Published

8 months ago

December 24, 2024

Alice Rush

This week, the international court o f justice (ICJ) opened two weeks of hearings on states’ climate-related legal obligations – and the consequences, if “significant harm” is caused.

The case stems from a unanimous UN general assembly (UNGA) request for an “advisory opinion” from the ICJ.

It is taking place against a backdrop of rapidly escalating climate impacts. Emissions continue to rise, rather than falling rapidly, as needed to avoid dangerous levels of global warming.

It is the ICJ’s largest ever case, with more than 100 countries and international organisations making interventions, deploying a wide variety of legal arguments.

Ralph Regenvanu, climate envoy for Vanuatu, which led the campaign for the ICJ hearings, said in his opening address: “[T]his may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity.”

Below, Carbon Brief interviews leading international law scholar Prof Philippe Sands – who drafted the pleadings for Mauritius, but is speaking here in a personal capacity – to find out more about the legal issues at stake and the wider significance of the ICJ case.

On the significance of the case: “It’s the first time the ICJ has been called upon to address legal issues relating to climate change.”
On the key legal arguments: “There’s just a huge number of issues that are coming up.”
On climate obligations under the UN: “Will the court open the door to the situation that the 1992 [UN climate] convention … [is] not the be all and end all?”
On where outcomes could come from: “Essentially, it’s the whole of international law!”
On the responsibility of states: “The question at the beating heart of this case, really, is the consequences of emissions over time.”
On historical emissions: “The big issue is, are you liable for the continuing consequences of your past emissions?”
On applying international law: “When drafting the climate treaty regime, [did] states…exclude the application of general international law?”
On expectations for the case: “What I’m interested in, really, is an advisory opinion that is capable of having hard, practical application.”
On the state of the science: “A procedure in which the judges hear privately from any person…is unusual. It’s unorthodox.”
On the significance of the submissions: “The oral phase is very important, because it basically concentrates the issues down to the most significant and narrow set of issues.”
On the question of the UN or wider law: “It’s a tough situation for the judges.”

Carbon Brief: Would you be able to start by just situating this case in its wider legal context and explaining why it could be so consequential?

Philippe Sands: Well, it’s the first time the international court of justice has been called upon to address legal issues relating to climate change. The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and, although the advisory opinion that it hands down will not be binding on states, it is binding on all UN bodies. The determinations that the court makes will have consequences that go very far and that will have a particular authority, in legal and political terms. Of course, everything turns on what the court actually says.

CB: Would you be able to summarise the key legal arguments that are being fought over in this case?

PS: No! I mean, there’s just a huge number of issues that are coming up. But, essentially, the court has been asked two questions by the UN General Assembly – the first time, I believe, that a request from the General Assembly has been consensual, with no objections. The two questions are, firstly, what are the obligations for states under international law to protect the climate system? And, secondly, what are the legal consequences under these obligations, where, by their acts and emissions, [states] cause significant harm to the climate system? So, there are two distinct questions – and about 100 states and international organisations of various kinds have made submissions on the vast range of issues that are raised by these two questions. The questions are very, very broad and that signals to me that the court’s response may be quite general. But, for me, the crucial issues are, firstly, what the court says about the state of the science: is it established, or is there any room for doubt? Secondly, what are the obligations of states having regard to the clarity of the science? Thirdly, are there legal obligations on states in relation to the climate system that exist and arise outside of the treaty regime – the 1992 [UN Framework] convention [on climate change], the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement and so on and so forth. And, related to that, fourthly – this is the most intense, legally interesting aspect – what are the responsibilities of states for historic emissions under general international law? And, in particular, are the biggest contributors liable under international law to make good any damages that may arise from their historic actions? But, I mean, there’s just such a vast array of questions that are addressed, it’s impossible to summarise briefly.

CB: This is the challenge I found when I was trying to write questions!

PS: To be honest, the questions [put by the UN General Assembly] are rather general, so I have concerns about the burden that has been imposed on the court. My general approach has been that, with advisory opinions, the best questions are those which require a yes or no answer. But the moment you have questions of such generality, you impose on the 15 judges an especially onerous burden, because the questions are open to interpretation.

Prof Philippe Sands. Credit: Christian André Strand. — Philippe Sands, professor of the public understanding of law at University College London. Credit: Christian André Strand.

