Latest news with #greenhousegasemissions
Mail & Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- Mail & Guardian
Countries are legally liable for climate inaction, International Court of Justice rules
In its unanimous advisory opinion the ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, ruled that countries have an obligation to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions and to act with due diligence and co-operation to fulfill this obligation. (Wikimedia Commons) In its unanimous advisory opinion the ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, ruled that countries have an obligation to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions and to act with due diligence and co-operation to fulfill this obligation. This includes the obligation under the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The court ruled that if states breach these obligations, they incur legal responsibility and may be required to cease the wrongful conduct, offer guarantees of non-repetition and make full reparation, depending on the circumstances. To justify this decision, it used the commitments of member states to environmental and human rights treaties including the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, the ozone layer treaties and the Biodiversity Convention. The court, which was of the view that 'a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights', said the full enjoyment of human rights 'cannot be ensured without the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment'. To guarantee the effective enjoyment of human rights, countries must take measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment. 'These measures may include, inter alia, taking mitigation and adaptation measures, with due account given to the protection of human rights, the adoption of standards and legislation, and the regulation of the activities of private actors.' International human rights law, climate change treaties and other relevant environmental treaties, as well as the relevant obligations under customary international law, inform each other. 'States must therefore take their obligations under international human rights law into account when implementing their obligations under the climate change treaties and other relevant environmental treaties and under customary international law, just as they must take their obligations under the climate change treaties and other relevant environmental treaties and under customary international law into account when implementing their human rights obligations,' the ICJ said. It found that the failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions — including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies — 'may constitute an internationally wrongful act, which is attributable to that state'. The case was the largest ever seen by the ICJ, with the proceedings unprecedented in scale. There were 91 written statements filed by states and a further 62 comments submitted by states, international organisations and civil society groups. A record 97 states participated in the oral proceedings, which were held in the Hague in December. The consequences of climate change are 'severe and far-reaching', affecting both natural ecosystems and human populations, the court said. Rising temperatures are causing the melting of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to sea level rise and threatening coastal communities with unprecedented flooding. 'Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves, are becoming more frequent and intense, devastating agriculture, displacing populations and exacerbating water shortages,' it said. 'Furthermore, the disruption of natural habitats is pushing certain species toward extinction and leading to irreversible loss of biodiversity. Human life and health are also at risk, with an increased incidence of heat-related illnesses and the spread of climate-related diseases. These consequences underscore the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change.' In September 2021, the Pacific Island state of Vanuatu announced that it would seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ on climate change. This move was inspired by youth group After Vanuatu lobbied other UN member states to support this initiative in the General Assembly, on 29 March 2023, it adopted a resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the court. Two fundamental questions were posed before the court. What are states' obligations under international law to address climate change for present and future generations? What are the legal consequences under these obligations for states failing to do so? Noting that these advisory proceedings were 'unlike any that have previously come before the court', the ICJ said the questions posed by the General Assembly represented more than a legal problem. 'They concern an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet,' the court said. 'International law, whose authority has been invoked by the General Assembly, has an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem.' A complete solution to 'this daunting, and self-inflicted, problem' requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge, whether law, science, economics or any other. The ICJ emphasised that solving the climate crisis extends beyond law — collective human will and wisdom are vital 'at the individual, social and political levels'. This involves 'changing our habits, comforts and current way of life in order to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come'. While the court's advisory opinions are non-binding, they carry significant legal and moral authority, and help clarify and develop international law by defining the legal obligations of states. The ICJ's opinion provides new avenues for litigation, advocacy, and international pressure, especially for vulnerable countries and communities harmed by major emitting states, said Nomasango Masiye-Moyo, the co-ordinator of Natural Justice's environmental lawyers collective. For Africa, the statements by the ICJ on reparations mean that vulnerable citizens can seek remedy for 'ecological destruction, illegal eviction, While reparations have long been considered customary international law, the court's statements 'sketch a judicially acknowledged pathway for compensation, rehabilitation and restitution'. 'We hope that the court's findings will embolden many African communities and lawyers around the continent, to fiercely seek accountability and justice for harms done in their communities, historically and in the future.'
