Search Climate Insights Directory

The report critiques the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the TRIPS Agreement, arguing that they facilitate the commercial exploitation of biological resources by developed nations and corporations while undermining the sovereign rights and traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and developing countries.

The document highlights that micro- and nanoplastics are ubiquitous atmospheric pollutants that can travel thousands of kilometers, leading to significant human inhalation. It details how these particles can penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the vascular system, acting as vectors for toxic chemicals. The report links exposure to various respiratory, metabolic, and reproductive health issues and calls for a legally binding international agreement to address the full life cycle of plastics.

The document serves as a bibliography of resources detailing how the fossil fuel industry, trade associations, and third-party intermediaries have worked to obstruct climate policy and discredit climate science. It categorizes these resources into themes such as corporate influence on policy, the funding of climate deniers, and the suppression of activism. Additionally, it includes specific quotes from industry entities like Peabody Energy and ExxonMobil that illustrate contradictory or denialist stances on climate change.

The document argues that a small number of fossil fuel and cement producers, termed 'Carbon Majors', are responsible for a significant portion of global greenhouse gas emissions and the subsequent climate crisis. It details how these entities' activities and disinformation campaigns have led to severe human rights violations, particularly in the Philippines, where climate-induced disasters like Typhoon Haiyan have caused immense loss of life and livelihood. The text leverages international human rights law, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the 'Carbon Majors' study to establish a framework for corporate accountability and legal liability for climate damages.

The report examines 38 cases of international arbitration brought by mining companies against Latin American states, highlighting a pattern where corporate legal protections are used to bypass national courts and penalize governments for implementing public health, environmental, or indigenous rights policies. It identifies Canada as a primary source of mining investment and litigation in the region and argues that the current ISDS framework creates a 'chilling effect' on democratic regulation. The document details specific cases in countries such as El Salvador, Colombia, and Venezuela, and proposes a shift toward a legal framework that prioritizes human rights and environmental protection over investor profits.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submits that the Article 6.4 mechanism must focus on near-term emissions reductions and the phase-out of fossil fuels rather than carbon removals. CIEL warns that relying on removals risks temperature overshoot beyond 1.5°C, which could lead to irreversible tipping points. The submission critiques land-based removals for their impermanence and limited capacity, and describes engineered removals like BECCS and DACCS as speculative technologies that threaten food sovereignty, land rights, and biodiversity. It further argues that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) primarily serves to prolong fossil fuel reliance and has a history of underperformance. Finally, CIEL calls for the establishment of robust human rights safeguards and an independent grievance redress mechanism for all Article 6.4 activities.

The document analyzes the global debate over water privatization, contrasting the view of water as an economic good promoted by international financial institutions with the view of water as a human right. It details the role of the World Bank and IMF in pushing privatization through loan conditionalities and provides case studies of both failed privatization (Cochabamba, Bolivia) and successful participatory public management (Porto Alegre, Brazil).

The report analyzes 118 planned petrochemical projects in the US, finding that they could add 153.8 MMT of annual CO2e emissions, equivalent to nearly 40 coal plants. It highlights that a small number of megaprojects drive the majority of these emissions, with ammonia production being a primary contributor. The document argues that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an ineffective solution used to justify fossil-fuel-based expansion, often supported by federal subsidies. It also notes that the buildout is concentrated in disadvantaged communities in the Gulf Coast and Appalachia, worsening environmental racism.

The document argues that the petrochemical industry's expansion is unsustainable and harmful, urging financial institutions to stop financing petrochemical expansion, require client transition plans, and adopt environmental justice policies. It highlights the severe health and environmental impacts in US 'sacrifice zones' and the financial risks of stranded assets.

The document details the environmental and health impacts of the fossil fertilizer supply chain, noting that 58% of global production is powered by fossil fuels (primarily gas). It links these inputs to cancer, respiratory illness, and the creation of marine dead zones, while highlighting nitrous oxide as a potent greenhouse gas. The authors propose phasing out synthetic fertilizers in favor of agroecological practices to support a global population of 10 billion.

