Top UN court calls climate change an ‘existential threat'
The court said that governments could be violating international law by failing to act on climate change, which it called an 'urgent and existential threat'.
The action, initiated by Vanuatu and supported by over 100 countries, establishes that states have stringent obligations to reduce emissions and that inaction could constitute an internationally wrongful act.
Although not legally binding, the ICJ's opinion is considered a "turning point" and a "seismic win" for climate justice, expected to significantly influence future climate litigation and international negotiations.
This landmark opinion is anticipated to shape nearly 3,000 climate-related lawsuits filed globally.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Finextra
2 hours ago
- Finextra
Communications Specialist at Triodos Investment Management
The geopolitical shifts we've seen in recent months seem to have accelerated the backlash against Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) practices that had already been building up for some time. Are we witnessing a structural shift away from ESG principles or merely a temporary setback? Experts Rosl Veltmeijer, Lewis Johnston and Joeri de Wi...
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
US environmental agency freezing $3bn in climate funds is ‘capricious', court to hear
The Trump administration's decision to abruptly terminate a $3bn program helping hundreds of communities prepare for climate disasters and environmental hazards is unconstitutional and should be overturned, a court will hear on Tuesday. A coalition of non-profits, tribes and local governments is suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the agency's administrator Lee Zeldin for terminating the entire Environmental and Climate Justice (ECJ) block grant program – despite a legally binding mandate from Congress to fund the Biden-era initiative. It's the first-of-a-kind proposed class action lawsuit that would force the EPA and Zeldin to reinstate the program and each individual grant, rather than forcing the recipients to sue individually. The $3bn ECJ program was created by Congress through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) – a long standing source for ire for Trump and his polluting industry allies – to help historically disadvantaged communities come up with local solutions to improve resilience in the face of worsening climate shocks and environmental degradation. It was intended by Congress to fund community-based projects across the country to tackle longstanding and pressing environmental harms that cause death and ill health from hazards including industrial pollution, lead pipes, flooding and urban heat islands. Almost 350 rural and urban groups, towns and tribes were selected by the EPA from 2,700 applicants, through a rigorous process that included longterm accountability and oversight over the funds. In February, Zeldin's EPA, under the direction of the Trump administration, began terminating the entire ECJ program, as part of a broader assault on climate science, climate action and environmental justice measures. In June, 23 grant recipients sued after the entire block grant was terminated and the funds frozen overnight. The plaintiffs come from every region of the country and include the Indigenous village of Pipnuk in Alaska, the Deep South Centre for Environmental Justice in New Orleans, Appalachian Voices which works with legacy coal communities and Kalamazoo county in Michigan. Several non-profit legal advocacy groups – EarthJustice, Southern Environmental Law Center, Public Rights Project and Lawyers for Good Government – filed the proposed class action lawsuit alleging that the wholesale termination violated the separation of powers and is therefore unconstitutional. They also argue that the Trump administration's decision was both 'arbitrary and capricious' – in other words, made without proper reasoning or consideration of the consequences, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. On Tuesday, attorneys representing the coalition will argue for preliminary relief at the US district court for the District of Columbia (DDC), to force the EPA to immediately reinstate the ECJ program and unfreeze the funds. 'This was an unlawful action that went against the will of Congress and violated the separation of powers,' said , senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. 'The administration terminated the entire program simply because they don't like it, without any reasoned decision making or consideration of the impacts. The decision was both arbitrary and capricious, and unconstitutional, and should be overturned.' The Trump administration has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the DDC does not have jurisdiction, and this is a contractural case for the US court of federal claims. Under contract law, the 349 grant recipients would be forced to sue individually for breach of contract and damages, but with no possibility of the ECJ program being reinstated as Congress intended. A ruling on if and where the case continues is expected later this month. The judge will rule separately on the plaintiffs' motion for the case to proceed as a class action. The EPA said it did not comment on pending litigation.
Reuters
8 hours ago
- Reuters
Swiss president heads to US for talks to defuse tariff threat
ZURICH, Aug 5 (Reuters) - Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter and Business Minister Guy Parmelin will fly to Washington on Tuesday, the government said, to try to avoid the 39% tariffs announced by President Donald Trump on exports to the United States. The pair will "facilitate meetings with the US authorities at short notice and hold talks with a view to improving the tariff situation for Switzerland," the government said. It not specify which parts of the U.S. government they would meet in Washington or whether a meeting was scheduled with Trump. The Swiss government said on Monday it was ready to make a "more attractive offer" to United States as it sought to avoid a 39% tariff, due to take effect on August 7, which would damage Switzerland's economy. The Federal Council, the governing cabinet, held an emergency meeting and said it was ready to pursue negotiations beyond the August 7 deadline. The government gave no details of what extra incentives could be offered to secure a better deal, but it did say it was not considering any countermeasures against the U.S. The aim of Keller-Sutter and Parmelin's trip was to present "a more attractive offer to the United States in a bid to lower the level of reciprocal tariffs for Swiss exports, taking U.S. concerns into account," the government said.