CB: Some countries are arguing, effectively, that states’ climate obligations start and finish with the UN climate regime, as you’ve already mentioned.

PS: Exactly. Well, that’s a central aspect of what’s coming up. Will the court open the door to the situation that the 1992 [UN climate] convention and the subsequent agreements [Kyoto, Paris] are not the be all and end all, and that the rules of general international law [also] apply? And, if so, what are those rules? And what are the consequences of breaching those rules? Some states say there can’t be any liability under general international law because the whole matter is governed by the treaty regime. Other states say that’s not right, that, although the treaty regime is a distinct “lex specialis” – a specialised area of law – that does not preclude the application of the general principles of international law. So that may be a really interesting issue for the court to determine.

CB: Could you say a bit more about the other areas of international law, where obligations could come from, whether it’s human rights, or customary law, or whatever it might be?

PS: The difficulty, if you look at the first part of the question [put to the court]…the drafters of the question invite the court to have regard to the Charter of the United Nations, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Covenant on Economic and Social Rights, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the duty of due diligence, human rights law, the principle of prevention, and the duty to protect and preserve the marine environment. That is a vast array of international legal obligations and it’s not exhaustive. It says, having particular regard to, so, essentially, it’s the whole of international law! So the court is being asked to address the application of the whole of international law to the issue of climate change and, in particular, issues of legal consequences, and in particular, the issues of state responsibility. So, it’s vast, vast.

CB: Another set of arguments that I’ve seen…is around the idea of the “responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts”, which might lead to a requirement for cessation of the acts and reparation of the harm done. Can you just say a bit more about what that idea means and where it comes from?

PS: There’s an area of international law called the law of state responsibility. That law of state responsibility says that when you have committed a wrongful act and violated a rule of international law, you are liable for all of the consequences. That rule has not been incorporated, as such, or at all, into the treaty regime [on climate change]. So, essentially, by raising those issues, there are a number of legal issues that arise – but there are two of particular interest. Firstly, in relation to damage that is caused by climate change, are those states most responsible, liable for the consequences of that damage in, let us say, for example, in financial terms? And, secondly – and this relates to something called the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility” – does the fact that certain states have historic emissions going back 200 years mean that their entitlement to the remaining “carbon budget” is reduced. So, the question, I think, at the beating heart of this case, really, is the consequences of emissions over time, looking back and looking forward. That’s one aspect the court may have at the forefront of its mind.

CB: Historical greenhouse gas emissions, but also the rights of future generations, have both come up quite a lot in some of the submissions. Can you just say a bit more about the legal arguments around these?

PS: The big issue is: are you liable for the continuing consequences of your past emissions? And does the nature and extent of your past emissions affect your ability to generate emissions in the future? Those are really the two issues and the treaty regime does not, as such, explicitly address [them]. The practicalities are that islands are disappearing with sea level rise. Are historic polluters of greenhouse gases responsible for the consequences of those disappearances? Or, if states are required to build sea walls to protect themselves, can they bring a case against the biggest polluters for the consequences of sea level rise? That’s the kind of complex issue the court may have in the back of its mind, because that’s essentially what’s being asked.

CB: In terms of how they will decide whether these other potential areas of law could give rise to obligations on states – and, therefore, potentially further consequences – how are they going to decide? To decide whether those [areas of law] do apply, or whether it is only the UN climate regime that gives rise to obligations.

PS: They are going to have to address whether, when drafting the climate treaty regime, states intended to, or did as a necessary consequence, exclude the application of general international law. That is an issue that they will do by looking at the climate regime and determining whether, by adopting it, there was an intention to exclude the application of general international law. So, that is a classical job for lawyers, for judges: to interpret the law, to interpret what the drafters of the treaty regime have done and what they intended, and to then form a view in applying the general rules of international law, whether a space is left which allows those general rules to apply. That’s classically what international judges will do.

CB: You’ve already said a little bit about this, but what would your expectations be for this advisory opinion, which I gather is expected next year?

