Search Climate Insights Directory

The document advocates for legislative bans on advertising for fossil fuel-intensive goods and services, arguing that such measures are essential for demand reduction and public health. It frames the current energy crisis—caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz—as a critical window for governments to remove contradictory messaging that stimulates fossil fuel consumption while citizens are asked to reduce use.

The briefing discusses the systemic nature of climate disinformation, driven by the public relations industry and Big Tech algorithms for profit. It highlights Spain's initiative to hold digital platforms and executives legally accountable for the algorithmic amplification of illegal content and disinformation. The text also notes the European Union's endorsement of the UN Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change and the implementation of fossil fuel advertising bans in cities like The Hague, Amsterdam, and Florence as models for protecting the public from corporate-driven deception.

The author advocates for a ban on fossil fuel advertising in Norway to protect public health and support climate policy, noting that over 50 cities globally have already adopted such measures. The text argues that advertising normalizes fossil fuel use and that public health and environmental interests outweigh commercial advertising rights, as demonstrated in legal cases in The Hague.

The report argues that the end of fossil fuel advertising is inevitable and that marketing agencies must proactively 'off-ramp' these clients to avoid financial and reputational damage. It estimates that the top 29 oil majors spent $6.97 billion on media, creative, and PR in 2024, with $3.03 billion going to major holding companies and $3.94 billion to independent agencies. The document highlights the risks of retention, citing Havas' loss of B Corp certification and Edelman's 5% revenue decline in 2024. It proposes a phased exit strategy ending in 2030, suggesting agencies pivot toward high-growth sectors including healthcare (projected $36.4 billion marketing value by 2030), renewables, and the circular economy (a $4.5 trillion global opportunity by 2030).

The report analyzes the 'petroganda' strategies of oil companies like Equinor, Shell, and BP, focusing on their use of community 'gifts' and cultural sponsorships to build social legitimacy and silence critics. It highlights specific cases in Norway and Brazil, such as the First Lego League and the Rouanet Youth Program, and discusses resistance strategies including civil disobedience and the 'Petroganda Prize'.

A group of military and defence experts argues that including clean energy investments in NATO's 1.5% non-core spending target is essential for European security. They highlight that the EU continues to fund the Russian war effort through fossil fuel imports, noting that in 2024, the EU paid nearly €22 billion for Russian fossil fuels, exceeding the €19 billion in financial support provided to Kyiv. The authors contend that decentralized energy sources like wind and solar are more resilient to military attack than large power stations and that transitioning away from fossil fuels reduces vulnerability to price spikes and supply manipulation by malign actors.

The ICJ issued a unanimous advisory opinion establishing that States have binding international legal obligations to prevent climate harm, including a duty to phase out fossil fuels and provide reparations for damages. The ruling affirms the right to a healthy environment as a binding norm and clarifies that sea level rise does not terminate a State's legal statehood or maritime borders.

The authors contend that the ICJ has a legal and moral imperative to name fossil fuels as the root cause of climate change and mandate their phase-out. They argue that international law, including the transboundary harm and precautionary principles, requires States to constrain fossil fuel production and hold corporate polluters accountable. The text highlights recent advisory opinions from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) as precedents for a heightened due diligence standard regarding climate emissions. The authors criticize the political reluctance within the UNFCCC and the UN Human Rights Council to explicitly mention fossil fuels, asserting that legal clarity from the ICJ is necessary to overcome political paralysis and protect human rights, particularly for climate-vulnerable Pacific Island States.

ClientEarth supports the Hague's ban on fossil fuel advertising, asserting that EU internal market law allows such restrictions to achieve public interest goals, specifically climate change mitigation and the reduction of high-carbon consumption.

A February 2025 survey of 1,000 Dutch citizens reveals strong cross-political support for measures to combat climate disinformation. A majority believe that banning misleading fossil fuel advertising (71%) and legally requiring Big Tech companies to stop spreading climate disinformation (79%) would be effective. While support is high, awareness of these specific policy options is lower, with only 30% of respondents having heard of increasing resources for fact-checking organizations. The report notes that older respondents are generally more convinced of the effectiveness of these measures than younger people, despite the latter being more exposed to online disinformation.

