Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that offshore oil and gas activities pose severe threats to the global commons, specifically the oceans and atmosphere. It details how seismic surveys harm marine life, production leads to catastrophic blowouts and underreported methane emissions, transportation increases the risk of spills and invasive species, and improper decommissioning leaves a legacy of leaking 'orphan' wells. The document emphasizes that these risks are magnified by climate change and that existing legal frameworks, including UNCLOS and the polluter pays principle, should be leveraged to phase out offshore fossil fuel extraction.

The document details the risks of offshore oil and gas exploration, focusing on the ecological damage caused by seismic surveys and exploratory drilling, the resulting threats to coastal livelihoods and Indigenous rights, and the broader implications for global climate regulation.

The document outlines a legal framework for challenging offshore oil and gas expansion, focusing on rights to information and participation, duties to prevent environmental and human rights harm, and the responsibility of polluters to pay for decommissioning and remediation.

The document argues that offshore oil and gas production poses severe risks, including underreported greenhouse gas emissions from flaring and methane leaks, the high potential for devastating well blowouts—especially in deep waters—and chronic marine pollution from produced water. It highlights the failure of current cleanup technologies and the long-term socio-economic damage to coastal communities, concluding that halting offshore expansion is essential to meeting the 1.5°C global warming limit.

The document details the hazards of offshore oil and gas transportation, highlighting that 40 percent of maritime trade involves fossil fuels. It argues that the expansion of this sector, particularly liquefied natural gas (LNG), increases greenhouse gas emissions, the risk of catastrophic oil spills, and the spread of invasive species. The report emphasizes that climate change creates a feedback loop, where extreme weather and sea-level rise heighten the likelihood of infrastructure failure and subsequent ecological disasters.

The report details how petrochemicals, primarily plastics and nitrogen fertilizers, drive fossil fuel demand and contribute to a 'triple planetary crisis' of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. It highlights the significant health risks to workers and communities, particularly in Europe's Trilateral Chemical Region, and criticizes EU policy for prioritizing industry 'competitiveness' and speculative technologies like carbon capture over a phasedown of production.

The EU and UK have withdrawn from the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), but a 'sunset clause' in Article 47(3) may extend fossil fuel investment protections for up to 20 years, potentially until 2043. The author contends that the ECT is part of a systemic global issue involving over 2,800 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and 450 treaties with investment provisions (TIPs) that facilitate investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) claims against climate policies. Current reform efforts by UNCITRAL, UNCTAD, the WTO, and the OECD are described as fragmented or focused on procedural rather than substantive changes. The document proposes the use of 'inter se' agreements to neutralize sunset clauses and the creation of a legally binding multilateral or plurilateral agreement to immediately remove investment benefits for fossil fuels and align financial flows with Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement.

The report argues that COP29 failed to advance human rights-based climate action, citing a weak new climate finance goal, the operationalization of flawed carbon markets, and a restrictive civic environment in the host country. It highlights the removal of references to the right to a healthy environment and the lack of progress on just transition and gender justice, calling for stronger legal obligations and human rights safeguards in future UNFCCC processes.

The compendium details the legal arguments presented from December 2 to December 13, 2024, at the ICJ. It highlights a fundamental divide between climate-vulnerable nations and several high-emitting States. Vulnerable nations, including many Small Island Developing States (SIDS), argue for a 'harmonious interpretation' of international law, asserting that obligations to prevent transboundary harm and protect human rights exist independently of and complement the Paris Agreement. They demand accountability for historical emissions and full reparations, including debt cancellation. Conversely, a minority of high-emitting States, such as the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, argue that the UN climate treaty regime (UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement) is the exclusive source of State obligations, seeking to limit liability and reject the applicability of customary international law or human rights law to climate mitigation.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) asserts that a successful global plastics treaty must address the crisis at its source by capping production, as 99 percent of plastics are fossil-fuel derived and production is projected to triple by 2050. CIEL recommends a minimum 70 percent reduction in plastic production by 2050 relative to 2019 levels to align with 1.5°C climate goals. The document warns that current draft texts and the proposed "non-paper" by Chair Luis Vayas may lead to a weak agreement. Essential elements for an effective treaty include binding national targets, bans on hazardous chemicals (of which over 4,200 are known to pose risks), enforceable trade measures, and a financial mechanism such as a fee on primary polymer production. The authors highlight risks from industry lobbying and potential shifts in US policy following the re-election of Donald Trump.

