSDDD by significantly reducing the number of companies in scope, removing mandatory climate transition plans, and fragmenting the civil liability regime. It argues that these changes undermine the directive's original intent to foster responsible corporate behavior and increase legal uncertainty for both companies and victims of human rights and environmental abuses.

Reclaim Finance's 2026 report reveals that 62% of analyzed unit-linked accounts (UC) in French life insurance are exposed to fossil fuel developers, despite growing saver demand for sustainable investments. The study highlights a systemic 'blind spot' where insurers apply climate policies to their general funds (fonds euro) but ignore them for UC. Specifically, 61% of UC are exposed to oil and gas developers, and 15% to thermal coal. The report also identifies significant greenwashing risks, noting that 47% of funds with 'sustainable' or 'ESG' labels still hold fossil fuel developers. It recommends that insurers stop referencing new fossil-exposed funds, demand robust climate strategies from asset managers, and calls for public authorities to implement an 'eco-score' for savings products.

The author contends that recent violations of international law—including US actions in Venezuela and conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza—demonstrate the impotence of violence. The text advocates for a shift toward 'non-violence' as a political tool and a global common good, linking peace to social and environmental justice. It calls on the European Union to champion this approach by upholding the UN Charter, the Paris Agreement, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The author contends that recent military actions by the US, Russia, and Israel signal a collapse of international law and a return to the 'law of the strongest'. The text argues that violence is a symptom of powerlessness and suggests that Europe should instead promote a 'new' paradigm based on non-violence, the UN's 2030 Agenda, and the Paris Climate Agreement to achieve sustainable peace and climate justice.

2025 was Earth's third-warmest year on record, with average temperatures 1.3°C above pre-industrial levels. This continues a heat streak driven by fossil fuel pollution, pushing the planet toward the 1.5°C long-term warming limit, which could be exceeded by 2030. While global electricity demand is increasingly met by renewables, the U.S. has recently rolled back clean energy policies and withdrawn from key international climate agreements.

The document outlines a three-goal approach for climate finance vehicles to manage climate risk and build resilience. Goal 1 focuses on a five-step process to identify and manage physical climate hazards to align with international standards like the ISSB and Paris Agreement. Goal 2 guides the creation of an evidence-backed adaptation thesis to secure investor commitments, particularly for those targeting Multilateral Development Bank (MDB) funding. Goal 3 provides a methodology for designing impact measurement frameworks, including theories of change and indicator tables, to track resilience outcomes and avoid maladaptation.

The Global Coal Plant Tracker (GCPT) monitors coal-fired electrical generating plants of 30 MW or larger, including operating units, those proposed since 2010, and those retired since 2000. The methodology employs a two-level system consisting of a database for unit-level tracking and detailed wiki pages for project histories. Data is validated through government records, company reports, NGO tracking, and on-the-ground contacts, with updates occurring bi-annually in January and July. The tracker categorizes plant status into nine stages, ranging from 'Announced' to 'Retired', and calculates carbon dioxide emissions based on unit capacity, emission factors for coal types, heat rates for combustion technology, and global average utilization rates.

The document outlines the targets and metrics for the Coolfood Pledge, focusing on GHG emissions reductions and the increase of plant-based foods in procurement by 2030, 2035, and 2050.

The report analyzes 22 extreme weather events in 2025, noting that despite weak La Nina conditions, global temperatures remained exceptionally high due to human-driven emissions. It emphasizes that warming of approximately 1.3°C has intensified heatwaves, droughts, and floods, with a specific focus on how women and marginalized groups bear a disproportionate burden. The document also identifies a critical gap in climate science, where a lack of observational data in the Global South hinders confident analysis of rainfall events. Finally, it argues that while adaptation is necessary, events like Hurricane Melissa in the Caribbean demonstrate that adaptation has limits and cannot replace the urgent need for rapid emission reductions.

The report finds that while a majority of registered U.S. voters support clean energy transitions and the Paris Climate Agreement, global warming remains a low priority for most when deciding on congressional candidates. There is strong bipartisan support for protecting workers from extreme heat and opposing the elimination of federal climate research and FEMA, though significant political polarization persists regarding fossil fuel use and the priority level of climate action.

A group of Canadian health professionals and community leaders is urging the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) to halt funding for LNG Canada and the Coastal GasLink pipeline. They argue that current assessments fail to account for the cumulative health burdens of fracked gas extraction, transport, and terminal operations, particularly in Kitimat and northeast British Columbia. The authors claim JBIC is violating OECD guidelines, Japan's own Net Zero 2050 commitment, and international human rights standards, specifically regarding the lack of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) from Wet’suwet’en hereditary leaders and other Indigenous groups.