Search Climate Insights Directory

The document analyzes the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, detailing the scientific consensus on global warming and the diplomatic tensions between industrialized and developing nations during its creation. It highlights the lack of binding emissions targets and the complexities of the financial mechanism and technology transfer.

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 document examines the negative impacts of ISDS on environmental and climate policy, noting that at least 175 cases are tied to environmental measures. It argues that the threat of arbitration disincentivizes states from enacting climate laws and that current treaty reforms are insufficient, suggesting that treaty termination and a shift toward domestic courts are the most effective solutions.

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.

In 2014, the labeled green bond market grew more than threefold to reach 366 billion USD, issued by 73 entities. International financial institutions remained the leaders, accounting for 44% of the market, with the European Investment Bank (EIB) as the largest issuer at 5.6 billion USD. The market saw significant diversification through corporate issuances totaling 12 billion USD, including a 3.4 billion USD issuance by GDF Suez, and the introduction of green asset-backed securities by Toyota. Municipal bonds also contributed, with US and Canadian provinces and cities like Gothenburg and Johannesburg participating. The total market size, including unlabeled green project bonds and ABS, is estimated between 38 billion and 39 billion USD, with a projection of 100 billion USD by the end of 2015.

The green bond market experienced rapid growth between 2013 and 2016, with total emissions reaching USD 81 billion in 2016. The market is increasingly dominated by the private sector, with corporate and bank emissions rising from less than 1% in 2010 to 66% in 2016. While mitigation projects—specifically clean energy, energy efficiency, and low-carbon transport—receive approximately 75% of funds, financing for adaptation grew from less than 1% in 2011 to 5% of total emissions, driven largely by US municipalities. China emerged as a leading market, projecting to be the largest globally. To support the Paris Agreement, the Climate Bonds Initiative targets annual green bond emissions of USD 1 trillion by 2020. The document recommends that governments implement national capital mobilization plans, apply international standards like the Green Bond Principles and Climate Bonds Standard, and develop national verifier networks to reduce market friction and prevent greenwashing.

The Climate Bonds Resilience Taxonomy (CBRT) establishes a science-based classification system to direct capital toward climate resilience. It categorizes investments into four types—adapting measures, adapted activities, enabling measures, and enabling activities—and organizes them across seven thematic areas. To prevent greenwashing, the CBRT requires investments to demonstrate a 'Substantial Contribution' to resilience, manage maladaptation risks, and 'Do No Significant Harm' (DNSH) to climate mitigation and other environmental goals. The methodology emphasizes a graduated screening approach, ranging from automatically eligible investments to complex local threshold assessments, and ensures interoperability with the EU Taxonomy and MDB Joint Methodology.

The document advocates for the use of energy efficiency and domestic renewable retrofits as a 'super-multiplier' for economic recovery in Europe. It highlights the significant potential for job creation in the construction sector, the mitigation of energy poverty, and the necessity of public-private partnerships to overcome high capital costs and low renovation rates. The authors provide historical and international case studies from the US, South Korea, China, and Europe to demonstrate the effectiveness of green stimulus packages in driving long-term economic and environmental benefits.

The report highlights a significant gap between current EU agricultural emissions trends and the 2030 and 2050 climate targets. It identifies the absence of agriculture from the EU Taxonomy as a major barrier to defining sustainable activities. The author proposes repurposing the CAP, which accounts for approximately 30% of the EU budget, to fund a transition that requires an estimated annual public investment of EUR 155bn to reduce emissions by 53% by 2050. Key recommendations include adopting science-based sectoral criteria, reforming payment structures to reward green practices, and potentially extending the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to agrifood products to prevent carbon leakage.

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.

ClientEarth's feedback on the EU's Offshore Renewable Energy Strategy emphasizes the need for high environmental standards, public transparency, and regional cooperation. It argues that the strategy must adhere to the 'do no harm' principle and the precautionary principle, ensuring that the deployment of offshore wind and other ocean energies does not compromise biodiversity or ignore the rights of public participation under the Aarhus Convention. The document suggests a regional approach to grid development and targeted financial support for technologies that have not yet reached grid parity, such as wave energy.