PS: Normally, it takes six months from after they’ve done the hearings for an advisory opinion to come up. I don’t really have any expectations. There’s been a previous advisory opinion in relation to the Law of the Sea proceedings. The Tribunal for the Law of the Sea came up with an advisory opinion which, in a sense, was rather general. What I’m interested in, really, is an advisory opinion that is capable of having hard, practical application, as happened, for example, in the advisory opinion on the Chagos Archipelago, where the court was asked two questions, essentially, “yes/no” questions, and the court gave a very clear advisory opinion, which has had significant political and legal consequences. The difficulty with asking very general questions is you get very general answers, and very general answers are less easily capable of practical application. So, the best-case scenario for me, is that the court comes up with an advisory opinion of sufficient clarity on the facts, which is basically the state of the science and on the applicable legal principles, which then allows other courts and, in particular, national courts, to take the advisory opinion, in interpreting and applying domestic law, which is, ultimately, going to be where the rubber hits the road. So my expectations turn on the nature and generality of the opinion that the court is able to give. But where the questions posed are so general, I would be concerned that the answers may also be rather general and that limits my expectations.

CB: You mentioned the state of the science as being very important. We know that the court met with a delegation of IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] authors and I gather there’s some sort of question mark about the procedure used to do that?

PS: The normal process is that if scientists are going to provide information to the judges, it would be in the form of submissions made in writing, or in open court, publicly and transparently. A procedure in which the judges hear privately from any person, however authoritative – and the IPCC is authoritative – is unusual. It’s unorthodox. It does raise questions. We don’t know who attended. We don’t know what they said. We don’t know what the exchanges were with the judges. I have to assume that it was done by the judges, at their request, as a way of informing themselves on the state of science, which is understandable. But the more usual way for this to happen would be, as I said, in written submissions made to the court and in open submissions made already in the courtroom. So it is unusual.

CB: You mentioned already, there’s more than 100 submissions from countries and international organisations. And we’ve obviously got these two weeks of hearings, with some of those same entities making oral statements. How significant are those submissions in terms of shaping the advisory opinion of the court?

PS: My experience before the court, having been involved in a number of cases involving advisory opinions and contentious cases, is that the written pleadings are very important in setting out the generality of the arguments and the totality of the arguments. And, essentially, what you see is a narrowing down. There are essentially three rounds. The first round is the first written statement of the participating states and international organisations. Then they have a second written round, which tends to narrow down the issues and be responsive to the first round of others. And then you’ve got the oral arguments, which are limited, of course, to half an hour for each participant. And so it’s a real narrowing down and homing in. Essentially, what the oral arguments are doing is signaling to the judges what the states participating think are the most significant issues. That’s why the oral phase is very important, because it basically concentrates the issues down to the most significant and narrow set of issues. And so it gives the judges a sense of what states think are the most important issues to be addressed. Secondly, it provides states with an opportunity to hear what responses each state has made to the written submissions of other states. So the oral phase is significant.

CB: If you were going to make a bet, which way would you say the court would go on that key question of whether it’s just the [UN] climate regime that gives rise to obligations [on states], or whether there could be obligations from other parts of the law?

PS: I think the court will proceed very carefully. I don’t think it will want to close the door to the application of other rules of international law. Rather, as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea did, which opened the door to the application of the Law of the Sea Convention to the issue of climate change – and opened it quite widely. I don’t know precisely where the court will go. But I would be surprised if they said general international law does not govern issues related to climate change.

The interesting area to read, in what they say, will be the relationship between the general rules and the treaty rules. I mean, the broader issue here is that, essentially, the legislative system has broken down. The states have been unable to legislate effectively and efficiently to address the issues related to climate change. And so what has happened is that a group of states have essentially gone to the General Assembly and said: “The legislative system is broken down. Let’s now ask the judges to step in and tell us what the applicable principles and rules are.” The difficulty that that poses for the judges, who will be conscious that the legislative system has not delivered, is that it’s not the function of judges to legislate. The function of judges is limited to interpreting the law and applying it to the facts, to identify the existence of rules and then applying them to the facts. So I would have thought the instinct of the judges will be to do something, but not to want to overstep the proper boundaries on the judicial function. And that’s a difficult challenge for the judges that they find themselves in.

