Search Climate Insights Directory

The report identifies a critical gap between current energy policies and the requirements for limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Based on 26 'feasible' IPCC pathways that limit reliance on unproven carbon capture and removal technologies, the authors argue that no new oil and gas fields should be developed and that global production must drop by 30% by 2030. Simultaneously, wind and solar capacity additions must double current forecasts, requiring an annual investment of over USD 830 billion by 2030. The report highlights a USD 450 billion annual investment gap and calls for the redirection of capital away from fossil fuels, noting that current oil and gas industry spending on undeveloped fields is inconsistent with climate goals.

The document provides a detailed guide on the rights of individuals and NGOs to participate in environmental decision-making in the UK, primarily through the framework of the Aarhus Convention. It outlines the specific requirements for three types of decisions: specific activities (Article 6), plans and policies (Article 7), and legislation (Article 8). The guide also discusses domestic UK consultation standards, such as the Sedley/Gunning principles and Cabinet Office Consultation principles, and provides advice on challenging deficient consultations through judicial review or the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee.

The document outlines the requirements for public participation in environmental matters in the UK, focusing on the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention: access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice. It details the specific obligations for public authorities regarding activities, plans, and legislation that significantly affect the environment. Additionally, it explains domestic standards for fair consultation, including the Sedley/Gunning principles and Cabinet Office Consultation principles, and provides guidance on challenging deficient consultations through judicial review or the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee.

The report presents a vision for a healthy planet based on solidarity, equality, and living within planetary boundaries. It argues that current economic metrics like GDP fuel environmental degradation and calls for a shift toward health and well-being. Based on a survey of over 900 youth from 89 countries, it highlights widespread climate anxiety and a perceived lack of youth agency in global governance. The authors propose specific policy pathways, including a Global Resilience Mechanism for social security, inclusive disaster risk reduction, and a rapid low-carbon transition. It emphasizes the need to move beyond tokenistic youth representation toward meaningful decision-making power and comprehensive climate education.

The Center for International Environmental Law argues that COP26 failed to address the root causes of the climate crisis, specifically fossil fuels, and instead relied on 'false solutions' like carbon offsets. The statement highlights the exclusion of civil society and Indigenous Peoples from negotiations, the inadequacy of climate finance for adaptation and loss and damage, and the persistence of 'greenwashing' by corporate interests. While noting some progress in marginal alliances like the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance, the author concludes that the official negotiated outcomes lack the ambition and equity required to keep global warming below 1.5°C.

ClientEarth argues that Clause 1 of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, specifically the introduction of prospective-only quashing orders, would weaken the public's right to an effective remedy when public bodies act unlawfully. The briefing contends that these proposals conflict with the UK's obligations under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention, thereby damaging environmental democracy. It further warns that such remedies could allow unlawful decisions to stand, reducing accountability and preventing the protection of the environment from irretrievable harm.

The author contends that the UK government is utilizing a 'Trump-style core vote strategy' to distract from pandemic failures and sustain the Leave coalition. This approach involves criminalizing protest, targeting minority groups such as Gypsy and Traveller communities, and undermining the rule of law and media independence. The text describes a breakdown of the 'good chap' model of governance, replaced by high-level cronyism and neoliberal failure. The author advocates for a positive alternative vision based on a just transition to a carbon-neutral society, proportional representation, and a move away from centralism.

The document argues that agroecology, a science-based set of practices and social movement, offers a sustainable alternative to industrial agriculture, which accounts for up to 37% of global greenhouse gas emissions. It highlights that approximately 30% of global farms have already adopted agroecological principles, leading to increased crop yields, higher farmer incomes, and improved biodiversity. However, the briefing notes that scaling up these practices is hindered by governance and finance systems that heavily subsidize industrial agriculture, with only 1%-1.5% of agricultural and aid budgets currently supporting agroecological approaches. To overcome these barriers, the document recommends reorienting public funding, integrating agroecology into research and education, and increasing the participation of small-scale producers in food governance.

The report analyzes the legal and governance void created by Brexit, specifically the loss of the European Commission's enforcement role and the CJEU's jurisdiction. It examines the proposed Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) under the Environment Bill, the shift to 'retained EU law', and the risks associated with increased secondary legislation and resource shortages in agencies like the Environment Agency and Natural England. Case studies on air quality and pesticides illustrate the potential for regressive environmental standards and the loss of independent scientific oversight.