The report details how over 99% of plastics are derived from fossil fuels, specifically through the production of ethylene and propylene. It highlights the geographic concentration of production near fossil fuel sources, such as the US Gulf Coast, and the high degree of vertical integration between major oil and gas companies and plastics producers. The document also analyzes the shift in feedstocks, noting the US preference for natural gas liquids (NGL) and the dominance of naphtha in China, Europe, and Japan, while projecting that oil consumption by the plastics sector could reach 20% of total consumption by 2050.

The report details a global surge in plastics production capacity driven by cheap fossil fuel feedstocks. In the US, shale gas has led to planned investments of $164 billion for 264 new or expanded facilities. China is heavily investing in carbon-intensive coal-to-olefins technology to overcome a lack of natural gas. Meanwhile, the Middle East continues to leverage oil and gas, and Europe is seeing new investments enabled by US liquefied natural gas shipments. The report warns that this capacity expansion could lock in high plastic production for decades, exacerbating environmental pollution and the climate crisis.

The report argues that while scientists identified ocean plastic pollution in the 1950s, the petrochemical and petroleum industries were aware of the issue by the 1970s. It details how industry actors participated in early workshops on marine pollutants and packaging waste, often framing the non-biodegradable nature of plastic as a benefit for landfills while privately acknowledging disposal problems. The document further asserts that the industry has historically shifted responsibility to consumers and fought regulations on single-use plastics, such as bag bans in California and Seattle, despite knowing the environmental impact of their products.

The report finds that while most International Financial Institutions (IFIs) commit to gender equality, their actual policies are often weak, understaffed, and poorly resourced. The African Development Bank and Asian Development Bank are identified as having the most receptive accountability mechanisms for gender-related complaints, whereas the IMF, EIB, and EBRD are noted for significant gaps in both policy and redress options.

The report argues that many high-emitting governments knew about the link between fossil fuel combustion and global warming as early as the 1960s, triggering legal duties to prevent harm long before the 1990s. It uses a timeline of scientific milestones and country-specific evidence to challenge claims by States that awareness only emerged in the late 1980s, linking this knowledge to the 'no-harm' principle of customary international law.

The report warns that NAFTA and the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA) treat water as a commodity, potentially preventing Canada from restricting large-scale water exports to the U.S. and Mexico. It details massive proposed projects like NAWAPA and the GRAND Canal, and identifies trends—such as the rise of water marketing and the impacts of global warming—that increase the likelihood of these transfers. The authors recommend forming a North American Water Task Force and pursuing legal frameworks that prioritize ecological and indigenous values over economic ones.

The document examines the negative impacts of ISDS on environmental and climate policy, noting that at least 175 cases are tied to environmental measures. It argues that the threat of arbitration disincentivizes states from enacting climate laws and that current treaty reforms are insufficient, suggesting that treaty termination and a shift toward domestic courts are the most effective solutions.

The document examines how Peru's regulatory framework for the timber industry facilitates illegal logging, which in turn threatens the success of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) efforts. It highlights that illegal logging may account for up to 80% of exported timber and that 68.3% of supervised logging concessions have been cancelled or are under investigation for serious violations. The author argues that project-level improvements are insufficient to prevent 'leakage' (emissions shifting to other areas) or ensure 'permanence' (long-term emission reductions) without national-level legal reform and clearer international guidelines from the UNFCCC on Safeguard Information Systems (SIS).

The document examines how Peru's regulatory framework for logging enables widespread illegal activity, which in turn threatens the success of REDD+ initiatives. It highlights that without national-scale reform, project-based efforts to reduce emissions will be negated by leakage and reversals.

The report argues that pesticides banned in their country of manufacture are classified as 'hazardous wastes' under the Bamako Convention and the Central American Agreement. Because many importing nations in Africa and Central America have monist legal systems or specific domestic laws incorporating these definitions, the report concludes that exporting such substances from Basel Convention parties (including the EU, UK, and Switzerland) violates the Basel Convention, international customary law, and the extraterritorial human rights obligation to protect the right to health.