The UN Summit of the Future that took place in New York over the weekend pitched strengthened diplomatic cooperation as the key to protecting the rights of present and future generations from environmental breakdown, amongst other issues.

As politicians, business leaders and civil society gathered in New York to discuss urgent progress needed on climate and nature, the upcoming diplomatic calendar was in sharp focus – in particular, the deadline for updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in February 2025. NDCs are commitments on emissions-cutting that countries submit to the UN every 5 years, and they are central for the Paris Agreement’s mechanism to ratchet up countries’ decarbonisation ambitions over time.

But now is also the moment to start asking, what comes after and with the NDCs?

UN climate chief warns of “two-speed” global energy transition

The conversation must evolve to ensure that international targets are translated into strong national laws to guarantee their full delivery. For us at ClientEarth, that looks like two things at national level; the adoption of Future Generation Acts to incorporate long-term thinking into governance, and the implementation of ambitious and science-driven framework climate laws.

UK leads the way

So far, framework climate laws have been adopted in almost 60 countries around the world. The first was the UK’s groundbreaking 2008 Climate Change Act. It committed the UK government to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with a pathway to achieving ‘Net Zero’ by 2050, and setting 5-year carbon budgets. It also established the Climate Change Committee – an expert, independent body that advises the government and ensures emissions targets are evidence-based and independently assessed.

Research says it has been working: a study from the London School of Economics suggests that the act has helped to reduce UK emissions over its 16 years, especially in the power sector: the share of low-carbon generation increased from 20% in 2008 to 45% in 2016, and experts say the act was a major driver of this transformation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its sixth assessment report, agreed that “climate laws have been growing in number and have helped deliver mitigation and adaptation outcomes”.

COP29 aims to boost battery storage and grids for renewables, as pledges proliferate

Such framework climate laws create a clear and binding legal foundation for climate action that stands the test of time and changing politics. They create stronger obligations on states to protect both present and future generations. They also provide clarity to business and investors on the long-term direction of policy and economic change.

It’s an area of environmental advocacy and legislation ClientEarth has worked in for over a decade. In Poland, in the absence of a legally binding government-level plan to tackle climate change, our lawyers put together a draft law to put pressure on the government to act. Our lawyers, alongside partners, are now supporting the development of framework climate laws in multiple countries, as we did with New Zealand’s Zero Carbon Act in 2018.

Future generations in focus

Future Generations Acts, like that introduced by Wales in 2015, are also a significant step that countries can take. Children and those not yet born have no recourse to participate in current decision-making processes, yet they stand to suffer the effects of our deteriorating climate far more than those currently holding power.

The first ever Declaration on Future Generations, agreed on Sunday by world leaders at the UN, was a commitment by countries to take account of future generations in decision-making. Their rights should now also be fully recognised in national law.

The law has an immense power to shape the world around us – both for those living in it today, and those who will inherit it in the future – and that’s why having the commitments made in the heady world of international diplomacy enshrined in binding national laws is a crucial next step for global climate action.

The post New global climate commitments critical – but strong national laws must follow appeared first on Climate Home News.

Prime minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir told a high-level conference today that there is a “pressing need for an autonomous right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment” to help address climate change and other environmental crises and pledged to send “a strong message on future challenges” at a forthcoming leaders’ summit.

Recognition of the right to a healthy environment would shift political priorities, say legal experts, and open up the potential for environmental lawsuits at both national and regional levels.

The island nation made promotion of the links between human rights and the environment one of the key aims of its six-month presidency of the Council of Europe, which since 1949 has been tasked with upholding human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

The end of Iceland’s presidential stint in May will be marked by a summit in its capital Reykjavik, where leaders are expected to seriously discuss the prospect of enshrining the right to a healthy environment in law.

Such summits are rare – this is only the fourth to take place since 1993 – and Iceland describes it as a “historic opportunity for the Council of Europe to refocus its mission, in the light of new threats to democracy and human rights”, as well as to support member state Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression.

Exxon scrambles to save investments before Colombia bans fracking

A healthy and sustainable environment is increasingly being seen as a fundamental human right around the world.

Last summer, the UN General Assembly passed a landmark resolution recognising it as a universal right. However, subsequent attempts by the UN Human Rights Council to crystallise this political statement into something more tangible have proved more problematic.

The Council of Europe endorsed a set of guidelines on human rights and the environment in 2022. But it held back from unambiguously restating the existence of the right to a healthy environment, even though all member states had voted in favour of the UN resolution.

Instead, a technical body has been tasked with exploring the need and feasibility of a legal tool to protect the right, and is due to report on its findings in September.

New protocol

The strongest way such a right could be recognised within the Council of Europe would be by adding a new protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, which would then be enforced by the European Court of Human Rights.

All 46 member states are subject to the rulings of this Strasbourg-based court, which recently heard its first climate-related cases and has scheduled another for the autumn.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) is the organisation’s parliamentary arm albeit without the power to make law. It has urged Council of Europe leaders to support a legally binding framework and to place the issue high on the agenda at the Rejkjavik Summit.

What is the global stocktake of climate action and why does it matter?

In a letter to the permanent representations of member states of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, dated 12 April, a coalition of civil society groups also called for recognition of the right “without delay”.

They note that the right to a healthy environment is already recognised by all other regional human rights frameworks, making the European Convention on Human Rights “an outdated exception”.

The groups say recognition of such a right would grant the “greater unity” among European countries that the Council of Europe is mandated to achieve. “Not recognising the right… would signify that the Council of Europe is unable or unwilling to address the most pressing dangers in the 21st century to the rights it must protect.”

Real impacts

Sébastien Duyck, human rights and climate campaign manager for the Center for International Environmental Law, believes some countries are nervous of the European Court of Human Rights’ power.

“Strasbourg is where the rubber hits the road,” he said. “That’s where you have those great international principles on human rights that are converted into something with real impacts on member states.”

He said there were legitimate concerns about how such a right would be implemented, such as the question of what type or scale of ecosystem harm would allow someone to bring a claim.

“But these should be addressed by a negotiating committee,” said Duyck. “If you were to have government structuring a protocol, that’s what they would be doing.”

Iceland is treading carefully on this potentially sensitive issue, and experts say today’s conference is one way in which it is trying to build support for the idea.

Mitsubishi bets on carbon removal while keeping coal plants

Opposition to idea

Robert Spano, former president of the European Court of Human Rights, who gave a keynote speech, was wary of the idea.

He said it was justified for the international community to “robustly debate” the need for adopting a binding right to a healthy environment.

But he did not think it as “sound policy” to incorporate it into the European Convention on Human Rights, saying climate change is too broad an issue for the court to deal with and suggesting it should remain a political – not a legal – matter.

But Jakobsdóttir maintained that the organisation must follow in the “very important footsteps” of the UN if it is to continue to hold its role as one of the leading human rights institutions worldwide.

Amnesty International said this shows the presidency is putting a big emphasis on the issue.