A survey of 1,000 Dutch citizens found broad cross-political support for regulatory measures to combat climate disinformation, including banning fossil fuel advertising and holding social media companies legally accountable for the amplification of false content. While a majority believe these measures are effective, awareness of specific policy options remains relatively low, particularly regarding the funding of fact-checking organizations.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) and its subsidiaries underwent an independent audit for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024. The auditors issued an unmodified opinion on the consolidated financial statements and compliance for major federal programs. WRI reported total assets of $538,365,898 and total net assets of $489,378,797. The organization operates across seven critical issues, including climate, energy, and forests, with a significant portion of its funding coming from foreign governments (46% of receivables) and foundations (32% of receivables). The audit found no material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting or compliance for the 2024 period.

The Urgenda Foundation successfully sued the State of the Netherlands, resulting in a final Supreme Court ruling that the government must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 relative to 1990 levels. The courts determined that while the state has discretionary power, it has a duty of care to protect its citizens from the dangers of climate change, and its previous 20% target was insufficient and lacked scientific justification. The judiciary rejected the government's arguments regarding the separation of powers, ruling that the order did not mandate specific legislation but rather a result that the state is free to achieve through various means.

The Urgenda vs the Netherlands case resulted in a court order for the Dutch state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. The litigation navigated legal obstacles such as the principle of causation and the separation of powers, ultimately establishing that the state failed its duty of care. While the District Court relied on the Dutch Civil Code and hazardous negligence, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court grounded the decision in the positive obligation to protect human rights, specifically Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The authors argue that any climate compatibility checkpoint for UK oil and gas licensing must be based on a rapid wind-down of production consistent with 1.5°C pathways. They highlight that while different IPCC scenarios vary in their assumptions regarding carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and methane reductions, all require production to peak by 2020 for oil and 2025 for gas. The authors suggest that as a high-income country with low revenue dependence on fossil fuels, the UK should adopt a precautionary approach and potentially decrease production faster than the global average to ensure an equitable transition. They further refute the claim that reducing UK production would not impact global emissions, citing empirical evidence that supply reductions increase prices and lower global consumption.

The report provides a comprehensive 'behind-the-scenes' look at the litigation brought by Milieudefensie and over 17,000 co-plaintiffs against Royal Dutch Shell. On May 26, 2021, the District Court of The Hague ruled that Shell must reduce its net carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. The court based its decision on a 'duty of care' and the necessity to respect human rights, aligning corporate policy with the Paris Agreement. The document serves as a manual for other climate litigants, detailing strategies for funding, community mobilization, and legal argumentation, while analyzing Shell's defenses and the broader implications for corporate accountability and the energy transition.

The report documents the legal victory of Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC, where the District Court in The Hague ordered Shell to reduce its net carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. It explains the use of the 'duty of care' and human rights arguments to hold a corporate actor liable for its contribution to climate change, including Scope 3 emissions. The document also provides a 'mini-toolkit' for other NGOs planning strategic climate litigation, covering research, fundraising, and media strategies.

A statement by Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) regarding a landmark legal victory against Shell, where a Dutch court ordered the company to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% within ten years to align with the Paris Agreement.

Former OPCW Director-General Ahmet Üzümcü details the challenges of investigating chemical weapons use in Syria, the failure of the UN-led Joint Investigative Mechanism due to a Russian veto, and the subsequent creation of the OPCW's Investigation and Identification Team (IIT) to attribute responsibility for attacks.

The statement highlights a landmark legal victory where Nigerian farmers obtained reparations from Shell in a Dutch court after thirteen years of litigation. It uses this case to argue that the current legal process is too slow and that the European Union should implement a mandatory 'corporate due diligence' law to ensure European companies are held accountable for human rights and environmental abuses committed abroad.