Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing introduces action targets, which require an entity to reduce emissions by an agreed percentage of its actual emissions during a commitment period. By using an 'observable baseline' of actual emissions rather than projected ones, action targets eliminate the uncertainty associated with future economic growth. A comparison of a 2% target for Brazil, China, India, and Mexico shows that fixed targets can lead to either burdensome reductions or 'hot air' depending on GDP growth, while action targets maintain a consistent level of effort. The authors suggest action targets are compatible with the Kyoto Protocol and suitable for modest developing country commitments, though further research is needed on their environmental impact and administrative costs.

The document argues that for the United States to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), Congress must provide the EPA with clear statutory authority to eliminate listed chemicals without being constrained by de novo cost-benefit balancing or 'sound science' provisions that could be used to delay regulation. It emphasizes that the Convention's primary standard for Annex A chemicals is elimination, and that existing authority under TSCA § 6(a) is insufficient to ban industrial chemicals following the Corrosion Proof Fittings case. The author contends that the Executive Branch's decision to 'opt in' to new listings is a foreign affairs power, but this power is practically dependent on Congress providing the necessary implementing authority to the EPA.

Forty-two organizations oppose a June 17 draft of amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) intended to implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). The signatories argue the draft contains flaws that would hinder the EPA's ability to regulate new POPs, contradicts the treaty's precautionary principle by requiring a 'reasonable balance' between health and economic costs, and introduces 'sound science' requirements that could invite litigation. They further criticize the draft for establishing a regulatory ceiling that prevents the U.S. from implementing stricter standards than the Convention minimums and for including preemption language that could void state and local protections. The organizations advocate for a draft proposed by Representative Solis, which they claim better enables the U.S. to fulfill its international obligations while preserving domestic environmental law.

The document is a statement from several NGOs supporting a proposal by Brazil and Argentina to create a "Development Agenda" for the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The signatories argue that intellectual property protection should be a tool for development rather than an end in itself, urging WIPO to align its activities with UN Millennium Development Goals. Key priorities include incorporating public interest flexibilities in norm-setting, facilitating technology transfer to developing countries, and ensuring the participation of stakeholders such as indigenous peoples, women, and small farmers.

The Pangue/Ralco hydroelectric projects in Chile's Alto BíoBío caused severe disruptions to the Mapuche/Pehuenche people's semi-nomadic lifestyle and cultural ecosystem. The project sponsor, Endesa, and the Chilean government are accused of violating indigenous land rights and environmental laws, while the IFC faced criticism for failing to oversee social and environmental standards. After a decade of struggle and legal battles in Chilean courts and before the Inter-American Human Rights Commission (IACHR), a 'friendly settlement' was reached in 2003, providing reparations to affected families and commitments from the Chilean government to strengthen indigenous rights and environmental protections in the region.

The document provides testimony from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and partner organizations criticizing a draft bill for implementing international chemical conventions. The authors argue the draft decouples international and domestic processes, imposes restrictive cost-benefit standards, and introduces 'sound science' requirements that could hinder the EPA's ability to regulate hazardous chemicals. It also refutes Bush Administration claims that mandatory implementation of international listing decisions would violate the U.S. Constitution.

The application seeks to address whether the 'police powers' exclusion from expropriatory measures includes bona fide non-health environmental measures, arguing that such a legal clarification is necessary if California's MTBE ban is not found to be a public health measure.

The amici argue that the Tribunal should recognize legitimate environmental measures as non-expropriatory under the police powers rule, similar to public health measures. They contend that international law has evolved to include environmental protection within the state's regulatory authority, citing precedents from the ICJ, WTO, and other NAFTA tribunals to support the view that non-discriminatory regulations protecting the environment do not constitute a compensable taking.

This amicus curiae brief submitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO) argues for the importance of non-party technical advice and public participation in the dispute settlement process, specifically regarding the case 'European Communities — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (EC-Biotech)'.

The application seeks to provide the Tribunal with legal analysis on whether 'police powers' exclusions from expropriation include bona fide non-health environmental measures, specifically in the context of California's MTBE ban.

A coalition of environmental and agricultural NGOs requested that the WTO Panel accept an amicus curiae brief to provide technical and legal expertise on the uncertainties of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the application of the precautionary principle under the SPS Agreement.

The document provides technical and legal arguments to support the position that 'insufficient scientific evidence' under the SPS Agreement should be interpreted to include cases of high scientific uncertainty. It details the unpredictable nature of rDNA techniques, the lack of independent peer-reviewed data, and the potential for unintended toxic or environmental effects, asserting that these factors prevent adequate risk assessments and justify precautionary regulatory measures.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement's investment chapter grants foreign investors excessive rights that exceed those of domestic U.S. investors, violating the Trade Act of 2002. CIEL highlights the risks of the investor-state dispute mechanism, the lack of a general environmental exception, and the use of subjective standards like 'fair and equitable treatment' which could undermine public interest regulations and democratic governance.

A coalition of eighteen environmental organizations argues that the Bush Administration's proposed FIFRA amendments fail to effectively implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). The groups claim the proposal denies the EPA effective authority to ban additional POPs pesticides, introduces burdensome cost-benefit requirements that contradict the treaty's precautionary principle, and attempts to limit Congressional regulatory power through an unfounded constitutional interpretation. They recommend that implementing legislation adopt a health-based standard of "reasonable certainty of no harm," use international ban decisions as the default for domestic regulation, and ensure the U.S. regulatory process parallels the international decision-making process.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the Bush Administration's claims regarding the unconstitutionality of notice and comment provisions in S. 1486 have no basis in U.S. law. The DOJ asserted that requiring the Executive Branch to consult with stakeholders during international negotiations violates the separation of powers. CIEL counters that such provisions do not dictate negotiation outcomes and that Congress has the authority to regulate the domestic acquisition of information. Furthermore, CIEL rejects the 'international nondelegation doctrine' invoked by the Administration, noting that U.S. law frequently contains contingent delegations based on international decisions, such as in the Clean Air Act and the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

The authors argue that CAFTA's investment chapter grants foreign investors greater substantive rights than U.S. investors, violating the Trade Act of 2002. They specifically criticize the lack of an appellate review mechanism, the absence of a general environmental exception, and the use of subjective standards like "fair and equitable treatment" which they claim could undermine democratic governance and environmental protections.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) approved a friendly settlement on October 17, 2003, between the State of Chile and Mapuche Pehuenche families affected by the Ralco Hydroelectric Project. The dispute centered on the flooding of ancestral lands and the application of electrical laws over indigenous land laws. The final agreement includes commitments for constitutional recognition of indigenous peoples, the ratification of ILO Convention 169, the creation of a new commune in Alto Bío Bío, and specific land and financial compensations for the affected families.

The document provides legal arguments to support the legitimacy of California's MTBE ban in the arbitration between Methanex Corporation and the United States. It contends that international law, including the precautionary principle and the right to potable water, mandates deference to government health and environmental regulations. The authors argue that foreseeable impacts on foreign investors or the existence of alternative measures do not prove discriminatory intent under NAFTA Chapter 11.

The authors argue that while the U.S.-Australia FTA's lack of an investor-state dispute mechanism is positive, the substantive investment provisions still grant foreign investors rights exceeding those of domestic investors under U.S. law. They highlight risks to environmental regulation, the lack of a general environmental exception, and the subjective nature of 'fair and equitable treatment' standards.

Separate comments from TEPAC members argue that the environment chapter of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) weakens public participation, cooperation, and remedies for environmental harm compared to other recent U.S. FTAs.