Cop28 boss slams rich nations “dismal” $100bn finance failure

Failure at home

Domestically, Iceland is one of 14 members of the Council of Europe, alongside the UK, Germany and Switzerland, not to explicitly recognise the right to a healthy environment in domestic law.

There appears to be public support for the idea, said Jóna Þórey Pétursdóttir, an associate at Icelandic law firm Réttur.

But in 2021, prime minister Jakobsdóttir failed to pass a constitutional reform bill recognising the right. “Hence, the seriousness of the government on the topic can easily be questioned, unfortunately,” she said.

Icelandic MP Andrés Ingi Jónsson of the Pirate Party agreed that the issue remains a “fairly high priority” for Jakobsdóttir, “although she usually adds the caveat that Russia‘s attack on Ukraine is likely to take center stage”.

Reporting on climate adaptation is a mess – here’s how to fix it

Duyck said the war between Russia and Ukraine, both of which were members of the Council of Europe until Russia was expelled last year, had left the alliance “soul-searching” about its fundamental role and looking to reaffirm what its shared values are.

As well as providing a new tool to hold Russia accountable for the damage it is causing in Ukraine, he said, recognising the right to a healthy environment could provide just such a unifying cause.

Duyck believes the right will be recognised among Council of Europe members in one way or another. “The question is, is the [European Court of Human Rights] going to continue to have its creative interpretation of the convention by incorporating the right to a healthy environment more and more explicitly? Or are governments going to actually play the policy-making role that’s expected of them and just tell the court how this should be done?”

The Pirate Party’s Jónsson said the legacy of Iceland’s presidency of the Council of Europe would depend on the strength of the summit’s declarations and how well its results are followed through.

“This is not just the role of a single state,” he said, “but also something that civil society throughout the member states will have to hold their governments to account.”

The post Pressure builds on Council of Europe to put right to healthy environment in law appeared first on Climate Home News.

At a general assembly meeting in New York today, governments approved a resolution recognising the huge challenge of climate change and calling on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to provide an advisory opinion on how it intersects with international law.

Ishmael Kalsakau, prime minister of Vanuatu, which led the initiative alongside a group of young people, called the decision “a win for climate justice of epic proportions”.

The Pacific island nation is currently in a national state of emergency after two tropical cyclones devastated the island in the space of just a week.

‘A turning point’

An advisory opinion from the ICJ interprets existing international law rather than creating new legal obligations, and it is not legally binding. But it is highly influential.

Nilufer Oral, a member of the UN International Law Commission and director of the National University of Singapore’s Centre for International Law, said the opinion would “provide clarity and guidance on the legal obligations of states when it comes to climate change, and the legal consequences of failing to act”.

Among other things, it will consider states’ human rights responsibilities and their intergenerational duties.

The resolution marks “a turning point in the pursuit of climate justice,” said Caio Borges, law and climate coordinator at Brazil’’s Institute for Climate and Society.

“The court’s opinion will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of future international climate negotiations and climate litigation at both domestic and international levels,” Borges added.

Revealed: How Shell cashed in on dubious carbon offsets from Chinese rice paddies

Vanuatu’s climate change minister Ralph Regenvanu said there had been “overwhelming global support” for the resolution, which was co-sponsored by the vast majority of UN states. But it took four years to get to this point.

Cynthia Houniuhi was in her final year of law school at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji campus, doing a course on international environmental law, when her classmates began discussing ways of promoting climate justice. One of the ideas on their list was seeking an advisory opinion from the ICJ.

“To be honest, at first I was very hesitant when this idea was being discussed,” said Houniuhi. “I mean, let’s be real here; it was too ambitious. How can a small group of students from the Pacific region convince the majority of the UN members to support this initiative?”

What moved her, in the end, was seeing communities already doing their best to adapt to climate impacts, and watching the advocacy efforts of civil society and her government.

BREAKING: The UN General Assembly has passed by consensus the resolution calling for an ICJ advisory opinion on climate change and human rights pic.twitter.com/XgTF1M4el3

— Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (@pisfcc) March 29, 2023

“What is the use of learning all this knowledge if it’s not for our people to fight the single greatest threat to their security?” she asked herself. “This was an opportunity to do something bigger than ourselves, bigger than our fears.”

Houniuhi was one of 27 students to form Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, who petitioned their teachers and lecturers about the idea, and crowdfunded 80 Fijian dollars to pay for a banner.

With growing support, they approached the Vanuatu government, which welcomed the idea and galvanised a core group of 18 countries. Houniuhi, who is now studying for a masters in environmental law at Sydney University, said the support shown her group has been “overwhelming”.

Cop28 host UAE tried to weaken global shipping’s climate ambition

Getting the explicit support of so many nations was the result of a huge diplomatic effort around the world, said ambassador Odo Tevi, Vanuatu’s permanent representative to the UN.

The resulting opinion will undoubtedly be used as a key piece of evidence in the growing number of climate lawsuits against domestic governments. Earlier today, for example, the European Court of Human Rights heard its first two climate cases against Switzerland and France.

But those behind the initiative made a concerted effort to avoid laying blame on states. Oral said the aim should not be to sue states, noting that previous advisory opinions from the ICJ have not sparked a swathe of legal actions.

Experts say it could encourage reviews of national climate plans, and push states to look hard at their domestic targets, aiming for stronger policies to cut emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

“It’s really being able to give… that extra legal incentive for states to understand that they have to take action now. We know from the most recent IPCC report, they have very little time,” said Oral.

Vanuatu took a long look at its own international obligations and last year submitted a more ambitious NDC , which included over 140 commitments on mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage. “This is exactly the kind of outcome we hoped for from the ICJ’s advisory opinion,” said Regenvanu.

Regenvanu said states might also use the opinion to negotiate a complementary legal instrument like a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty; an international campaign for such a treaty is rapidly building with the forthright support of Pacific island nations. Or it could add fuel to efforts to add the crime of ecocide to the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute.

Complementing loss and damage

The ICJ has not been specifically asked to provide an opinion on the highly politicised issue of loss and damage, although the resolution emphasises the urgency of “averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage associated with those effects in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to these effects”.

But Regenvanu said it would complement efforts to roll-out loss and damage finance and might affect rules around it are interpreted.

Speaking at the Economist Impact’s sustainability week today, UN Secretary-General, António Guterres said the opinion would help the UN and member states take “the bolder and stronger climate action that our world so desperately needs”.

The court will organise hearings over the next few months, and an advisory opinion will be issued between six and 12 months later.

Pacific island students and other young people are writing a handbook explaining how young people and civil society organisations can contribute to the process, which will be published soon.

The post International Court of Justice to advise states on climate duties: ‘A turning point for climate justice’ appeared first on Climate Home News.

This is a watershed year for climate litigation:​​​​​​ three cases in Strasbourg stand to transform the climate policies of 32 European countries. Their effect could reverberate across the globe.

Hearings for two of these cases will happen on 29 March, with a third due to be heard after the summer. Behind the cases are brave plaintiffs from all ages and backgrounds: Portuguese children and young people, Swiss senior women, and French MEP Damien Carême.