ClientEarth's submission to the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) emphasizes the constitutional importance of judicial review as a check on executive power and a tool for environmental protection. The organization argues that there is no evidence of a systemic imbalance in the current system and warns that hasty reforms could undermine the rule of law and the UK's obligations under the Aarhus Convention. Key recommendations include extending time limits for planning cases, introducing one-way costs shifting for public interest claims, and expanding the scope of available remedies to include the modification of decisions.

The paper examines the UK's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, highlighting a lack of decisive government action, contradictory messaging, and failures in PPE procurement. It notes that while the public was largely compliant, trust was undermined by perceived double standards and the impact of long-term austerity on the NHS. The author argues that the pandemic exacerbated existing social inequalities, particularly for BAME groups, and converged with the political tensions of Brexit and the Black Lives Matter movement.

The 1972 Stockholm Conference marked the beginning of global environmental cooperation, introducing the concept of sustainable development and leading to the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Despite Cold War tensions and conflicts between industrialized and developing nations, the conference produced the Stockholm Declaration and Action Plan, which provided the first global principles for environmental law. Its legacy includes the democratization of environmental policy through NGO participation and the establishment of foundational treaties on marine pollution and biodiversity.

The report argues that a well-designed climate accountability framework can increase government transparency and coordination across different levels of government to meet 2030 and 2050 targets. Based on international and domestic case studies, it identifies six common elements of such frameworks and proposes a national Canadian model that balances federal leadership with subnational flexibility.

The report analyzes climate accountability frameworks—systems that break long-term greenhouse gas targets into interim milestones—using case studies from jurisdictions like the UK, Aotearoa/New Zealand, British Columbia, and Manitoba. It identifies six common elements and associated best practices, such as legislating targets, ensuring independent expert advice, and using cumulative carbon budgets. For Canada, the authors recommend a national framework with legally binding milestones set only at the national level to avoid regional burden-sharing conflicts, while encouraging subnational governments to implement their own complementary frameworks. The report emphasizes a collaborative approach where the federal government provides policy backstops and financial incentives to ensure a resilient, multi-jurisdictional response to climate change.

The report examines the controlled environment agriculture (CEA) industry, comparing conventional farming with hydroponic and aquaponic systems in greenhouse and vertical formats. A life cycle analysis (LCA) reveals that while conventional agriculture currently has the lowest overall environmental impact, CEA excels in land and water efficiency. The document identifies energy and labor as primary cost hurdles but highlights innovations in LED lighting, AI, and renewable energy as potential solutions. It specifically evaluates St. Louis as a viable location for a pilot project due to its market demand, available stranded assets like caves and brownfields, and supportive local policies.

The UK's Climate Change Act 2008 established a legally-binding framework for emissions reductions, featuring long-term targets, five-year carbon budgets, and independent oversight by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC). While the UK successfully met its first two carbon budgets and reduced emissions by 44% below 1990 levels by 2018, it is currently not on track to meet its fourth and fifth budgets or its net-zero target. The legislation is noted for its political durability across different governments and its inclusion of climate adaptation governance, though it faces potential challenges from Brexit and the need to decarbonize more difficult economic sectors.

The document analyzes the UK's Climate Change Act 2008, highlighting its use of legally binding long-term targets, five-year carbon budgets, and the role of the independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC). It notes that while the UK successfully reduced emissions by 44% relative to 1990 levels by 2018, it faces challenges in meeting future carbon budgets and its 2050 net-zero target. The study suggests Canada could adopt similar frameworks, particularly regarding independent advisory bodies and the integration of adaptation planning into climate law.

The briefing examines the UK carpet waste stream, criticizing the industry's reliance on incineration and downcycling under the guise of recycling. It argues that voluntary initiatives have failed and proposes a mandatory EPR framework to incentivize eco-design and closed-loop recycling.

Ember argues that the UK's priority should be to remain within the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) to maintain a shared Europe-wide approach to carbon pricing. The organization warns against the creation of a standalone UK ETS due to risks of market dysfunction and volatility, suggesting that if the UK must leave the EU ETS, it should implement a carbon tax on power, industry, and aviation with a price floor based on the previous year's average EU ETS price. Furthermore, Ember asserts that carbon pricing must be complemented by direct regulation and public funding to achieve net zero emissions.

The document outlines the legal obligations of 38 local authorities in England and Wales to address illegal nitrogen dioxide levels. It details a three-part legal test from High Court judgments requiring plans to achieve compliance as soon as possible, reduce human exposure quickly, and ensure compliance is likely rather than just possible. It emphasizes that cost and political difficulties, including election Purdah, are not lawful reasons for delay, and that these duties persist despite Brexit.