[It is] a very delicate and difficult situation in the face of, on the one hand, the urgent need for action, and, on the other hand, the failure of states, essentially, to deal with the situation and act as the scientists tell us is needed. I don’t know whether you’ve been through all the different pleadings. I drafted the pleadings for Mauritius – I’m speaking here in a personal capacity. Mauritius decided not to participate in the oral hearings, but you can go on to the Mauritius statement and, if you look at the second Mauritius statement filed in August, you’ll find attached to it as an annex, a report by Prof James Hansen, one of the world’s leading scientists. And that really indicates, with crystal clarity, the urgency of the situation. He’s one of the world’s leading scientists on this issue and that’s the kind of submission that could concentrate the minds of the judges and, I think, impel them to want to go as far as they can. But they’ll be acutely conscious of the limits of judicial function. And, of course, you know, some countries like the UK are basically saying, butt out, leave it to the treaty negotiators, leave it to the treaty system. And the US has said essentially the same thing yesterday. So, it’s a tough situation for the judges.

An abridged version of this interview was published in DeBriefed, Carbon Brief’s weekly email newsletter. Sign up for free.

The interview was conducted by Simon Evans via phone on 5 December 2024.

The post Interview: Prof Philippe Sands on UN court’s landmark climate-change hearing appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Interview: Prof Philippe Sands on UN court’s landmark climate-change hearing

Greenhouse Gases

DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report

Published

3 days ago

August 15, 2025

Alice Rush

Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.

This week

Blazing heat hits Europe

FANNING THE FLAMES: Wildfires “fanned by a heatwave and strong winds” caused havoc across southern Europe, Reuters reported. It added: “Fire has affected nearly 440,000 hectares (1,700 square miles) in the eurozone so far in 2025, double the average for the same period of the year since 2006.” Extreme heat is “breaking temperature records across Europe”, the Guardian said, with several countries reporting readings of around 40C.

HUMAN TOLL: At least three people have died in the wildfires erupting across Spain, Turkey and Albania, France24 said, adding that the fires have “displaced thousands in Greece and Albania”. Le Monde reported that a child in Italy “died of heatstroke”, while thousands were evacuated from Spain and firefighters “battled three large wildfires” in Portugal.

UK WILDFIRE RISK: The UK saw temperatures as high as 33.4C this week as England “entered its fourth heatwave”, BBC News said. The high heat is causing “nationally significant” water shortfalls, it added, “hitting farms, damaging wildlife and increasing wildfires”. The Daily Mirror noted that these conditions “could last until mid-autumn”. Scientists warn the UK faces possible “firewaves” due to climate change, BBC News also reported.

Around the world

GRID PRESSURES: Iraq suffered a “near nationwide blackout” as elevated power demand – due to extreme temperatures of around 50C – triggered a transmission line failure, Bloomberg reported.
‘DIRE’ DOWN UNDER: The Australian government is keeping a climate risk assessment that contains “dire” implications for the continent “under wraps”, the Australian Financial Review said.
EXTREME RAINFALL: Mexico City is “seeing one of its heaviest rainy seasons in years”, the Washington Post said. Downpours in the Japanese island of Kyushu “caused flooding and mudslides”, according to Politico. In Kashmir, flash floods killed 56 and left “scores missing”, the Associated Press said.
SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION: China and Brazil agreed to “ensure the success” of COP30 in a recent phone call, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.
PLASTIC ‘DEADLOCK’: Talks on a plastic pollution treaty have failed again at a summit in Geneva, according to the Guardian, with countries “deadlocked” on whether it should include “curbs on production and toxic chemicals”.

15

The number of times by which the most ethnically-diverse areas in England are more likely to experience extreme heat than its “least diverse” areas, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.

Latest climate research

As many as 13 minerals critical for low-carbon energy may face shortages under 2C pathways | Nature Climate Change
A “scoping review” examined the impact of climate change on poor sexual and reproductive health and rights in sub-Saharan Africa | PLOS One
A UK university cut the carbon footprint of its weekly canteen menu by 31% “without students noticing” | Nature Food

(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)

Captured

Factchecking Trump’s climate report

A report commissioned by the US government to justify rolling back climate regulations contains “at least 100 false or misleading statements”, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists. The report, compiled in two months by five hand-picked researchers, inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed” and misleadingly states that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”80

Spotlight

Does Xi Jinping care about climate change?

This week, Carbon Brief unpacks new research on Chinese president Xi Jinping’s policy priorities.

On this day in 2005, Xi Jinping, a local official in eastern China, made an unplanned speech when touring a small village – a rare occurrence in China’s highly-choreographed political culture.

In it, he observed that “lucid waters and lush mountains are mountains of silver and gold” – that is, the environment cannot be sacrificed for the sake of growth.