All are desperately trying to protect their present and future from disastrous climate change. In each​ case​, the plaintiffs argue that their human rights are being violated by governments’ failure to tackle greenhouse gas emissions at the pace required to keep temperatures – and themselves – safe.

Greens stop blocking Australia’s new fossil fuel projects

The Paris Agreement will be instrumental in all three cases. As one of its architects, I see this as a compelling signal that the landmark treaty is doing its job, especially when states are not.

When scientists, politicians and diplomats designed the Paris Agreement, we relied on the best science and legal advice that 197 countries could offer. ​​​​​​We also heeded states’ preference to decide themselves how they reduce emissions — and designed the Paris Agreement in a way so they could.

But while the Paris Agreement protects countries’ sovereignty over their climate action, it is crucial that they abide by the spirit and objective of the treaty: to limit global warming to 1.5C by mid-century.

In practice, a vast majority of states are not yet acting fast enough, effectively using the design of the Agreement as a means to play “chicken” with the safety of their citizens, something the courts have a clear mandate to dismantle.

Mexico launches global push for geoengineering restrictions

Judges can give scientific facts the force of law. If the ECtHR finds a human rights violation in these cases, it will require governments to remedy it – which will mean speeding up the phase-out of fossil fuels and upping their climate ambition.

It was obvious in 2015 that some states would drag their feet: we knew this and anticipated that the treaty would have to invite external pressure from other areas of law, especially human rights law, to compel countries to act faster​.​

After all, while Paris culminated in a formal agreement among governments, it was largely the fruit of decades of global mobilisation and warnings from scientists, environmental experts, civil society at large, and voices within the business sector. There would be no Paris Agreement without widespread pressure and scrutiny.

Nor are these hearings in Strasb​o​urg coming out of the blue. Climate litigation is advancing everywhere, as courts take stock of their role in protecting citizens from man-made climate impacts. Last year, Brazil’s Supreme Court became the first judicial body to recognize the Paris Agreement as a human rights treaty, giving itself the power to enforce it. There are more than 2,000 climate-related litigation cases underway in the world today, with 80 of them challenging governments.

Governments battle over carbon removal and renewables in IPCC report

Crucially, these rulings can shed light on the evolving role of the Paris Agreement itself. No two legal systems are the same, but an international treaty can serve as reference to any and all, helping the courts to uphold and interpret their mandate.  We always intended the Paris Agreement to play this role as it became integrated into other areas of law at the national, regional and international level.

​​​The ECtHR is specific in that it is only empowered to enforce a single legal instrument, the European Convention on Human Rights. However, it can refer to treaties like the Paris Agreement to interpret countries’ duties to uphold human rights under its own mandate. And the opportunity is great: as its judgments are legally binding, it has the power to compel European countries to significantly accelerate their efforts to reduce emissions.

The window to stay under the safer limit of 1.5C is closing fast. This year could strengthen the Paris Agreement against a backdrop of catastrophic climate impacts all over the planet.

The world is watching: these rulings will have deep, lasting, and transformative consequences for millions today and billions in the future. These brave plaintiffs are standing up for their human rights. Thanks to them, we could all be rewarded.

Laurence Tubiana is the CEO of the European Climate Foundation and, as French climate envoy, played a key role in negotiating the Paris agreement

The post Climate in court: The Paris Agreement’s role in safeguarding human rights  appeared first on Climate Home News.

Campaigners say that Shell is breaching its international climate obligations and threatening the lives of these citizens by continuing to invest billions of dollars each year in the production of fossil fuels. 

Seven environmental groups, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth the Netherlands, also known as Milieudefensie, filed the lawsuit against Shell in April last year, on behalf of over 17,000 Dutch citizens.

They are demanding that Shell cut its CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 and to zero by 2050, compared to 2019 levels, in line with the toughest 1.5C temperature limit in the Paris pact. This would force one of the world’s largest energy companies to quickly phase down production of oil and gas and invest in clean energy sources instead.

Four public hearings took place in December in the district court of the Hague, where Shell has its headquarters, concluding on Thursday. A verdict is expected in May next year. 

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

Campaigners have built their case on a precedent set by the ‘Urgenda case’, a major climate lawsuit taken to the top of the Netherlands court system last year.

In December 2019, the Supreme Court in the Netherlands ordered the Dutch government to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by the end of 2020, compared to 1990 levels, as its fair share to tackle climate change. The court ruled that the Dutch government was causing an “unacceptable danger” to citizens, for which it has a duty of care, by continuing to pollute. 

The victory by Dutch environmental group Urgenda was seen as a landmark moment for climate justice. 

“We are arguing that you can apply the same [duty of care] law to companies,” Sara Shaw, a campaigner for Friends of the Earth International, told Climate Home News. 

Shaw said that while climate litigation cases are becoming more common, it is unusual for the plaintiff not to claim financial damages and focus instead on setting a future course of action. 

Shell argues that climate policy should be set by governments, not companies and that forcing one energy firm to cut back on oil and gas will only have a minor impact as long as others continue to produce fossil fuels.

“The judge should not intervene with Shell’s policy. It would also be unfair to force one company to take certain climate action if states and consumers do not do so or do so insufficiently,” a lawyer for Shell told the court.

UK Supreme Court lifts ban on Heathrow airport third runway

Unlike the Dutch government, Shell is not a signatory to the 2015 Paris Agreement. But campaigners argue that Shell should help countries achieve Paris goals and accuse the company of violating human rights by undermining global efforts to keep temperature rises below 1.5C. 

“Shell’s policies put it on a collision course with international climate agreements,” said Roger Cox, the lawyer representing the group of campaigners. “It is clear that Shell’s policies continue to pose a major threat to the environment and humanity to this day. A judge can put a stop to this environmental damage,” he told the court. 

“It is impossible to achieve the Paris Agreement climate targets without regulating multinationals,” Donald Pols, chief executive of Friends of the Earth the Netherlands, told Climate Home News. 

On the company website, Shell says it is aiming for net-zero operations by 2050, which does not cover the impact of customers burning its products. The company aims to reduce its carbon intensity, the amount of CO2 emissions produced per energy unit sold, 30% by 2030 and 65% by 2050, compared to 2016 levels.

Shell’s focus on carbon intensity is problematic as it allows the company to claim it is reducing emissions while increasing the sale of fossil fuels, according to Pols. “While they should be reducing their CO2 emissions, Shell [plans to] grow their production of oil and gas by more than 34% by 2030.”

Campaigners and lawyers say the verdict of this case could set an important precedent for other climate litigation cases relating to the Paris Agreement. 

“Big polluters and fossil fuel executives should be quite nervous watching this,” said Shaw. “It would be great to see this spark a wave of climate litigation cases against corporations.”

The post Shell faces Dutch court in case testing how Paris climate goals apply to businesses appeared first on Climate Home News.

The proposal is backed by seven political parties, who between them hold 113 of 150 seats in the Dutch parliament. There will be opportunities for lawmakers to amend the text before it is finalised, likely in 2019.

