Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines the intersection of climate change and human rights, detailing how environmental degradation threatens rights to life, food, health, water, and housing. It outlines the obligations of states to respect, protect, and fulfil these rights, and the responsibilities of businesses to reduce emissions and provide remedies. The handbook specifically focuses on the role of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), presenting case studies of their work in monitoring impacts, handling complaints, providing policy advice, and engaging in international mechanisms like the UNFCCC and the Universal Periodic Review. It highlights that nearly half of Paris Principles-compliant NHRIs have engaged in climate change work, using tools ranging from digital mapping to formal inquiries into 'carbon majors'.

The chemical industry, with 2017 sales of US$5.7 trillion projected to reach US$11 trillion by 2030, does not pay for the health and environmental costs of its products. The document argues that the public currently bears these costs, including a global disease burden of 1.6 million annual premature deaths from chemical mismanagement. To address this, the authors propose a coordinated 0.5% fee on basic chemicals (feedstocks), which could raise US$11.5 billion annually. This funding would support the development and enforcement of laws and infrastructure for chemicals management, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, and would implement the 'polluter pays principle'.

The chemical industry is a major global energy consumer and carbon emitter that externalizes significant social and health costs. Current international chemicals agreements are severely underfunded, relying on public taxpayers rather than the industry. The document proposes a 0.5% production fee on basic chemicals—the early-stage building blocks of the industry—to operationalize the 'polluter pays principle'. This mechanism could potentially raise US$11.5 billion annually, far exceeding current funding levels, to support sound chemicals management globally.

The report argues that current funding for chemicals and waste management is inadequate, particularly in developing and transition countries, and proposes a coordinated international tax on basic chemicals to operationalize the 'polluter pays' principle. It suggests that a 0.5% tax on the production value of basic chemicals could raise approximately $11.5 billion annually, significantly exceeding current funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Special Programme. The authors recommend an origin-based excise tax on a specific list of basic chemicals (such as ammonia, benzene, and chlorine) to ensure administrative simplicity and minimize economic distortion. The document evaluates this option against other potential taxes—including income, asset, and transaction taxes—concluding that an excise tax is the most feasible and effective mechanism for internalizing the social and environmental costs of chemical production.

The oil, gas, and petrochemical sectors are facing a systemic crisis marked by declining profits and financial frailty. To maintain shareholder dividends and a facade of stability, companies like ExxonMobil and BP are increasing debt, while others like Shell have cut payouts. The industry is selling assets at discounted prices due to skepticism over the future value of fossil fuels. Furthermore, the petrochemical sector is not a viable growth alternative due to falling resin prices and increased regulation. The document concludes that these trends represent an 'endgame' for the industry, posing significant fiduciary risks for investors and arguing against the use of public funds for bailouts.

The document outlines the systemic health and environmental costs of plastics, from fossil fuel extraction to waste management, and warns that projected production growth will consume a substantial portion of the remaining global carbon budget.

The statement condemns the Ministry of Agriculture's dismissal of Luis Alberto Gonzales-Zúñiga, the Executive Director of SERFOR, citing a lack of transparency and a breach of established procedures. The signatories argue that the removal occurred as SERFOR was improving timber traceability, which threatened stakeholders benefiting from illegal timber trade. They highlight that approximately 60% of Peruvian timber is of illegal origin and warn that this institutional crisis jeopardizes international agreements, including the Norway-Germany-Peru Agreement and the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement.

The report argues that existing fragmented governance is insufficient to tackle the transboundary crisis of plastic pollution, which causes an estimated $13 billion in annual environmental damage to marine ecosystems. It proposes a new global Convention structured around four pillars: monitoring and reporting, plastic pollution prevention, coordination with other international instruments, and technical and financial support. Key recommendations include the implementation of national plastic pollution reduction plans, global caps and phase-downs of virgin plastic production, and the establishment of a financial mechanism based on the polluter-pays principle to support developing countries.

The Center for International Environmental Law argues that the oil, gas, and plastic industries are in a state of systemic decline that predates the COVID-19 pandemic, and that government bailouts or regulatory rollbacks will not reverse this trend.

CIEL announced the temporary closure of its Washington, DC, and Geneva offices and the suspension of in-person meetings and travel due to COVID-19. Despite these operational changes, the organization committed to holding corporations and governments accountable for environmental destruction, protecting human rights in pandemic responses, ensuring future solutions avoid past problems, and maintaining the inclusion of marginalized communities in virtual spaces.

CIEL supports the Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act as an emergency response to the COVID-19 crisis but criticizes its climate targets and fuel subsidies. While the Act requires airlines receiving stimulus funds to reduce CO2 emissions by 25% by 2035 and 50% by 2050, CIEL asserts that the United States and the world must reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 through a complete transition from fossil fuels. Additionally, CIEL describes the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars to biofuels and waste-to-fuel processes as a "wasteful distraction".

