Connect with us

Published

on

 Joie Chowdhury is a senior attorney for the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)’s Climate & Energy Program. Lien Vandamme is a senior campaigner for CIEL’s Climate & Energy Program.  

While major polluters at this year’s UN climate talks, COP29, brazenly failed to deliver the finance needed to remedy climate harm in yet another attempt to escape their obligations under international law, a key moment for climate justice is coming up.  The historic hearings on climate change at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), scheduled for December 2-13, may help advance the case for climate reparations.  

The hearings will inform the Court’s advisory opinion on the international legal obligations of states in relation to the climate crisis. The Court’s pronouncements can produce tangible impacts. While advisory opinions do not settle specific conflicts between states, they are definitive interpretations of binding law – and even considered instruments of preventive diplomacy.

One of the most contested issues at the heart of the ICJ climate advisory proceedings is the legal consequences that states face when they breach their climate-related obligations, and harm ensues. Those consequences may involve stopping harmful activities that damage the climate, ensuring they are not repeated, and providing full reparation, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, and satisfaction measures.  

Specific measures are needed to remedy the wide range of harms caused by the climate crisis, both economic and non-economic. Measures beyond compensation could include phasing out fossil fuels or debt cancellation.  

Loss and damage underfunded 

In the face of rich countries’ avoidance and denial of their responsibility for having contributed the most cumulatively to the escalating climate crisis, clarity from the ICJ on states’ legal accountability is more urgent than ever. It took three long decades for states to agree on a fund to address climate harms, also known as loss and damage, under the UN climate negotiations.  

Even now that the fund is in place, it remains woefully underfunded compared to the immense and rising need. Also, it is predicated on voluntary finance rather than obligatory contributions from states with a legal duty to pay for climate harm.

As the UN Secretary-General has emphasised, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) loss and damage mechanisms are not currently structured to fulfill states’ obligations to provide effective remedies for climate-related harms.  

EXPLAINER: What was decided at the COP29 climate summit in Baku? 

And the UNFCCC process once again failed to address this massive funding gap: the latest summit, COP29, announced a new climate finance goal that is far too low and far too late, committing only to mobilise funds by 2035, without any guarantees the funding will be provided and grants-based – and without a designated sum for loss and damage. 

This inaction reflects a pattern of powerful polluting countries evading their legal obligations and prioritising their own economic interests over the human rights of communities already bearing the brunt of the climate crisis.  

Obligation, not charity 

The ICJ now has a unique opportunity to affirm that accountability and reparations for climate damage are a matter of obligation and justice — not charity. Its opinion could shape global climate law and policy, empowering climate-vulnerable nations with legal tools to strengthen their positions in climate talks.  

This could pave the way for holding polluters more accountable, particularly in areas like loss and damage and climate finance, inside the negotiation rooms and beyond. More practically, if the loss and damage fund continues to under-deliver, states and communities may well seek redress outside the UNFCCC and draw guidance from the forthcoming ICJ advisory opinion. 

International Court of Justice to advise states on climate duties: ‘A turning point for climate justice’

In its ongoing climate advisory proceedings, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) is also considering a range of issues including state duties to guarantee the right to redress for climate harm. The IACtHR has a rich jurisprudence on remedy and reparation, including in the environmental context, such as in the La Oroya case. The IACtHR climate advisory opinion is expected in early 2025, before the ICJ advisory opinion, and could set the legal bar high for climate reparations. 

People whose rights are harmed by climate impacts deserve remedy and reparation. The right to remedy and reparations is a long-standing fundamental tenet of international law, rooted in multiple frameworks such as the law of state responsibility and human rights law, and deeply anchored in ICJ jurisprudence. The legal frameworks to hold states accountable already exist. What is required now is their robust application in the context of climate change.  

Legal first step 

Without concrete remedy, climate justice and equitable multilateralism will remain hollow. International cooperation is crucial, yet it must be paired with tangible policies that explicitly address harm and hold those responsible to account. The time has come to halt the cycle of continuing harm and refusal to repair. 

Most climate-vulnerable states and peoples have long emphasised the vital importance of redress for climate harm. The ICJ hearings will put all cards on the table. The world’s major polluters and the most climate-vulnerable nations will have their day in court. Civil society will closely monitor how states’ interventions in the courtroom align with claims of climate and human rights leadership. 

All eyes now turn to the ICJ, but let’s be clear: the fight for climate accountability extends beyond the Court’s chambers. Legal clarity will serve as a first step, but law alone is not a solution for addressing climate harm, as the issue is deeply rooted in structural injustice.  

Our biggest hope lies in the upsurge of people coming together across generations, campaigns and negotiations, in the courts and the streets, demanding justice in defence of people and the planet. 

The post Call for climate reparations at the ICJ even more urgent after COP29 falls short    appeared first on Climate Home News.

Call for climate reparations at the ICJ even more urgent after COP29 falls short   

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Hurricane Helene Is Headed for Georgians’ Electric Bills

Published

on

A new storm recovery charge could soon hit Georgia Power customers’ bills, as climate change drives more destructive weather across the state.

Hurricane Helene may be long over, but its costs are poised to land on Georgians’ electricity bills. After the storm killed 37 people in Georgia and caused billions in damage in September 2024, Georgia Power is seeking permission from state regulators to pass recovery costs on to customers.

Hurricane Helene Is Headed for Georgians’ Electric Bills

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Amid Affordability Crisis, New Jersey Hands $250 Million Tax Break to Data Center

Published

on

Gov. Mikie Sherrill says she supports both AI and lowering her constituents’ bills.