It would set a 49% greenhouse gas emission reduction target by 2030 compared to 1990 levels and a 95% cut by 2050, with a carbon neutral electricity system.

“The Dutch climate law is groundbreaking for the Netherlands,” said Jesse Klaver, leader of the Green Party. “Today seven parties, with a wide range of political ideologies, agreed on a Dutch climate law, currently the most ambitious climate law in the world.”

Other features include the establishment of an annual “climate day”, when the ministry of energy and climate will give a progress update on achieving the climate targets. From 2019, successive future Dutch governments will be obliged to present updated climate plans every five years.

The targets are based on a 2017 report by the country’s national environment agency. The report warned current and proposed policies in the EU and the Netherlands “will not lead to reductions consistent with the Paris Agreement’s climate objectives”.

Report: Half of member states back stronger EU climate action

Climate change has not always been the country’s top political priority. In 2015, campaign group Urgenda and almost 900 citizens successfully sued the government in the Hague district court for a stronger national 2020 emissions target, subject to an ongoing appeal.

Following an election in 2017, however, the governing coalition parties VVD, CDA, D66 and ChristenUnie agreed to phase out coal and lobby for stronger EU action. Opposition parties SP, GroenLinks, and PvdA also support tighter climate targets.

Urgenda’s legal counsel Dennis van Berkel said the proposal was a “largely symbolic act” that “only ensures that a yearly climate debate is organised which reports on the route towards the 2050 target, but which gives very little assurance that real action is taken”.

“Measures such as the establishment of short and medium-term carbon budgets and the legally binding target for 2030, were all deleted from the initial draft,” he added.

For comparison, other countries with legally mandated 2050 emissions cuts include the UK (80%), France (75%), Mexico (50%) and Finland (80%). Sweden and Norway are set to go carbon neutral by 2045 and 2050 respectively, with some of the obligation to be met by international carbon credits.

The Netherlands is among 14 member states calling for the EU to increase its climate pledge in line with efforts to limit global warming to 1.5C. There will be a political moment for countries to signal their commitment to ambition at the Cop24 summit in Katowice, Poland, this December.

Republish this article

The post Netherlands proposes 95% emissions cut by 2050 in draft climate law appeared first on Climate Home News.

Male, the capital of the Maldives and its population of over 150,000 are threatened by rising sea levels (Flickr/ @ccfoodtravel)

By Tim Crosland

If the actions of Party X cause loss and damage to Party Y, then Party X should compensate Party Y. That is the foundational principle of law and civilisation, preventing the escalation of grievance into conflict.

It is a principle countries vulnerable to the impacts of climate change are pushing at UN talks towards a global pact in Paris this December. They want rich polluters to pay.

What they may not realise is that agreeing to resolve the issue through a Paris deal risks limiting their ability to bring lawsuits outside the UN process.

Legal principles

In the context of environmental degradation, two key principles apply: that of ‘the polluter pays’ and ‘the precautionary principle’.

The latter is captured in Article 3, Provision 3 of the UN’s framework convention on climate change:

The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects.  Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures…

While countries under international law are free to exploit their own natural resources, the right is not without limit.

Indeed the ‘no harm principle’ (or ‘principle of prevention’) is the basis of international environmental law (i.e countries must avoid exploiting resource in such a way as to cause significant harm to others).

Mounting precedents

International lawyers increasingly recognise that the principle applies to climate change (see, for example, the International Law Association principles and Oslo Principles).

As a result, states have a duty to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions under their jurisdiction or control do not cause harm to the environment of other states or areas beyond national jurisdiction.

If there is an assumption that climate change litigation faces insurmountable hurdles then Parties may wish to consider two milestone cases from this year:

• The Urgenda Case in which a citizen’s platform successfully brought a claim against the Dutch government for failing to discharge its duty of care to protect the people from the effects of climate change (with reference being made to fundamental human rights principles including the right to life).
• The Leghari Case in which a farmer brought a case against the government of Pakistan for failing to implement its climate change strategy, resulting in the court ordering the establishment of a new climate change commission.

Report: Climate campaigners win court case against Dutch government 

Report: Pakistan ordered to enforce climate law by Lahore court

Also relevant is the judgement of the US Court of Appeals from 2009, which accepted the viability of a claim brought by eight US States and New York City against six power generation companies for climate change damage (following a change of circumstances the judgement was partially reversed by the US Supreme Court).

Such cases (together with general principles) indicate the potential for individuals, organisations and governments to bring legal action for climate change loss and damage.

Analysis: Around the world in 5 climate change lawsuits

An analogy may be drawn from the criminal law.

If a gang of people attacks an individual, inflicting multiple blows, and that individual subsequently dies, they may all be charged with murder or manslaughter. If a gang member argues ‘you can not prove it was my blow that caused death’, the courts are likely to invoke the principle of ‘joint and several liability’.

Climate liability

Enforcing such principles – that governments, companies and investors take responsibility for the consequences of their acts and decisions – is not just about compensating specific victims; it is a general societal benefit, as it helps correct the ‘market failure’ at the heart of climate change.

Given the scale of current and future climate change damage, the risk of liability should provide a compelling incentive to stop polluting, and to invest in clean energy. Legal liability may prove a more effective method of ‘carbon pricing’ than a market in carbon credits.

Signing up to a Paris agreement, however, may imply that pre-existing legal rights have been given up:

lex specialis derogat legi generali (‘specific law overrides general law’)

In other words, in the event your government or your people were to bring a claim for climate change loss and damage at some later date, it might be argued:

1. a) But you have expressly agreed that levels of emissions should be ‘nationally determined’; and
2. b) You have agreed that climate change loss and damage should be addressed through mechanisms under the UN climate body.

To avoid the risk of compromise to your country’s legal position we advise Parties most at risk of climate change loss and damage to consider writing to the co-chairs along the following lines:

‘Dear Co-chairs

We will be unable to support any agreement that risks compromising our pre-existing legal position in relation to potential legal claims for loss and damage (i.e. the ‘no harm’ principle). As there has been no suggestion that an agreement is intended to reduce protections for vulnerable and developing Parties we see no difficulty in inserting an express provision for the avoidance of doubt. We propose a clause along the following lines for inclusion in the Preamble:

This agreement shall take effect without prejudice to existing principles of international law [including the no harm principle, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays.]

Equity was always first and foremost about sharing the remaining carbon budget consistent with the temperature target. No Party should be expected to compromise its legal position on account of the collective failure to come to terms with this fundamental aspect of UNFCCC compliance.

….’

National carbon-cutting pledges to a Paris deal alone won’t cap warming below the 2C danger zone. But let’s ensure, at least, it doesn’t make things worse.

Note: The co-chairs have invited Parties to contact them directly with any concerns at adp.chair.email@gmail.com

Tim Crosland is a barrister and lead for the COP21 Support Network

The post Vulnerable countries warned: Protect your legal rights in a Paris accord appeared first on Climate Home News.

UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany, June 2015 (Pic: UNFCCC/Flickr)

By Ed King

A mooted UN climate pact could end up working like a credit ratings agency, say influential figures involved in crafting a Paris pact.

Countries that default or break their pollution cutting promises will lose credibility and trust amongst their peers, which will impact them in other venues and on other issues.

Rogue climate states (Canada) could miss out on benefits such as protection from trade sanctions, or “in club” transfer of low carbon technologies.

The suggestion was one of a series set out during a session hosted by the London-based E3G think tank last week.

Close observers of UN talks say little time has been spent exploring how binding certain elements of a Paris pact will be.

As a result think tanks are working overtime to test out options on negotiators, NGOs and journalists.

The session was held under the Chatham House rule – so names are off-limits. But the building blocks of what an agreement could look like did become a little clearer.

Why legal?

The central message here was that countries and those implementing national policies need assurance that others will meet their promises.

A binding deal with a clear benchmark for compliance has “teeth” and makes it less likely governments will continue to argue about commitments after it is signed.

It’s also seen as a litmus test by which the general public and business can assess whether a long-term transition to a low carbon economy is likely.

“If governments are serious about addressing climate change, why wouldn’t they bind themselves to the most convincing level?” said one participant.

But does this require a new treaty? Perhaps not, others argued.

There appeared to be a consensus that judging whether Paris is a tough deal will not simply swing on whether a new treaty or protocol is developed.

The legal form of a deal is one way of determining how binding it is. But so too is language, how specific pledges are, and the institutions that are created as a result.

Legal shades

Climate hawks hope countries will commit to a tough new regime under a legally binding treaty in the French capital.

But support for a deal with some legal options but without an overarching UN treaty has support from the Australia, Japan and New Zealand.

The US government is also holding out against a new treaty as it would have to get it past a hostile Senate. There’s small chance of that says Republican senator Jim Inhofe,

What’s emerging is an endgame that’s not an either-or. Some decisions in this new treaty or agreement could be binding, others could not.

Non-binding agreements could come under the UN’s regular decision-making body, the Conference of the Parties, and become part of its wider rule book.

Climate bondage

The current negotiating text stands at 80+ pages, but six elements stand out when discussing what will (or will not) be legally binding.

– Long term carbon cutting goal
– [Intended] nationally-determined contributions
– Climate finance
– Transparency, accountability, compliance
– Action to enhance ambition before 2020
– The role of non-State actors

So what’s the chances of these becoming “legal” commitments?

Long term goal: The concept of a zero carbon goal has come from nowhere in mid-2014 to lead the pack, an astonishing development supported by the G7 in June.

Some countries already have long term targets. The UK, for instance, has a 2050 goal to reduce emissions by at least 80% from 1990 levels.

“All you need is a long term goal and the sounds of commitment; after that people will do it in their own way,” said a former UK advisor at the meeting.

Others want more. Track Zero, an influential lobby group, wants emissions from fossil fuels to fall to zero (or net zero) by 2050.

But some emerging economies are less keen. India and China worry mid-century is too soon; top oil producers like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia see this as a red rag.

One envoy closely involved in the talks fears China may leave its objections to the last night – and then get a proxy like Malaysia to protest against a stringent goal.

Verdict: A goal looks likely, but it’s unclear what the % or baseline will be.

Intended nationally-determined contributions (INDCs): Building blocks of a UN deal. So far, 45 countries covering 56% of global emissions have submitted plans.

China, the US and EU are all in. India, Brazil, Australia and Japan are not – although all have said they will have their data with the UN before a nominal 1 October deadline.

Most taking part at the E3G event agreed that specific numbers covering emission cuts will not come under a legal deal.

“They won’t be in it,” said the former UK advisor, but suggested that there will be a rule that they can only get more ambitious.

It seems unlikely the US or China would agree to their respective commitments coming under international law.

Verdict: Not legally binding but possibly part of a COP deal.

Finance: Without cash, developing countries say they cannot build greener power plants or prepare for climate extremes.

The French hosts of COP21 say this is one of the four “pillars” of the proposed Paris deal, exhorting fellow developed governments to chart a finance roadmap.

But it seems unlikely that the US, EU and others, who in 2009 promised to deliver $100 billion a year by 2020 in climate finance, would agree to long term financial hand cuffs.

In addition, the private sector seems destined to provide the bulk of the trillions predicted to be needed in low carbon investments by 2030.

Verdict: Not legally binding but strong language in the final Paris text.

Transparency, accountability: The ability to track what carbon cuts countries are making and assess how they are faring compared to others could make or break this agreement.

Known as MRV (measuring, reporting and verification) in UN jargon, its inclusion in a legally binding pact is a central part of the EU’s negotiating strategy.

“Accountability mechanisms that are established to track compliance also determine the degree to which obligations can be considered binding,” said one of the E3G participants.

Rich and poor countries currently report on their emissions in separate UN streams – that’s unlikely to change in the near term with many developing countries keen to stress their different status to developed nations.

The EU and US are keen to set a timetable for carbon cutting commitments to be periodically ramped up, as technology (hopefully) improves.

It’s unclear what India and China really think about these commitment periods – and they are known to be sceptical about MRV, not wanting their struggles or possible failures to be widely publicised.

Verdict: For a tough deal, this needs to be legally binding.

Pre-2020 ambition: Remember the Paris deal will only start in 2020 and there’s little sign of more aggressive carbon cuts in the next five years.

To have a chance of limiting warming to below the 2C ceiling deemed dangerous by governments back in 2009, global emissions need to peak by 2020 and be halved by 2050.

For small island states and vulnerable African and Asian countries, pre-2020 action is a red line. For major emitters, it is an inconvenient truth to be ignored.

Verdict: Expect a commitment to pre-2020 action but little else.

Non-state actors: This is the wildcard the French hope can help spur greater action both before and after 2020… pledges from cities, regional authorities and business.

By 2045, six billion people are expected to live in cities – which generate 80% of global economic output and use 70% of global energy.

In the past two months, the French government has hosted business and regions summits, designed to offer leaders in these sectors space to voice their ambitions and policies.

These meetings have contributed to some significant pledges – notably 20 regions representing 220 million people setting climate goals and six oil majors offering support to a UN deal.

But would cities or business accept obligations under international law? It’s unlikely and impractical.

Verdict: Expect strong language on their importance, with no legal weight.

The post What could a legally binding UN climate deal look like? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Vanuatu president Baldwin Lonsdale (far right) holds the declaration on climate justice with fellow delegates (Pic: Steven Lyon / Greenpeace)

By Ed King

The world’s leading fossil fuel companies could be taken to court for damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions under plans released by a coalition of Pacific Island communities on Tuesday.

Campaigners from the tiny Pacific island state, severely damaged by category five storm Cyclone Pam in March this year, want to hold coal, oil and gas companies accountable for “fuelling” global warming.

Their rationale was outlined in a statement released on Monday and backed by Vanuatu president Baldwin Lonsdale, along with community leaders from Tuvalu, Kiribati, Fiji and the Solomon Islands.

“We commit to holding those most responsible for climate change accountable. By doing so, we send a message of hope that the people and not the polluters are in charge of humanity’s destiny,” it says.

“We commit to bring a case that would investigate the human rights implications of climate change and hold the big carbon polluters accountable to appropriate international bodies or processes.”

Vanuatu president Baldwin Lonsdale said they would “stand united as affected communities in the face of climate change” and work together against its causes.

As part of this effort Greenpeace Southeast Asia will shortly petition the Philippine Commission on Human Rights to investigate the role of fossil fuel majors in violating the rights of island peoples due to their contribution to climate change.

The NGO’s legal advisor Zelda Soriano said there was a limited precedent, given the UN Human Rights Council has recognised climate change is impacting the rights of some communities.

“In this light, we view climate change as a social injustice that must be addressed by international governments and agencies, most especially those responsible for contributing to the climate crisis,” she said in an emailed statement.

Oil culpability

The world’s top 12 fossil fuel giants pump are responsible for more fossil fuel emissions a year than the US, Japan and Russia combined, research from Thomson Reuters revealed in May.

Leading polluters include Russia’s Gazprom, still part owned by the Kremlin, state-controlled Coal India, Anglo-Swiss commodities trader Glencore Xstrata and Anglo-Dutch oil firm Shell.

But while companies have faced litigation in the past due to localised pollution and health hazards, proving links to climate change will likely be a more difficult prospect.

“The challenge is how you say one particular company is responsible for emissions that affect everybody,” Martijn Wilder, head of Global Environmental Markets at law firm Baker & McKenzie told RTCC in a recent interview.

“There’s a causation challenge. Having said that people have taken on tobacco companies saying you sold cigarettes and said it wasn’t harmful, and as a result of that have been sued.”

He added: “People are starting to sue pension funds for investing in these companies and not taking those risks into account, so we are going to see litigation and that will put more pressure on people to take action.”

Vanuatu damage

In March this year Cyclone Pam damaged 90% of housing in Port Vila, Vanuatu’s capital, and wiped out crops and livestock the population relied on.

Speaking in its aftermath Lonsdale directly attributed the event to climate change, calling it a “monster” and urging progress on a UN emissions cutting pact set to be signed in December.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has previously been wary of directly linking extreme weather events to global warming.

Its 2014 synthesis study found tropical storms would likely get more intense, but not necessarily more frequent.

More recent research published in May 2015 said tropical storms are becoming more violent but less common as temperatures rise, while a wider study from the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction said 70% of natural disasters could now be linked to climate change.

The bid is the latest from small island and climate vulnerable nations to seek reparations for damage linked to global warming.

Talks on a UN-run loss and damage mechanism are ongoing but so far have delivered little progress, with many developed nations fearing they could be landed with an unlimited bill for compensation.

Correction: The story has been amended to reflect the fact that the statement was not signed by Vanuatu president Baldwin Lonsdale as originally stated. 

The post Vanuatu backs plan to sue major carbon polluters for climate damage appeared first on Climate Home News.

The growth in climate and pollution laws in emerging economies offers hopes for plans for a 2015 UN deal (Pic: GovernmentZA/Flickr)

By Malini Mehra

These are two key findings from GLOBE International’s recently released review of the world’s climate laws, globally the most comprehensive of its kind.

The 2015 study is the fifth in the annual series initiated by GLOBE International and LSE’s Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

This year’s report covers 98 countries plus the European Union, and was presented to delegates at the United Nations climate negotiations in Bonn this week.

For the first time, this year’s study includes as a co-sponsor, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), the world’s oldest parliamentary body which brings together national parliaments.

This marks the beginning of a closer cooperation between GLOBE and the IPU, sparked by a desire to consolidate and make more effective the work of parliamentary networks in the lead-up to COP21 in Paris.

Growing trend

So, what was different in this year’s study? The first was coverage.  This year’s study covered countries responsible for 93 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions – of whom 33 were developed and 66 developing.

The list included 46 of the world’s top 50 emitting nations. One stand-out finding was that 75% of global emissions are now covered by national targets.  Other highlights were:

There were 804 climate laws and policies at the end of 2014, compared with 426 in 2009 at Copenhagen – and just 54 climate laws and policies at Kyoto in 1997. A doubling every five years.

Forty-seven countries, including the 28 Member States of the EU, have introduced carbon pricing through either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system.

Seventy-five countries plus the EU now have frameworks for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and 64 countries have frameworks for adapting to the impacts of climate change.

The study provides a state-of-the-art overview of work done in parliaments and governments to build national legal frameworks on climate change.

Led by Michal Nachmany and Sam Fankhauser at the Grantham Institute, the study points out that 53 countries, including the 28 Member States of the European Union, have national targets that set either absolute or relative limits on annual emissions of greenhouse gases across their economies.

Each country’s legislation is set down individually allowing for cross-country comparison so governments can be held to account for their response to climate risk.

The study shows solid momentum in the emerging global legislative architecture on climate change. Coverage is widening and there is no turning back.

It’s an important message to confidently communicate to business, investors, and others looking for certainty. It also provides a good basis for COP21 in Paris.

But the ambition level needs to be raised to close the emissions gap as demanded by the science. The national parliamentary reviews of the INDCs championed by GLOBE are one way of securing this.

Mixed hopes

While the study carries an overall optimistic message of legislative progress, there have been some setbacks. 2014 saw legislative reversals in Australia and Spain, with the former’s repeal of its carbon tax and Clean Energy Package, and the latter’s downward revision of subsidies for renewable energy.

Action is also needed to ensure countries undertake comprehensive climate risk assessments – so far only 37 have done so. A failure to protect the long-term national interest by any standard.

On the upside, Finland and Denmark joined the small but growing club of countries, such as the United Kingdom and Mexico, which have adopted ambitious legally binding emissions reductions with science-led, long-term targets to 2050.

The foreword to the study reminders readers that 2015 is a ‘generational opportunity’ for the sustainable development and climate change agenda.

It is the reason why GLOBE is promoting a ‘Coherence and Convergence’ approach to the UN’s four major summits on disaster risk, finance, sustainable development goals and climate change this year.

Acceleration

In this year’s study GLOBE has also issued a call to legislators to ratify the Doha Amendment. Most seem to have forgotten that this established the 2nd commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol – but has still not entered into force.

For that to happen 144 governments need to sign ‘instruments of acceptance’. Only 32 have ratified so far.

Since the Doha Amendment covers emissions reductions between now and 2020 – and Paris will only kick in from 2020 onwards – it would seem vital to radically quicken the pace of national ratification.

GLOBE is encouraging its members and stakeholders to do precisely that.

Ratification will send a clear signal to negotiators that they are ‘Paris-ready’ – and the legislative progress noted in this year’s study can be set for further growth and implementation in 2016.

Malini Mehra is chief executive of the GLOBE International secretariat

The post New climate change laws are spreading faster than ever appeared first on Climate Home News.