Free Malaysia Today
2 days ago
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
ICJ says countries must address climate change threat
The 2015 Paris Agreement has so far failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. (EPA Images pic) THE HAGUE : The United Nations' highest court today said countries must address the 'urgent and existential threat' of climate change by cooperating to curb emissions, as it delivered an opinion set to determine future environmental litigation. The opinion by the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, was immediately welcomed by environmental groups. Legal experts said it was a victory for small island and low-lying states that had asked the court to clarify states' responsibilities. 'Climate change treaties establish stringent obligations on states,' judge Yuji Iwasawa said, adding that failing to comply with them was a breach of international law. 'States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets,' Iwasawa said, as he read out the court's advisory opinion. He said that national climate plans must be of the highest ambition and collectively maintain standards to meet the aims of the 2015 Paris Agreement that include attempting to keep global warming below 1.5°C. Under international law, he said: 'The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.' Earlier, as he started reading the court's opinion, judge Iwasawa laid out the cause of the problem and the need for a collective response. 'Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited,' he said. Although it is non-binding, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the ICJ in The Hague carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. 'This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level,' said Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace. Climate justice The two questions the UN General Assembly asked the judges to consider were: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system? In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. Ahead of the ruling, supporters of climate action gathered outside the ICJ, chanting: 'What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now!' Paris agreement In 2015, at the conclusion of UN talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C. The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent 'Emissions Gap Report', which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the UN said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate‑related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. So far, the results have been mixed. A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was still a victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate to tackle climate change. Campaigners say today's court opinion should be a turning point, even if the ruling itself is advisory. The ruling could also make it easier for states to hold other states to account over climate issues. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so.
E&E News
4 days ago
- Business
- E&E News
Senate appropriators push back on Trump's Energy Star plans
Senate appropriators are balking at White House plans to end federal support for the popular Energy Star program, as well as funding for state and local air regulators. The legislation approved 26-2 Thursday by the Senate Appropriations Committee would give Energy Star, which certifies the energy efficiency of home appliances, $36 million in fiscal 2026, roughly the same amount it is receiving this year. Federal grants for state and local air agencies would similarly be level-funded at about $236 million. In a rhetorically noteworthy gesture, the committee also recommended 'increased resources' to help those regulators 'address greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality monitoring and outcomes, and reduce disproportionate exposure to dangerous pollution in communities,' according to the accompanying bill report. Advertisement None of those are priorities for the Trump administration, which has sought to gut both environmental justice initiatives and efforts to limit releases of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
NHK
6 days ago
- Politics
- NHK
ICJ says countries have obligations to take steps on climate change
The International Court of Justice says countries have obligations under international law to take measures against climate change, including curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The ICJ issued its advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect to climate change on Wednesday in The Hague. ICJ President Iwasawa Yuji said, "The consequences of climate change are severe and far-reaching," adding, "These consequences underscore the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change." The court also said countries are required to protect the environment in order to ensure the enjoyment of human rights. The court stressed that a complete solution to this problem "requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge." It expressed hope that its conclusions will help inform and guide social and political action to address the ongoing climate crisis. The ICJ provided the non-binding advisory opinion in response to a United Nations General Assembly resolution adopted in 2023. This comes as the administration of US President Donald Trump has taken a reluctant stance on addressing climate change.
Washington Post
7 days ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
U.N. court rules countries have duty to limit greenhouse emissions
The United Nations' highest judicial body ruled Wednesday that nations have a 'duty' to prevent environmental harm and are obliged to limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, which come primarily from fossil fuels. The International Court of Justice said any breach represents an 'internationally wrongful act' and can lead to reparations for countries suffering the consequences if a 'causal' link can be shown.