(The full text of the speech is not available, although Xi discussed the concept in a brief newspaper column – see below – a few days later.)

In a time where most government officials were laser-focused on delivering economic growth, this message was highly unusual.

Forward-thinking on environment

As a local official in the early 2000s, Xi endorsed the concept of “green GDP”, which integrates the value of natural resources and the environment into GDP calculations.

He also penned a regular newspaper column, 22 of which discussed environmental protection – although “climate change” was never mentioned.

This focus carried over to China’s national agenda when Xi became president.

New research from the Asia Society Policy Institute tracked policies in which Xi is reported by state media to have “personally” taken action.

It found that environmental protection is one of six topics in which he is often said to have directly steered policymaking.

Such policies include guidelines to build a “Beautiful China”, the creation of an environmental protection inspection team and the “three-north shelterbelt” afforestation programme.

“It’s important to know what Xi’s priorities are because the top leader wields outsized influence in the Chinese political system,” Neil Thomas, Asia Society Policy Institute fellow and report co-author, told Carbon Brief.

Local policymakers are “more likely” to invest resources in addressing policies they know have Xi’s attention, to increase their chances for promotion, he added.

What about climate and energy?

However, the research noted, climate and energy policies have not been publicised as bearing Xi’s personal touch.

“I think Xi prioritises environmental protection more than climate change because reducing pollution is an issue of social stability,” Thomas said, noting that “smoggy skies and polluted rivers” were more visible and more likely to trigger civil society pushback than gradual temperature increases.

The paper also said topics might not be linked to Xi personally when they are “too technical” or “politically sensitive”.

For example, Xi’s landmark decision for China to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 is widely reported as having only been made after climate modelling – facilitated by former climate envoy Xie Zhenhua – showed that this goal was achievable.

Prior to this, Xi had never spoken publicly about carbon neutrality.

Prof Alex Wang, a University of California, Los Angeles professor of law not involved in the research, noted that emphasising Xi’s personal attention may signal “top” political priorities, but not necessarily Xi’s “personal interests”.

By not emphasising climate, he said, Xi may be trying to avoid “pushing the system to overprioritise climate to the exclusion of the other priorities”.

There are other ways to know where climate ranks on the policy agenda, Thomas noted:

“Climate watchers should look at what Xi says, what Xi does and what policies Xi authorises in the name of the ‘central committee’. Is Xi talking more about climate? Is Xi establishing institutions and convening meetings that focus on climate? Is climate becoming a more prominent theme in top-level documents?”

Watch, read, listen

TRUMP EFFECT: The Columbia Energy Exchange podcast examined how pressure from US tariffs could affect India’s clean energy transition.

NAMIBIAN ‘DESTRUCTION’: The National Observer investigated the failure to address “human rights abuses and environmental destruction” claims against a Canadian oil company in Namibia.

‘RED AI’: The Network for the Digital Economy and the Environment studied the state of current research on “Red AI”, or the “negative environmental implications of AI”.

Coming up

17 August: Bolivian general elections
18-29 August: Preparatory talks on the entry into force of the “High Seas Treaty”, New York
18-22 August: Y20 Summit, Johannesburg
21 August: Advancing the “Africa clean air programme” through Africa-Asia collaboration, Yokohama

Pick of the jobs

Lancaster Environment Centre, senior research associate: JUST Centre | Salary: £39,355-£45,413. Location: Lancaster, UK
Environmental Justice Foundation, communications and media officer, Francophone Africa | Salary: XOF600,000-XOF800,000. Location: Dakar, Senegal
Politico, energy & climate editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Brussels, Belgium
EnviroCatalysts, meteorologist | Salary: Unknown. Location: New Delhi, India

DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.

This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.

The post DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report appeared first on Carbon Brief.

DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report

Greenhouse Gases

Cropped 13 August 2025: Fossil-fuelled bird decline; ‘Deadly’ wildfires; Empty nature fund

Published

5 days ago

August 13, 2025

Alice Rush

We handpick and explain the most important stories at the intersection of climate, land, food and nature over the past fortnight.

This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s fortnightly Cropped email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.