Pic: Andrea Santoni/Flickr

By Sophie Yeo

Malta has proposed a new climate law, creating a legal obligation for the country to hit its emission reduction targets.

The bill, which is in the consultation phase, will require the government to draw up national strategies for low carbon development and adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

It also sets up an independent Climate Action Fund, which will be used to back domestic climate action and provide donations to developing countries.

“We feel we will be better equipped to address climate change issues both from a national perspective, regionally, and on a multilateral basis,” Leo Brincat, Malta’s minister for environment, sustainable development and climate change told RTCC.

Malta is a member of the EU, and therefore bound by its regional carbon reduction target of 40% by 2030. Under the EU’s current targets, Malta’s emissions can grow 5% on 2005 levels by 2020.

However, according to the country’s latest submission to the UN, emissions rose 7% between 2005 and 2011.

Malta relies heavily on oil imports for 99% of energy consumption, while its use of renewables is the smallest in the EU, according to 2013 data.

Between 1990-2012 energy demand rose 64%, the highest leap in the EU, although per-capita consumption is still among the lowest in the region.

A recent EU review of progress reported that Malta was one of the countries furthest from hitting its 2020 targets, and would require additional policies to help it hit this goal.

The new law, if passed, would set a framework in which this can be achieved. Breaking the law would lead to up to four years in prison and a fine of up to one million euros.

Implementation

As a small and remote island, Malta is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It faces faces extreme freshwater scarcity, while rising sea levels threaten to erode its coastal areas.

An EU report found that the country’s limited financial resources and high population density will limit its ability to adapt to the effects of global warming.

The Maltese government intends to discuss the bill in Parliament before it breaks for Christmas recess in December.

The country follows in the footsteps of the UK and Mexico, who have succeeded in creating national climate change acts.

The GLOBE climate legislation study, published this year in its fourth edition, found that almost 500 laws have now been passed in 66 countries.

Brincat said he was “cautiously optimistic” that the law would be passed, since his party has the majority in Parliament to push it through – although he stressed he was working towards a “consensual approach” with the opposition.

But he added: “In my opinion, what will make or break the implementation of the law is whether we will be successful in mustering the necessary capacity building to be able to address these challenges.

“Just having some legislating basis is an important step forward but not enough.”

The post Oil guzzling Malta proposes climate change law appeared first on Climate Home News.

Hurricane Sandy caused extensive damage to Rhode Island, breaching parts of the coastline (Pic: US Fish and Wildlife Service/Flickr)

By Ed King

The US state of Rhode Island has passed a climate change act, outlining how it should cut fossil fuel use and prepare for future extreme weather events.

The Resilient Rhode Island Act was passed on June 19, approved on the floor of both state chambers, which are dominated by Democrats.

The law stipulates that greenhouse gas emissions should be slashed 45% below 1990 levels by 2035, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

It also includes provisions for a series of carbon budgets every five years, to assess the targets and see if they can be increased, and establishes a climate change coordinating council advisory board.

The Act says: “Consideration of the impacts of climate change shall be deemed to be within the powers and duties of all state departments, agencies, commissions, councils and instrumentalities, including quasi-public agencies, and each shall be deemed to have and to exercise among its purposes in the exercise of its existing authority.”

A small and relatively wealthy state, Rhode Island’s coastline suffered extensive damage from Hurricane Sandy in 2012, requiring $6.5 million in Public Assistance grants and $35.8 million in insurance payouts.

Extreme experiences

According to Timmons Roberts, Professor of Environmental Studies and Sociology at Brown University in Providence, the experience of Sandy in 2012 and Hurricane Irene in 2011 made tough action an “easier sell” for Representative Art Handy, the driving force behind the bill.

“His vision was that preparing for rising sea levels and more intense storms should become ‘business as usual’ in state agencies, and that climate impacts should be considered in every state and local bond issue and infrastructure project,” said Roberts.

Currently 28 US states have climate action plans and nine have state-wide emission targets.

On June 12 Hawaii passed a new adaptation law, targeting rising sea levels and guiding state policy up to 2050.

Nine East Coast states including Rhode Island are part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap and trade scheme formed in 2003.

California and four Canadian provinces take part in the Western Climate Initiative, another carbon trading scheme.

Until 2011 this also included Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington.

US ambition

New carbon cutting proposals outlined by President Barack Obama and the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) require all 50 states to develop plans to comply with new carbon cuts.

States will have flexibility in how they comply with the required pollution reductions, such as through carbon trading programs and by mandating minimal levels of renewable energy in the power sold by utilities.

The US currently has international obligations to cut nationwide emissions 17% on 2005 levels by 2020, a target it could increase ahead of a proposed UN global climate deal in 2015.

Any new plans to cut carbon pollution are likely to receive a hostile welcome from the Republican Party, which appears largely set against any climate regulations.

On Wednesday night President Obama accused his critics in Congress of feigning ignorance of climate science to ensure they stay in office.

“They ducked the question and said ‘Hey, I’m not a scientist,’ which really translates into ‘I accept that manmade climate change is real but if I say so I will be run out of town by a bunch of fringe elements,” he said.

Earlier in the day the White House released a ‘climate scorecard’ outlining its achievements and ambitions in addressing global warming.

“We have proven that the U.S. can and will take the lead on climate action, while lowering household energy bills, creating good paying jobs that cannot be outsourced, and protecting our homes, businesses, and way of life from extreme weather events and climate change,” it read.

The post Rhode Island signs off new climate change law appeared first on Climate Home News.

Climate change raises many justice-related issues.

At the global level two questions are particularly important.

One concerns justice in sharing the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, taking into account the historical responsibility of developed countries for climate change and growing emissions in developing countries.

The other concerns managing the consequences of unavoidable climate change impacts on poor and vulnerable countries and communities.

Current emission reductions are insufficient to limit average warming to the 2˚C global goal agreed by governments or the 1.5˚C that many vulnerable nations say is needed to avoid very damaging impacts on their countries.

The Doha Climate Change Conference in 2012 reached a weak compromise. Prospects are not good for the new climate change agreement which is to be negotiated by 2015.

As a consequence vulnerable countries and communities are facing growing threats to human security from increasing climate change impacts.

The law could perform a similar role for climate change as it does for countries overcoming conflict and political upheaval, says Hyvarinen (Copyright: CJUE/G.Fessy)

International discussions

What can be done? At the international level options include: the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), international legal claims and the UN’s post-2015 [development] agenda.

Negotiations under the UNFCCC include a work programme on loss and damage, but it is not clear how much progress will be possible.

For example, some developed countries are very wary about agreeing to anything that could be interpreted as accepting liability for damage, which could create a right to compensation.

The possibility of a damaged country making an international legal claim against a country that is a large emitter of greenhouse gas emissions had drawn interest from academics and others.

If a greenhouse gas emitting country was found liable the damaged country would have a right to reparations, for example financial compensation.

Making a legal claim would be complicated and even if one country succeeded it might not help others. The possibility of legal claims for climate change damage within countries – for example from marginalized groups against a government – could also hold back some potential international claims.

Discussions have started about the UN’s development agenda after 2015, the target year for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Following the Rio+20 Conference in 2012 proposals for new sustainable development goals are under discussion. Several UN processes are shaping the post-2015 agenda, including a high-level panel appointed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

The panel is co-chaired by the UK Prime Minister David Cameron and the Presidents of Indonesia and Liberia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf respectively.

Climate change is now recognized as a major development challenge. The Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD) believes that climate change impacts on poor and vulnerable countries and communities must be a priority in the UN’s post-2015 agenda. So far, little attention has been paid to this in the discussions.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s post-2015 development plan could provide some ideas for international law’s role in combating climate change (Source: UN/Mark Garten)

New ideas needed

Where does the current state of international discussions leave poor and vulnerable countries?

Prospects in the UNFCCC negotiations are not good, with countries locked in their political positions. An international legal claim could potentially be an option in some cases, but not an easy one.

The possibilities for poor and vulnerable countries to get help to tackle climate change impacts through the UN’s post-2015 agenda are unclear.

New ideas and approaches are needed to achieve greater emission cuts and to address impacts on poor and vulnerable countries and communities. Could lessons be learnt from transitional justice?

Transitional justice refers to approaches and mechanisms used in countries that are recovering from violence and large scale human rights abuses.

The global climate policy situation is not the same as the situation of countries that have been torn apart by conflict and gross human rights abuses – but could some of the thinking about transitional justice inform international approaches to climate change?

Transitional justice involves components such as criminal prosecutions, truth-related processes – such as Truth and Reconciliation Commissions – and reparations for victims. Its aims include reconciliation and transformation that will make a stable future possible.

New international approaches are needed to tackle climate change. They need to deliver global justice, but also make reconciliation and cooperation possible. They need to involve help for countries and communities damaged by climate change and perhaps also other approaches – for example elements of truth processes.

Climate change is an unprecedented challenge. It has taken us to the limit – perhaps already beyond the limit – of humankind’s ability to govern its own impact on the planet. International law can and should help to meet this challenge.

Sometimes it is the task of international law to decide who is right and who is wrong or to punish wrong-doers, but international law is greater than that: it can and should help to make global reconciliation and unity in the face of climate change possible.

This article is based on a speech by FIELD Executive Director Joy Hyvarinen at the Berlin International Economics Congress 2013

The post Climate change in the dock: Rethinking the role of international law appeared first on Climate Home News.

New report warns against the potential damage to ecosystems from a rush to Arctic investment (© USFWS Endangered Species/Creative Commons)

In a busy post-Easter news week, RTCC summarises five of the biggest ideas on climate change, energy and clean development that emerged.

It’s a particularly international affair this week as the big stories dragged us from the Arctic to Mexico via Europe and Africa…

1) Rushing to exploit the Arctic is a bad idea

It sounds like common sense but Chatham House and insurers Lloyd’s of London published a report this week spelling out exactly why this is true.

They have called on oil firms to spend more time on spill response research before expanding operations in the Arctic.

The study estimates the Arctic economy to be worth $100bn during the next decade.

Shell meanwhile, released its Sustainability Report, which reaffirmed its commitment to work in the region.

2) Building a European supergrid is a good idea

As the UK announced it was in talks to bring Iceland’s geothermal energy to the UK via a 1000km long power cable, the Redpoint Energy consultancy told RTCC why sharing resources is a good plan.

A European wide grid joining southern solar power and northern wind energy could cut the cost of consumer’s bills and carbon emissions at the same time.

3) Communities vital in low-carbon development

Communities will be at the heart of successful low carbon energy projects in the Global South, says conference (© UN/Ba Trang)

Communities’ local needs must be considered first for low-carbon projects in the developing world to be successful. That was the consensus at the Low Carbon Energy for Development Network’s first conference held last week.

Communities must be at the heart of decision making, said the experts from around the world who had gathered in Loughborough, UK. Not only must local needs be considered, but also the local knowledge and skills. This means considering the traditional values of local groups and ensuring that knowledge is transferred, as well as technology.

Our latest podcast also touches on this, looking at why the CDM has not been as successful in Africa as many other parts of the developing world.

4) Countries fire first salvos (and starting pistol) on next round of UN talks

After a three month hiatus to consider their positions after the last UN climate change negotiations in Durban, some countries began to publicly show their hand this week.

The UNFCCC, which manages the process, will hold the first major discussions of 2012 next month.

India has stated that the EU carbon tax on aviation is a “deal breaker” and that Germany could be a key partner moving forward.

The EU meanwhile, said the process was too slow and called on Qatar, the host of this year’s grand finale of the negotiations in November, to take a lead.

Mexico looks set to become the second country in the world to introduce climate law (© kc_aplosweb/Creative Commons)

5) Climate leaders come in all shapes and sizes

Mexico became the second country in the world this week to make moves to legislate on climate change as the country’s General Law on Climate Change was passed by the House of Representatives – showing climate leadership can come from unexpected places.

If passed by the Senate it will bind the country to a series of targets, leading to a 50% cut in emissions by 2050. The law would make them the second country – after the UK – to legislate on climate change.

The post A week in climate change: five things we learnt appeared first on Climate Home News.

Mexico could become the second country worldwide to pass legislation on climate change (© kc_aplosweb/Creative Commons)

Mexico is set to become the second country worldwide to begin legislating against climate change, as its House of Representatives passed a climate law.

If passed by the Mexican Senate, the General Law on Climate Change will require the whole country to reduce its carbon by 50% by 2050.

The law will include potential rules to phase out fossil fuel subsidies and make renewable energy as competitive as oil, gas and coal.

It will also bind Mexico to a target of cutting carbon emissions by 30% by 2020 – with the help of international support – and for 35% of the country’s electricity to come from clean sources by 2024.

If adopted, the law will make Mexico the second country – after the UK – to pass comprehensive national climate change legislation.

Currently the 11^th biggest emitter and the 11^th largest economy, it is estimated that if Mexico continues on its current path it could be the 5^th largest economy by 2050.

While some companies in the country’s steel and coal sectors have opposed the law, many companies from overseas have expressed a need for a national legal framework to build confidence in green investments in Mexico.

The proposal for the climate law also includes provision for “emissions markets” to help the country reach its targets.

WWF have showed strong support for the law in Mexico. Having urged politicians in the country to support the law, they welcomed the latest step towards implementing the legislation.

Samantha Smith, leader of the WWF Climate and Energy Initiative wrote on the WWF website: “In a world with nine billion people in 2050, “renewable” and “sustainable” will be essential, not just for nature but for basic access to food, water and energy.

“What makes this even more remarkable is that Mexico is not really a rich country. By the government’s own count, some 40% of the population lives in poverty. Yet its government and Congress see that ending poverty and growing the economy will be that much harder unless they, we, all of us do something about climate change.”

The law will now go before the Mexican Senate.

The post Mexico to introduce radical climate law appeared first on Climate Home News.