- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
Organisations and campaigners across the climate justice movement are joining forces to counter the wider chilling effect of a major legal blow that could bankrupt one of its largest players.
Earlier this week, a jury in the US state of North Dakota found Greenpeace International and its US bodies guilty of a mix of defamation, trespass, nuisance and conspiracy – and ordered them to pay more than US$660 million in damages to oil pipeline company Energy Transfer.
The lawsuit related to protests against the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016 and 2017. These actions, centered around the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, brought Indigenous activists fighting for water rights together with climate campaigners challenging the company’s planned transmission of oil from North Dakota to Illinois. They did not stop the pipeline from being completed, but caused major disruption.
Energy Transfer had previously sought damages against Greenpeace and others in a federal lawsuit that was dismissed in 2019.
But this time the claim was successful. Energy Transfer’s legal team successfully argued during the court proceedings that Greenpeace had “incited” the disruption. Greenpeace contended that its US bodies only played a small role, and the international group itself merely signed a letter opposing the project.
Greenpeace planning fight-back
Energy Transfer called it “a resounding verdict”, declaring Greenpeace’s actions “wrong, unlawful, and unacceptable by societal standards”, adding that it “is a day of reckoning and accountability for Greenpeace”. But Greenpeace US bodies have said they will appeal and Greenpeace International is “weighing all legal options”.
Greenpeace, which has campaigned on a wide range of environmental matters since the 1970s, acknowledges there is a risk of bankruptcy due to the damages awarded against it. However, it maintains this is “very remote” for its international arm whose assets are located in the Netherlands, where the verdict is “very unlikely to be recognised by Dutch courts”. Greenpeace’s 25 other branches around the world are expected to keep functioning as normal.
The case has been classified as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). These cases, which arose in the United States in the 1970s and ’80s, can take various forms across different jurisdictions. But legal experts say they are an increasingly popular “lawfare” tactic used by powerful companies and individuals around the world – and many cases relate to the environment.
Sushma Raman, the interim executive director of Greenpeace’s US-based organisations Greenpeace Inc and Greenpeace Fund, said the ruling was part of a “renewed push by corporations to weaponise our courts to silence dissent”. She added that lawsuits like this are aimed at “destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech”.
“Deeply flawed trial”
Some concerns have centred around the legal proceedings themselves. A trial monitoring committee of independent lawyers concluded that it had been “a deeply flawed trial with multiple due process violations that denied Greenpeace the ability to present anything close to a full defense”. It claims the jury was “patently biased” because many members work in the fossil fuel industry and the judge lacked knowledge on the complex constitutional issues at the heart of the case.
Speaking in a personal capacity, Charlie Holt, European lead at Global Climate Legal Defense and a former legal advisor for Greenpeace International, told Climate Home the decision was shocking, if not surprising. “There’s still an understandable desire to trust in the judicial system. But I think we could see how urgent a threat [the lawsuit] was,” he said.
“This kind of activity is becoming increasingly common across climate action, with fossil fuel actors undermining progress wherever possible,” said Brice Böhmer, climate and environment lead at non-profit Transparency International.
SLAPP lawsuits proliferate
Holt agreed, warning of copycat cases. “The big fear is that this will embolden other fossil fuel companies to try their luck with these large-scale SLAPPS as a means of shutting down criticism,” he said.
SLAPPs are on the rise in Europe too, but as a jurisdiction it is generally less sympathetic to such claims.
In December, Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International reached an out-of-court settlement in a legal dispute centered on the environmental group’s activism on an off-shore oil production vessel. It was one of the biggest ever legal threats against Greenpeace.
Last March, oil and gas company TotalEnergies was ordered to pay €15,000 ($16,200) in costs to Greenpeace France after failing to sue the NGO over a report claiming that the energy giant massively underestimated its 2019 greenhouse gas emissions.
Emboldened by decisions like this, Greenpeace International is counter-suing Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, seeking to recover all costs and damages. If successful, it would be the first application of a new EU anti-SLAPP Directive.
Counter-suit in Dutch court
Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International’s general counsel, said the organisation is “just getting started” and would see Energy Transfer in court in Amsterdam this July. “We will not back down,” she said. “We will not be silenced.”
Anne Jellema, chief executive of climate campaign group 350.org, said the judgment should serve as a “wake-up call” to the entire climate movement, coming alongside a potential unleashing of new fossil fuel production and rollback of environmental protection in the US.
“The ruling sends a dangerous message to environmental organisations worldwide: that corporate polluters can weaponise the courts to silence opposition,” said Jellema, adding that it is “especially concerning” for smaller, frontline groups operating in regions without strong legal protections.
“If one of the world’s most prominent environmental organisations can face financial ruin for speaking out, smaller movements with fewer resources are even more vulnerable,” she said.
Holt said Greenpeace has been mobilising civil society organisations behind US and European anti-SLAPP coalitions since the first claim over the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2017. An open letter to Energy Transfer expressing solidarity with Greenpeace was signed by 450 organisations around the world.
The post Greenpeace’s $660m damages ruling a ‘wake-up call’ to climate movement appeared first on Climate Home News.
Greenpeace’s $660m damages ruling a ‘wake-up call’ to climate movement
Continue Reading
Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.
After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.
It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.
“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.
-
Under US pressure, World Bank says it will back gas “where appropriate”
The US wants the World Bank to expand its gas support while climate campaigners are pushing for it to end – its head spoke this week of limited backing for the fossil fuel -
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
After governments again failed to agree a timeline, nearly 120 IPCC authors pledged to complete their assessment on time and with full scientific rigour -
Paris Agreement committee snubbed over missing NDC climate plans
Many governments have still not submitted a nationally determined contribution to the UN, breaching a key requirement of the Paris Agreement
In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.
Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.
By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.
Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions
The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.
After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.
Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.
Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.
“Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.
“Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement requirement
The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.
The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.
Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.
Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.
-
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
After governments again failed to agree a timeline, nearly 120 IPCC authors pledged to complete their assessment on time and with full scientific rigour -
Under US pressure, World Bank says it will back gas “where appropriate”
The US wants the World Bank to expand its gas support while climate campaigners are pushing for it to end – its head spoke this week of limited backing for the fossil fuel -
Who shapes climate science? The equity question facing the IPCC
Early completion of the next global climate science assessment reports risks excluding research from the Global South, which is key to ensuring the findings are fair
The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.
Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.
“In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.
The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs