Search Climate Insights Directory

The document warns that intensifying hurricanes, fueled by fossil fuel-driven climate change, are posing an escalating threat to US communities, especially those near petrochemical facilities. It highlights a systemic failure where the US government is dismantling essential safety agencies and forecasting tools, while insurance companies profit from fossil fuel investments while withdrawing coverage from vulnerable homeowners. The authors call on state and local leaders to implement safety rules and halt fossil fuel expansion to protect residents from toxic releases and financial ruin.

The report details how the Trump EPA used a rare Clean Air Act provision to grant pollution exemptions to 52 facilities owned by 25 companies, including BASF, Shell, and Westlake. It highlights that these exemptions undermine the HON Rule, which aimed to reduce carcinogenic emissions by nearly 80%. The document further links these regulatory rollbacks to significant lobbying expenditures by the chemical industry and the American Chemistry Council, noting that several companies are expanding the very facilities that received exemptions.

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 document highlights the critical nature of the INC-5.2 negotiations in Geneva, emphasizing the need for a treaty that includes plastic production caps, addresses toxic chemicals, and establishes robust financial mechanisms. It warns against the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists, the risks of consensus-based decision-making that could lead to gridlock, and the danger of postponing key decisions to future Conferences of the Parties (COPs).

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.

The European plastic industry is facing a structural decline characterized by falling production and facility closures due to overcapacity and weak demand. While the industry blames EU regulations for a loss of competitiveness, the document argues that reducing production is the most sensible economic approach. It urges the EU to use its leadership role in the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations to advocate for primary plastic production limits and a managed phasedown to sustainable levels, while avoiding new petrochemical buildouts.

The document analyzes various treaty flexibility mechanisms—such as reservations, differentiated timelines, and optional annexes—to recommend an approach for the future plastics treaty that balances broad adoption with environmental effectiveness. It argues against using optional annexes for chemicals of concern, suggesting instead a system of general and specific exemptions similar to those in the Minamata and Stockholm Conventions.

The document asserts that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions constitute marine pollution, creating a legal duty for States to phase out fossil fuels. It examines how advisory opinions from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) reinforce the rights of vulnerable island States and establish standards of due diligence and corporate accountability for climate-related ocean harm.

The document highlights how the plastics industry uses tactics like manufacturing doubt and securing privileged access to influence negotiations, noting that over 220 lobbyists attended the INC-5 session. It recommends embedding conflict of interest safeguards directly into the treaty text, including the preamble and science policy bodies, to protect public health and environmental goals from undue economic influence.

The document warns that the plastics and petrochemical industries are using tactics similar to those of the fossil fuel and tobacco industries to influence the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations. It highlights a significant increase in industry lobbyists at the INC-5 session, who outnumber delegations from the European Union, Pacific Islands, and Latin American countries. The brief recommends incorporating conflict-of-interest protections directly into the treaty's preamble, scientific bodies, and articles concerning financial mechanisms and technology transfer to ensure the agreement's effectiveness in protecting public health and the environment.

The statement evaluates the World Bank Group's Interim Remedial Action Framework (RAF), praising the recognition of the IFC and MIGA's role in remedial action and the commitment to fund enabling activities. However, it criticizes the framework for lacking explicit financial commitments for non-compliance, failing to provide guidance for financial intermediary sub-projects, and excluding remedy for legacy harms from concluded projects.

An investigation by Stand.earth Research Group and the Center for International Environmental Law identifies a direct link between fracking in the Permian Basin and the plastic packaging used by major global brands, highlighting the role of specific traders and exporters in fueling fossil fuel expansion.

CIEL asserts that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin's proposed dismantling of environmental protections lacks due process and contradicts the agency's purpose. The organization warns that companies returning to dirtier operations will be held accountable and pledges to fight the administration's efforts to strip away protections for clean air, water, and toxics.

The report asserts that geoengineering is not an unregulated frontier but is subject to restrictive international laws, including a de facto moratorium by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and regulations under the London Convention/London Protocol (LC/LP). It warns that a proliferation of outdoor experiments, driven by voluntary carbon markets and recent COP29 decisions, threatens biodiversity and human rights. The author calls for a ban on outdoor experiments and the establishment of an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering.

The report examines the insurance crisis in California following devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, highlighting how private insurers like State Farm have restricted coverage or exited the market, pushing risk onto the state-supported FAIR Plan. It contends that insurers are complicit in the climate crisis due to over $500 billion in fossil fuel-related assets and argues for the adoption of legislation, such as SB222, to force fossil fuel companies to pay for climate-driven losses through the right of subrogation.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) has condemned the inaugural actions of the 47th US President, stating that the administration's agenda to dismantle environmental protections and expand fossil fuel production represents an attack on human rights and global cooperation. CIEL asserts that these executive orders threaten a safe climate and target marginalized populations, reaffirming the organization's commitment to collective action and justice.

The report analyzes marine geoengineering, dividing it into marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) and marine solar radiation modification (SRM). It argues that these speculative technologies pose irreversible risks to ocean ecosystems and human rights, while facing significant monitoring and verification challenges. The authors contend that proposed deployment zones span every ocean basin, making the impacts inherently transboundary and potentially violating international law, including the CBD moratorium and UNCLOS.

The document explains that Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are national plans submitted every five years by parties to the Paris Agreement to show their climate ambition and progress. It argues that human rights-based policies are the most effective form of climate action and an obligation for all parties. The guide urges civil society to contact governments, exercise their right to participate in the drafting process, evaluate NDCs using a provided scorecard, and hold governments accountable for implementing their promises through legal or public action.

The document serves as a toolkit for civil society to ensure that the next round of NDCs, due before COP30, are human rights-based. It argues that such policies are both a legal obligation for Parties to the Paris Agreement and the most effective form of climate action. The guide outlines four primary actions for citizens: contacting governments, participating in drafting processes, reviewing NDCs using a provided scorecard, and holding governments accountable for implementation.

The briefing details the systemic failures in decommissioning offshore oil and gas sites, highlighting how abandoned wells leak methane and toxins, threaten marine biodiversity and coastal livelihoods, and how corporations use legal and financial loopholes to shift cleanup costs to the public.