CIEL expresses concern over Donald Trump's reelection, citing his pledges to reverse climate regulations and expand fossil fuel production. The organization commits to resisting these 'regressive plans' by building alliances, defending the rule of law, and protecting the right to a healthy environment globally.

The policy brief contends that carbon markets are a flawed mechanism that fails to provide real climate finance, instead allowing Global North polluters to avoid direct emission reductions while potentially harming Global South communities.

The document advocates for the integration of substantive and procedural human rights into the Global Plastics Treaty, noting that plastic pollution infringes upon rights to health, life, and a clean environment. It critiques the current Compilation Draft for treating public participation as voluntary and omitting the right to effective remedy, while recommending that the final treaty explicitly operationalize the right to a healthy environment and protect marginalized groups.

The document argues that the Chair's third non-paper provides an adequate structure for negotiations at INC-5 but would result in an 'ineffective and useless treaty' if not significantly strengthened. CIEL advocates for replacing voluntary language with legally binding obligations, establishing a dedicated financial mechanism based on the polluter pays principle, and implementing global phase-outs of chemicals of concern. Key recommendations include introducing a freeze on new polymer production capacity, making national plans mandatory, and adopting a qualified majority voting system for the Conference of the Parties to prevent decision-making paralysis.

The document examines how ISDS allows foreign investors, particularly in the fossil fuel industry, to sue governments over climate regulations, leading to a 'chilling effect' where states delay or weaken policies to avoid costly awards. It argues that these protections act as a subsidy for GHG-intensive industries, contradicting Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement. The brief concludes that fragmented procedural reforms are insufficient and advocates for a unified global approach, including the use of COP29 and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to coordinate ISDS withdrawals or carve-outs.

The document synthesizes two primary negotiating texts for a future global plastics treaty, highlighting critical gaps in the Chair's third Non-Paper compared to the Compilation draft. It details proposed articles on the full lifecycle of plastics, including primary polymer production, chemicals of concern, product design, waste management, and a just transition for waste pickers. The synthesis includes various options for mandatory and voluntary obligations, financial mechanisms, and the establishment of a governing body and subsidiary organs to end plastic pollution by 2040.

The document examines the intersection of the climate crisis and the US insurance system, focusing on the aftermath of Hurricane Helene in North Carolina. It highlights a disconnect where insurers seek significant rate hikes—up to 99% in some coastal areas—despite historical profitability, while many homeowners remain uninsured for flood damage. The authors argue that the insurance industry exacerbates the climate crisis by investing over $500 billion in fossil fuel-related assets and underwriting fossil fuel projects, thereby profiting from the drivers of the extreme weather that leads to higher insurance claims.

The document examines the legal mechanisms of treaty amendments, annex modifications, adjustments, protocols, entry into force, and reservations within multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) to inform the development of the future plastics treaty. It highlights that while treaty text amendments are infrequent and slow, annex amendments are common and more agile. The brief notes that the current 'Compilation Draft' for the plastics treaty proposes a three-fourths majority for amendment ratification and a 50-state threshold for entry into force, while advising the INC to consider 'hard majority' adjustments and the potential for protocols if a framework convention is pursued.

The document argues that the climate crisis is a human rights crisis, creating a legal obligation for States and corporations to provide remedy and full reparation for loss and damage. It asserts that the right to remedy is already established under international law and does not require new norms, but rather the application of existing frameworks and the 'polluter pays principle' to hold fossil fuel industries accountable. The text criticizes the UNFCCC for failing to uphold the right to remedy through its reliance on voluntary approaches and calls for the restructuring of loss and damage mechanisms to align with human rights standards. Finally, it emphasizes that while the UNFCCC is insufficient, complementary legal strategies—including litigation in international, regional, and national courts—are essential for delivering climate justice.

The document clarifies that while COPs are often mandated to take 'any action necessary' to achieve treaty objectives, their power to act via decisions is limited. Decisions are typically suitable for guidance, budgeting, and coordination, but cannot fundamentally alter Party rights or obligations. Modifying obligations, creating new ones, or changing annexes generally requires formal amendments, which are subject to higher voting thresholds and lengthy ratification processes. The brief argues that relying on a general framework to be strengthened later via COP decisions is often ineffective, urging negotiators to secure strong provisions during the initial treaty adoption.