Search Climate Insights Directory

The CESCR addressed climate change in most of its 2023 work, including twelve Concluding Observations and seven Lists of Issues. The Committee focused on mitigation policies, urging states like Brazil, Panama, and Portugal to meet their Paris Agreement NDCs, and recommended that China expand its emissions trading system and stop financing overseas coal power. Adaptation efforts were highlighted in nineteen statements, with specific calls for national adaptation plans in Cambodia, Palestine, and Yemen, and an emphasis on the participation of Indigenous Peoples in Panama. Additionally, the Committee challenged the fossil fuel reliance of states such as Qatar and China, while inquiring about oil refinery pollution in Curaçao.

The authors contend that the climate crisis is a human rights crisis, citing the 2022 Pakistan floods as an example where the right to life, housing, food, education, and health were severely impacted. They argue that wealthy industrialized nations and corporate actors bear the primary responsibility for these harms but have neglected the duty to provide effective remedy. The document calls for COP27 to establish a needs- and rights-centered Loss and Damage Finance Facility and to operationalize the Warsaw International Mechanism and Santiago Network in a rights-compliant manner.

The toolkit argues that rights-based approaches lead to more effective and legitimate climate outcomes. It outlines a three-step process for integrating rights into NDCs: inclusive planning, transparent communication of how rights informed that planning, and reflecting human rights obligations in implementation and monitoring. The document provides specific recommendations across seven thematic areas: ambition, participatory planning, general human rights integration, gender mainstreaming, Indigenous Peoples' rights, land tenure, and just transition. It emphasizes that states must align their climate ambition with the 1.5°C target to fulfill human rights obligations and should account for all emissions under their jurisdiction, including extraterritorial ones. The toolkit includes guiding questions and illustrative examples from the NDCs of Canada, Mexico, Vanuatu, Nepal, Costa Rica, Bolivia, and Chile to demonstrate best practices in human rights-based climate action.

The document argues that climate action must be aligned with human rights to be effective and legitimate. It provides a framework for integrating these rights into NDCs, focusing on scientific ambition, inclusive public participation, gender equality, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, land tenure, and a just transition for workers.

The document argues that climate action is most effective and legitimate when based on a human rights approach. It outlines a framework for integrating these rights into NDCs, focusing on scientific ambition, inclusive public participation, gender equality, the rights of indigenous peoples, land tenure, and a just transition for workers.

The complaint argues that TIAA/Nuveen engages in systematic greenwashing by marketing sustainable ESG products while maintaining substantial holdings in coal, oil, and gas, and acquiring land in Brazil linked to deforestation and human rights abuses. It requests that the PRI Board investigate these practices and require corrective actions, including full divestment from fossil fuels by 2025.

The document analyzes the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, detailing how they provide billions in funding and tax credits for carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), direct air capture (DAC), and hydrogen production. It specifically highlights the 45Q tax credit increases and the Clean Hydrogen Tax Credit, while criticizing provisions that link renewable energy permitting on federal lands to continued oil and gas leasing.

The report details how the global production of nitrogen fertilizers has grown nearly ninefold since 1961, creating a systemic dependency on fossil gas. It argues that the agrochemical industry is collaborating with oil and gas companies to 'launder' fossil fuels through the promotion of blue hydrogen and blue ammonia paired with carbon capture and storage (CCS). The document asserts that these technologies are technically and economically infeasible for most uses and serve as a distraction to delay the phaseout of fossil fuels and industrial agriculture. It further highlights the environmental impacts of these chemicals, including the crossing of planetary boundaries related to nitrogen and phosphorus flows and chemical pollution.

The Center for International Environmental Law, FIAN International, and Earthjustice criticize the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee for failing to conduct meaningful consultations with Indigenous Peoples' organizations and rural communities regarding a study on 'new technologies for climate protection'. The organizations argue that the term is 'deliberately vague' compared to the established term 'geoengineering' and that the study's current outline is biased by assuming the benefits of such technologies rather than objectively analyzing their 'profound, large-scale, foreseeable and irreversible human rights impacts'.