The report synthesizes the work of UN human rights treaty bodies (HRTBs), including the CEDAW, CESCR, and CRC, on climate change. It details how these bodies use state reporting, communications procedures, and general comments to hold States accountable for human rights violations caused by climate change and insufficient mitigation efforts. Key findings emphasize the need for highest-ambition emissions cuts, the phasing out of fossil fuels, and the protection of vulnerable groups, including women, children, and Indigenous Peoples.

The document outlines the mechanisms of the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies (HRTBs) and provides a strategic guide for climate advocates to engage in the State reporting process. It highlights the benefits of securing non-binding but authoritative 'Concluding Observations' to pressure states, provides examples of successful interventions in countries like Argentina and Norway, and details the five-step reporting cycle from initial submission to national follow-up.

The report evaluates COP25 as a failure in meeting the global call for increased climate ambition, noting a disconnect between mass mobilizations and the lack of urgency among negotiating Parties. While it highlights progress in gender-related frameworks and the establishment of the Santiago network for loss and damage, it emphasizes significant failures in integrating human rights and indigenous protections into Article 6 carbon market rules and the Warsaw International Mechanism. The document concludes by identifying 2020 advocacy opportunities to ensure human rights safeguards are embedded in NDCs and carbon trading modalities.

The document outlines a structured approach for organizations to submit shadow reports to UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies, focusing on how climate change and inadequate state responses violate human rights. It suggests a concise format (6-8 pages) divided into sections covering relevant human rights obligations, adverse climate effects on specific populations, deficiencies in national policies (such as NDCs under the Paris Agreement), and specific legal obligations under treaties. The guide includes a table of submission deadlines and contact emails for various committees, including the CCPR, CEDAW, CERD, CESCR, CRC, and CRPD.

The document outlines the mechanisms of UN human rights treaty bodies (HRTBs) and provides a strategic framework for climate activists to influence state climate policies. It details the reporting cycle, the role of 'shadow reports' submitted by civil society, and the subsequent 'Concluding Observations' (COBs) issued by committees. While COBs are not legally binding, the guide argues they serve as authoritative guidance that can be leveraged in national advocacy, media campaigns, and litigation. It provides specific examples of recommendations made to countries like Argentina, Norway, and Spain regarding fossil fuels and air pollution.

The guide outlines a structured approach for submitting parallel reports to UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies, emphasizing the need for concise, evidence-based documentation of how climate change and state policies impact specific human rights. It recommends a four-section structure: establishing the link between climate change and treaty obligations, describing adverse impacts on rights and vulnerable groups, detailing shortcomings in national climate responses (such as NDCs), and analyzing how these circumstances violate specific state obligations. The document provides practical submission tips, including recommended lengths of 6-8 pages, the use of visual aids, and a table of deadlines and contact emails for various committees including the CCPR, CEDAW, CERD, CESCR, CRC, and CRPD.

The report details how the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) integrates gender equality into climate change obligations through General Recommendations, joint statements, and State reporting. It highlights the Committee's focus on disaster risk reduction, the disproportionate impact of climate change on women and girls, and the necessity of women's active participation in climate policy. The document analyzes CEDAW's Concluding Observations from 2008 to 2019, noting a high volume of recommendations for Small Island Developing States and Least Developed Countries, primarily focusing on adaptation and procedural rights, while also issuing specific mitigation demands regarding fossil fuel extraction and fracking.

The document outlines how the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) integrates climate change into its monitoring of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). It details the Committee's use of General Comments, Joint Statements, and State reporting procedures to hold States accountable for climate-related impacts on rights such as health, food, and water. Key findings emphasize that States must implement emissions cuts reflecting the "highest possible ambition," regulate private actors to prevent climate harm, and ensure that high-income States provide climate finance to developing nations beyond existing official development assistance. The briefing also analyzes trends in the Committee's Concluding Observations from 2008 to 2019, noting a higher frequency of climate-related recommendations for developed countries and a strong focus on mitigation, adaptation, and international cooperation.

The report details how the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) integrates climate change into its monitoring of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (ICRC). It analyzes the CRC's use of General Comments, State reporting procedures, and the communications procedure to hold States accountable for protecting children from climate harms. Key findings highlight a growing trend of climate-related recommendations, particularly for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and a strong emphasis on children's procedural rights to participation and education. The document also notes a landmark 2019 Joint Statement by five human rights treaty bodies asserting that failure to prevent foreseeable climate-related human rights harm could constitute a violation of State obligations.