Search Climate Insights Directory

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) warns that TTIP may hinder public health and safety goals by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could lower chemical safety standards. The document highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH approach and the US's risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that trade-driven 'regulatory coherence' often results in a 'lowest-common denominator' outcome. It further cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which could allow corporations to sue governments over environmental laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-national regulations in the US and EU. Finally, it suggests that a US-EU agreement could negatively influence the development of chemical regulations in other regions, such as the BRIICS countries.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), on behalf of several environmental organizations, warns the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance that TTIP may prioritize trade interests over public health. The document highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH regulation and the U.S.'s risk-based Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), arguing that harmonization or mutual recognition could lead to a 'lowest-common denominator' approach to chemical safety. It specifically opposes investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which it claims allow corporations to sue governments over public interest laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-federal laws in the U.S. and national laws in EU member states. Finally, it suggests that a restrictive TTIP could discourage other nations, particularly BRIICS countries, from adopting more stringent chemical safety standards.

The author asserts that the World Bank's shift toward 'transformational' projects and greater risk-taking increases the necessity of the Inspection Panel to protect marginalized communities. The text argues that the Bank must update its social and environmental policies to include human rights risk assessments and shift its management approach from denying responsibility to focusing on outcomes and fixing problems identified by the Panel.

The statement by CIEL President Carroll Muffett emphasizes that the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report confirms human influence on the climate system with greater than 95% certainty, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels. It warns that continued inaction and a 'business as usual' approach will lead to unprecedented climate catastrophes and expose CEOs, shareholders, and investors to increased financial, regulatory, and legal risks.

The report provides a comprehensive overview of nanotechnology's expansion across Asia-Pacific, detailing national initiatives in countries such as India, China, Japan, and Australia. It highlights a critical gap between rapid commercialization and the lack of specific regulatory frameworks to manage health and environmental risks. The document details potential hazards, including the asbestos-like pathogenicity of carbon nanotubes and the ecotoxicity of silver and zinc oxide nanoparticles. It further analyzes the potential for nanotechnology to displace employment through product multifunctionality and increased durability. Finally, it discusses the role of the Strategic Approach for International Chemical Management (SAICM) in establishing global guidance for the sound management of manufactured nanomaterials.

The report examines the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency adopted in July 2013, which shift the presumption in investor-State arbitration from privacy to openness. It details the rules' application—default for treaties concluded after April 1, 2014, and 'opt-in' for earlier treaties—and outlines mandatory disclosures of notices, documents, and hearings. The document also discusses the role of the UN Secretary-General as the information repository and suggests next steps, including the development of a transparency convention to facilitate broader adoption.

A coalition of organizations calls for the suspension of the Keystone XL pipeline review process, alleging that the consulting firm ERM lied on conflict-of-interest forms regarding its relationships with TransCanada and other oil companies involved in Canadian tar sands.

The document warns that TTIP may prioritize trade interests over public health by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could lower chemical safety standards in the U.S. and EU. It specifically contrasts the EU's hazard-based REACH regulation with the U.S.'s risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that mutual recognition would effectively erase protections for chemicals restricted in only one jurisdiction. The author also cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which could allow corporations to sue governments over public interest laws, and warns that TTIP could preempt protective sub-federal or sub-regional laws. Finally, the statement suggests that a low-standard TTIP could chill the development of stringent chemical regulations in other regions, such as the BRIICS countries.

The document warns that TTIP may prioritize trade over public health by promoting regulatory harmonization and mutual recognition that could weaken chemical safety standards. It highlights the divergence between the EU's hazard-based REACH approach and the US's risk-based TSCA approach, arguing that mutual recognition would effectively erase protections unique to one jurisdiction. The author also cautions against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and the preemption of sub-national laws, while noting that TTIP could negatively influence chemical regulations in non-member countries like the BRIICS nations.

The statement argues that the current U.S. chemical regulation system is inadequate and warns that the TTIP could hinder progress on chemical safety by weakening existing EU and U.S. state standards. It calls for a trade agreement that prioritizes public health over corporate interests, rejects mutual recognition in sensitive sectors, and ensures transparency in negotiations.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submits that stringent chemical regulations incentivize the development of safer alternatives, citing patent spikes for phthalate-alternatives as evidence. It criticizes TSCA Section 5 for allowing 'regrettable substitution' due to insufficient safety data and TSCA Section 14 for the abuse of confidential business information (CBI) privileges. CIEL recommends shifting the burden of proof for safety to manufacturers, increasing information transparency, and phasing out endocrine disrupting chemicals.

The author reports on the Gezi Park protests in Istanbul, which began as a movement to save the city's only central green area from being replaced by a shopping mall designed as Ottoman army barracks. The protests evolved into a national movement against the abuse of power and human rights violations, characterized by non-violent demonstrations and creative community support. The author details the government's response, including police violence using tear gas and water cannons, the arrest of medical professionals and lawyers, and the suppression of independent media. The text also highlights broader environmental concerns, such as the Bosphorus bridge project and the destruction of a hilltop park for a mosque, while criticizing the United States for its unconditional support of Prime Minister Erdogan.

A coalition of NGOs requests that UN Special Rapporteur James Anaya intervene in the Barro Blanco hydroelectric project in Panama to protect the Ngäbe people from imminent threats to their territories and physical security. The document argues that the project, expected to be completed by May 2014, will flood indigenous lands and cultural sites, and was approved despite failures in environmental impact assessments and stakeholder consultation. It further highlights reports of police violence against protestors and the Panamanian government's failure to fulfill a March 2012 agreement regarding an expert assessment of the project's controversies.

Carroll Muffett of the Center for International Environmental Law evaluates President Obama's Climate Action Plan, praising the commitment to carbon pollution standards for coal plants and the potential rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. However, Muffett criticizes the plan for its reliance on natural gas as a 'bridge fuel,' the lack of new greenhouse gas reduction targets beyond the 2009 goal, and insufficient commitments to global climate finance.

The report evaluates the 'Doha Gateway' decisions from a human rights perspective, noting that while human rights are not explicitly mentioned in the Doha outcomes, they are referenced via the Cancun Agreements. The analysis covers mitigation ambition, loss and damage mechanisms, REDD+ safeguards, the Clean Development Mechanism's lack of appeals processes, public participation under Article 6, and the adoption of 'gender balance' over 'gender equality'.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) warns that TTIP's push for regulatory cooperation on chemicals may weaken environmental and health protections by favoring the U.S. risk-based approach over the EU's hazard-based REACH regulation. CIEL highlights that REACH drives innovation toward safer alternatives and that the externalized costs of chemical pollution far outweigh the costs of regulation. The statement also cautions against strengthening trade secret protections and calls for greater transparency and public participation in the TTIP negotiation process.

The document argues that EDCs pose a global threat to human health and wildlife, calling for the EU to prioritise exposure reduction over industry interests. The signatories request the adoption of workable identification criteria without 'potency cut-offs', a screening strategy that accounts for endocrine complexity, and a REACH authorisation process that only permits EDCs when no safer alternatives exist and the use is essential to society.

The document is a letter to World Bank President Jim Yong Kim arguing that the Bank's continued support for fossil fuels contradicts its climate and poverty reduction priorities. The authors claim that fossil fuel investments fail to provide energy access to the poor and instead fuel overconsumption in wealthy nations. They advocate for a shift toward off-grid renewable energy and demand that the Bank stop financing fossil fuel projects unless they can be proven to be the best alternative for delivering energy services to the poor after a full cost-benefit analysis.

A coalition of environmental organizations argues that proposed LNG exports from the United States could raise domestic energy prices, increase methane emissions through expanded fracking, and harm the middle class, necessitating a new economic study and a full environmental impact statement.

The submission emphasizes that climate change is a major human rights challenge and urges that the 2015 Agreement's Preamble and Shared Vision explicitly recognize the link between human rights and climate change. It calls for a rights-based approach to adaptation, the regulation of corporations to prevent rights abuses during mitigation, and the establishment of an international mechanism to provide compensation for loss and damage. Additionally, it advocates for strong safeguard policies and accountability mechanisms within climate finance, specifically mentioning the Green Climate Fund, and demands guaranteed access to information and justice for all affected communities.