Key developments

‘Deadly’ wildfires

WINE BRAKE: France experienced its “largest wildfire in decades”, which scorched more than 16,000 hectares in the country’s southern Aude region, the Associated Press said. “Gusting winds” fanned the flames, Reuters reported, but local winemakers and mayors also “blam[ed] the loss of vineyards”, which can act as a “natural, moisture-filled brake against wildfires”, for the fire’s rapid spread. It added that thousands of hectares of vineyards were removed in Aude over the past year. Meanwhile, thousands of people were evacuated from “deadly” wildfires in Spain, the Guardian said, with blazes ongoing in other parts of Europe.

MAJOR FIRES: Canada is experiencing its second-worst wildfire season on record, CBC News reported. More than 7.3m hectares burned in 2025, “more than double the 10-year average for this time of year”, the broadcaster said. The past three fire seasons were “among the 10 worst on record”, CBC News added. Dr Mike Flannigan from Thompson Rivers University told the Guardian: “This is our new reality…The warmer it gets, the more fires we see.” Elsewhere, the UK is experiencing a record year for wildfires, with more than 40,000 hectares of land burned so far in 2025, according to Carbon Brief.

Sign up to Carbon Brief’s free “Cropped” email newsletter. A fortnightly digest of food, land and nature news and views. Sent to your inbox every other Wednesday.

WESTERN US: The US state of Colorado has recorded one of its largest wildfires in history in recent days, the Guardian said. The fire “charred” more than 43,300 hectares of land and led to the temporary evacuation of 179 inmates from a prison, the newspaper said. In California, a fire broke out “during a heatwave” and burned more than 2,000 hectares before it was contained, the Los Angeles Times reported. BBC News noted: “Wildfires have become more frequent in California, with experts citing climate change as a key factor. Hotter, drier conditions have made fire seasons longer and more destructive.”

FIRE FUNDING: “Worsening fires” in the Brazilian Amazon threaten new rainforest funding proposals due to be announced at the COP30 climate summit later this year, experts told Climate Home News. The new initiatives include the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, which the outlet said “aims to generate a flow of international investment to pay countries annually in proportion to their preserved tropical forests”. The outlet added: “If fires in the Amazon continue to worsen in the years to come, eligibility for funding could be jeopardised, Brazil’s environment ministry acknowledged.”

Farming impacts

OUT OF ORBIT: US president Donald Trump moved to “shut down” two space missions which monitor carbon dioxide and plant health, the Associated Press reported. Ending these NASA missions would “potentially shu[t] off an important source of data for scientists, policymakers and farmers”, the outlet said. Dr David Crisp, a retired NASA scientist, said the missions can detect the “glow” of plant growth, which the outlet noted “helps monitor drought and predict food shortages that can lead to civil unrest and famine”.

FARM EXTREMES: Elsewhere, Reuters said that some farmers are considering “abandoning” a “drought-hit” agricultural area in Hungary as “climate change cuts crop yields and reduces groundwater levels”. Scientists warned that rising temperatures and low rainfall threaten the region’s “agricultural viability”, the newswire added. Meanwhile, the Premium Times in Nigeria said that some farmers are “harvest[ing] crops prematurely” due to flooding fears. A community in the south-eastern state of Imo “has endured recurrent floods, which wash away crops and incomes alike” over the past decade, the newspaper noted.

SECURITY RISKS: Food supply chains in the UK face “escalating threats from climate impacts and the migration they are triggering”, according to a report covered by Business Green. The outlet said that £3bn worth of UK food imports originated from the 20 countries “with the highest numbers of climate-driven displacements” in 2024, based on analysis from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit. The analysis highlighted that “climate impacts on food imports pose a threat to UK food security”. Elsewhere, an opinion piece in Dialogue Earth explored how the “role of gender equity in food security remains critically unaddressed”.

Spotlight

Fossil-fuelled bird decline

This week, Carbon Brief covers a new study tracing the impact of fossil-fuelled climate change on tropical birds.

Over the past few years, biologists have recorded sharp declines in bird numbers across tropical rainforests – even in areas untouched by humans – with the cause remaining a mystery.

A new study published this week in Nature Ecology and Evolution could help to shed light on this alarming phenomenon.

The research combined ecological and climate attribution techniques for the first time to trace the fingerprint of fossil-fuelled climate change on declining bird populations.

It found that an increase in heat extremes driven by climate change has caused tropical bird populations to decline by 25-38% in the period 1950-2020, when compared to a world without warming.

In their paper, the authors noted that birds in the tropics could be living close to their “thermal limits”.