The statement emphasizes that National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) are essential for ensuring that climate action and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development are implemented through a human rights lens, particularly regarding loss and damage and financial mechanisms.

The report examines the environmental and climate impacts of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides, highlighting their role in greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss. It exposes the deep corporate links between the fossil fuel and agrochemical industries and criticizes their joint efforts to use CCS technology to justify continued fossil gas use for ammonia production, which threatens global food security and climate goals.

The document examines the environmental and human rights impacts of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, highlighting their contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss. It details the structural links between the fossil fuel and agrochemical industries, specifically the promotion of 'blue' ammonia and hydrogen using CCS as a means to secure long-term demand for natural gas. The text warns that this industrial model undermines food sovereignty and planetary boundaries, advocating for a transition to regenerative agricultural models.

The report highlights the high energy and feedstock intensity of the EU's plastic production industry, noting its significant reliance on Russian fossil fuels. It argues that reducing plastic production, particularly packaging, is a critical but overlooked lever for enhancing EU energy security and meeting climate goals.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that 'net zero' is a global scientific concept that should not be applied to individual entities, as doing so encourages the use of ineffective offsets and speculative technologies. CIEL recommends that standards for non-state entities require absolute emissions reductions, the inclusion of Scope 3 emissions, and a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels. The document specifically criticizes the fossil fuel industry for using net-zero pledges to mask continued production and warns that reliance on Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) and technological Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is risky and unproven. It advocates for mandatory regulation, transparent reporting, and the integration of human rights and climate justice into all net-zero frameworks.

The document argues that the MICI's decision to close the Alto Maipo case is premature and fails to hold the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) accountable for environmental damage and human rights violations. It highlights severe reprisals against environmental defenders, including cyber-intelligence surveillance by AES Andes, and criticizes the IDB Invest's 'cut and run' divestment strategy, which the authors claim avoids responsibility for remediation. The authors emphasize that the project accelerated desertification in the Maipo River basin, threatening the water supply for over eight million people in Santiago, and call for a formal 'Responsible Exit' framework and a comprehensive reparation mechanism within the IDB's accountability system.

The document argues that SMBC's involvement in the EACOP project contradicts its own environmental and human rights commitments, exposing the bank and its directors to litigation, reputational damage, and stranded asset risks. It details specific human rights abuses and environmental threats associated with the pipeline and demands a full withdrawal from the project.

The document argues that SMBC's role as a financial advisor and lead arranger for the EACOP project contradicts its own environmental and human rights commitments. It highlights risks including human rights abuses, biodiversity loss, and the potential for the pipeline to become a stranded asset in a net-zero transition. The authors warn that continuing this support could lead to greenwashing accusations, legal liability for directors under Japanese law, and severe reputational damage, especially as other global financial institutions withdraw their support.

The document argues that SMBC's reported role in the EACOP project exposes the group to reputational, financial, and legal liabilities, while contradicting its own environmental and human rights commitments.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) urges the Special Rapporteur on human rights and climate change to prioritize the voices of frontline communities and investigate human rights harms related to loss and damage, intergenerational justice, and the risks of geoengineering. CIEL specifically calls for a systematic examination of human rights violations linked to the fossil fuel industry and the impact of climate policies on land and tenure rights.

The document outlines how climate-induced loss and damage (L&D) violates fundamental human rights and calls for the establishment of a Loss and Damage Finance Facility (LDFF) and the operationalization of the Santiago Network (SNLD) based on human rights standards. It highlights specific examples of L&D in South Africa, India, Pakistan, and the Arctic, arguing that wealthy nations have an extraterritorial obligation to provide compensation and support. The authors advocate for inclusive Loss and Damage Needs Assessments (LDNAs), universal social protection schemes, and legal protections for climate-induced displacement.