The document provides a scientific and legal basis for the European Court of Human Rights to assess State due diligence regarding climate change. It emphasizes the urgency of limiting warming to 1.5°C to avoid irreversible damage and tipping points, noting that current global emissions trends are insufficient. It highlights severe health risks in Europe, including heat-related mortality, and argues that under the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC, States have a 'best efforts' obligation to pursue the highest possible ambition in emissions reductions. ClientEarth asserts that failure to meet international climate commitments constitutes a prima facie violation of human rights obligations, and that adaptation measures cannot substitute for necessary mitigation.

The document argues that the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is incompatible with EU law and climate goals, citing the CJEU ruling in Case C-741/19 (Republic of Moldova v Komstroy) which found ECT ISDS provisions inapplicable to intra-EU disputes. It highlights the risk that investment tribunals may ignore this ruling and notes that the ECT modernization process is unlikely to succeed due to the requirement for unanimity among contracting parties. The author points to lawsuits by RWE and Uniper against the Netherlands over coal phase-out decisions, seeking over 2.4 billion euros, as evidence that the ECT hinders climate action. Consequently, the document calls for a coordinated EU withdrawal from the ECT and the use of an 'inter se' agreement to eliminate obligations that persist after withdrawal.

The document argues that the EU is failing to meet its 2020 goal of ending overfishing due to Total Allowable Catches (TACs) being set above scientific advice, particularly by certain Member States. It recommends following scientific advice to achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), properly enforcing the landing obligation, increasing transparency in the TAC-setting process, and ensuring honest reporting on progress.

The report concludes that EU capacity ceilings are not a major obstacle to decarbonisation, as most Member States have available room to increase gross tonnage (GT) and kilowatt (kW) capacity. It proposes a stepwise transition: first improving energy efficiency (reducing fuel use by ~30%), then adopting hybrid solutions (potentially reducing emissions by 79% combined), and finally moving toward full decarbonisation using alternative fuels like methanol. The authors argue that decommissioning fuel-inefficient vessels to combat overfishing creates a 'win-win' by freeing up capacity for the energy transition.

The document assesses plastic pollution in China, highlighting significant production and leakage into oceans, and contrasts this with the EU's comprehensive regulatory framework. It details EU strategies such as the Waste Framework Directive, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and the 'Plastics 2030' strategy, which aims for 100% reusable or recyclable plastic packaging by 2030. The report suggests China adopt similar integrated land-sea management, eco-design standards, and international cooperation to combat plastic waste.

The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is criticized for allowing fossil fuel investors to use Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) to challenge climate policies, such as the Netherlands' phase-out of fossil fuels by 2030. While the EU has attempted to modernize the ECT, the requirement for unanimity among 56 contracting states has stalled progress. The document argues that withdrawal is a viable alternative, provided that the 20-year 'survival clause'—which continues to protect existing investments after withdrawal—is neutralized. Using the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), the authors argue that a group of states can legally modify the treaty 'inter se' to extinguish this clause because the ECT consists of reciprocal bilateral relations rather than obligations binding on all parties. Such a coordinated withdrawal would immediately end treaty-based fossil fuel protection and ISDS for the withdrawing states, reducing legal risks and aligning with EU climate objectives.

The paper examines the history and current state of EU environmental governance, detailing the roles of the Commission, Parliament, Council, and Court of Justice. It highlights a systemic failure in the enforcement of environmental law by Member States and the Commission, noting that economic interests frequently override environmental concerns. The author argues that the EU's 'good governance' principles of openness and participation are poorly implemented, leaving environmental NGOs with limited influence and citizens with minimal access to justice. While the EU has a comprehensive body of legislation, the author concludes that the lack of political will makes much of it a 'paper tiger'.

ClientEarth filed a complaint with UN Special Procedures alleging that Saudi Aramco is responsible for the world's largest climate-linked breach of human rights law. The UN experts issued Communications to Saudi Aramco, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and several global financial institutions, asking them to clarify their compliance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The document highlights Aramco's role as a massive corporate emitter and the responsibility of banks—including JPMorgan Chase and HSBC—that facilitate its operations. It further argues that the Saudi government is failing in its duty to regulate Aramco and that the company's sustainability claims are misleading.