With New Jersey’s cost-of-living “crisis” at the center of Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s agenda, her administration has inherited a program that approved a $250 million tax break for an artificial intelligence data center.

Amid Affordability Crisis, New Jersey Hands $250 Million Tax Break to Data Center

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Curbing methane is the fastest way to slow warming – but we’re off the pace

Published

on

Gabrielle Dreyfus is chief scientist at the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, Thomas Röckmann is a professor of atmospheric physics and chemistry at Utrecht University, and Lena Höglund Isaksson is a senior research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

This March scientists and policy makers will gather near the site in Italy where methane was first identified 250 years ago to share the latest science on methane and the policy and technology steps needed to rapidly cut methane emissions. The timing is apt.

As new tools transform our understanding of methane emissions and their sources, the evidence they reveal points to a single conclusion: Human-caused methane emissions are still rising, and global action remains far too slow.

This is the central finding of the latest Global Methane Status Report. Four years into the Global Methane Pledge, which aims for a 30% cut in global emissions by 2030, the good news is that the pledge has increased mitigation ambition under national plans, which, if fully implemented, could result in the largest and most sustained decline in methane emissions since the Industrial Revolution.

The bad news is this is still short of the 30% target. The decisive question is whether governments will move quickly enough to turn that bend into the steep decline required to pump the brake on global warming.

What the data really show

Assessing progress requires comparing three benchmarks: the level of emissions today relative to 2020, the trajectory projected in 2021 before methane received significant policy focus, and the level required by 2030 to meet the pledge.

The latest data show that global methane emissions in 2025 are higher than in 2020 but not as high as previously expected. In 2021, emissions were projected to rise by about 9% between 2020 and 2030. Updated analysis places that increase closer to 5%. This change is driven by factors such as slower than expected growth in unconventional gas production between 2020 and 2024 and lower than expected waste emissions in several regions.

Gas flaring soars in Niger Delta post-Shell, afflicting communities  

This updated trajectory still does not deliver the reductions required, but it does indicate that the curve is beginning to bend. More importantly, the commitments already outlined in countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions and Methane Action Plans would, if fully implemented, produce an 8% reduction in global methane emissions between 2020 and 2030. This would turn the current increase into a sustained decline. While still insufficient to reach the Global Methane Pledge target of a 30% cut, it would represent historical progress.

Solutions are known and ready

Scientific assessments consistently show that the technical potential to meet the pledge exists. The gap lies not in technology, but in implementation.

The energy sector accounts for approximately 70% of total technical methane reduction potential between 2020 and 2030. Proven measures include recovering associated petroleum gas in oil production, regular leak detection and repair across oil and gas supply chains, and installing ventilation air oxidation technologies in underground coal mines. Many of these options are low cost or profitable. Yet current commitments would achieve only one third of the maximum technically feasible reductions in this sector.

Recent COP hosts Brazil and Azerbaijan linked to “super-emitting” methane plumes

Agriculture and waste also provide opportunities. Rice emissions can be reduced through improved water management, low-emission hybrids and soil amendments. While innovations in technology and practices hold promise in the longer term, near-term potential in livestock is more constrained and trends in global diets may counteract gains.

Waste sector emissions had been expected to increase more rapidly, but improvements in waste management in several regions over the past two decades have moderated this rise. Long-term mitigation in this sector requires immediate investment in improved landfills and circular waste systems, as emissions from waste already deposited will persist in the short term.

New measurement tools

Methane monitoring capacity has expanded significantly. Satellite-based systems can now identify methane super-emitters. Ground-based sensors are becoming more accessible and can provide real-time data. These developments improve national inventories and can strengthen accountability.

However, policy action does not need to wait for perfect measurement. Current scientific understanding of source magnitudes and mitigation effectiveness is sufficient to achieve a 30% reduction between 2020 and 2030. Many of the largest reductions in oil, gas and coal can be delivered through binding technology standards that do not require high precision quantification of emissions.

The decisive years ahead

The next 2 years will be critical for determining whether existing commitments translate into emissions reductions consistent with the Global Methane Pledge.

Governments should prioritise adoption of an effective international methane performance standard for oil and gas, including through the EU Methane Regulation, and expand the reach of such standards through voluntary buyers’ clubs. National and regional authorities should introduce binding technology standards for oil, gas and coal to ensure that voluntary agreements are backed by legal requirements.

One approach to promoting better progress on methane is to develop a binding methane agreement, starting with the oil and gas sector, as suggested by Barbados’ PM Mia Mottley and other leaders. Countries must also address the deeper challenge of political and economic dependence on fossil fuels, which continues to slow progress. Without a dual strategy of reducing methane and deep decarbonisation, it will not be possible to meet the Paris Agreement objectives.

Mottley’s “legally binding” methane pact faces barriers, but smaller steps possible

The next four years will determine whether available technologies, scientific evidence and political leadership align to deliver a rapid transition toward near-zero methane energy systems, holistic and equity-based lower emission agricultural systems and circular waste management strategies that eliminate methane release. These years will also determine whether the world captures the near-term climate benefits of methane abatement or locks in higher long-term costs and risks.

The Global Methane Status Report shows that the world is beginning to change course. Delivering the sharper downward trajectory now required is a test of political will. As scientists, we have laid out the evidence. Leaders must now act on it.

The post Curbing methane is the fastest way to slow warming – but we’re off the pace appeared first on Climate Home News.

Curbing methane is the fastest way to slow warming – but we’re off the pace

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com