Study lead author Dr Maximilian Kotz, a climate scientist at the Barcelona Supercomputing Center in Spain, explained to Carbon Brief:

“High temperature extremes can induce direct mortality in bird populations due to hyperthermia and dehydration. Even when they don’t [kill birds immediately], there’s evidence that this can then affect body condition which, in turn, affects breeding behaviour and success.”

Conservation implications

The findings have “potential ramifications” for commonly proposed conservation strategies, such as increasing the amount of land in the tropics that is protected for nature, the authors said. In their paper, they continued:

“While we do not disagree that these strategies are necessary for abating tropical habitat loss…our research shows there is now an additional urgent need to investigate strategies that can allow for the persistence of tropical species that are vulnerable to heat extremes.”

In some parts of the world, scientists and conservationists are looking into how to protect wildlife from more intense and frequent climate extremes, Kotz said.

He referenced one project in Australia which is working to protect threatened wildlife following periods of extreme heat, drought and bushfires.

Prof Alex Pigot, a biodiversity scientist at University College London (UCL), who was not involved in the research, said the findings reinforced the need to systematically monitor the impact of extreme weather on wildlife. He told Carbon Brief:

“We urgently need to develop early warning systems to be able to anticipate in advance where and when extreme heatwaves and droughts are likely to impact populations – and also rapidly scale up our monitoring of species and ecosystems so that we can reliably detect these effects.”

There is further coverage of this research on Carbon Brief’s website.

News and views

EMPTY CALI FUND: A major voluntary fund for biodiversity remains empty more than five months after its launch, Carbon Brief revealed. The Cali Fund, agreed at the COP16 biodiversity negotiations last year, was set up for companies who rely on nature’s resources to share some of their earnings with the countries where many of these resources originate. Big pharmaceutical companies did not take up on opportunities to commit to contributing to the fund or be involved in its launch in February 2025, emails released to Carbon Brief showed. Just one US biotechnology firm has pledged to contribute to the fund in the future.

LOSING HOPE: Western Australia’s Ningaloo reef – long considered a “hope spot” among the country’s coral reefs for evading major bleaching events – is facing its “worst-ever coral bleaching”, Australia’s ABC News reported. The ocean around Ningaloo has been “abnormally” warm since December, resulting in “unprecedented” bleaching and mortality, a research scientist told the outlet. According to marine ecologist Dr Damian Thomson, “up to 50% of the examined coral was dead in May”, the Sydney Morning Herald said. Thomson told the newspaper: “You realise your children are probably never going to see Ningaloo the way you saw it.”

‘DEVASTATION BILL’: Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, signed a “contentious” environmental bill into law, but “partially vetoed” some of the widely criticised elements, the Financial Times reported. Critics, who dubbed it the “devastation bill”, said it “risked fuelling deforestation and would harm Brazil’s ecological credentials” just months before hosting the COP30 climate summit. The newspaper said: “The leftist leader struck down or altered 63 of 400 provisions in the legislation, which was designed to speed up and modernise environmental licensing for new business and infrastructure developments.” The vetoes need to be approved by congress, “where Lula lacks a majority”, the newspaper noted.

RAINFOREST DRILLING: The EU has advised the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) against allowing oil drilling in a vast stretch of rainforest and peatland that was jointly designated a “green corridor” earlier this year, Climate Home News reported. In May, the DRC announced that it planned to open the conservation area for drilling, the publication said. A spokesperson for the European Commission told Climate Home News that the bloc “fully acknowledges and respects the DRC’s sovereign right to utilise its diverse resources for economic development”, but that it “highlights the fact that green alternatives have facilitated the protection of certain areas”.

NEW PLAN FOR WETLANDS: During the 15th meeting of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, held in Zimbabwe from 23 to 31 July, countries agreed on the adoption of a new 10-year strategic plan for conserving and sustainably using the world’s wetlands. Down to Earth reported that 13 resolutions were adopted, including “enhancing monitoring and reporting, capacity building and mobilisation of resources”. During the talks, Zimbabwe’s environment minister announced plans to restore 250,000 hectares of degraded wetlands by 2030 and Saudi Arabia entered the Convention on Wetlands. Panamá will host the next COP on wetlands in July 2028.

MEAT MADNESS: DeSmog covered the details of a 2021 public relations document that revealed how the meat industry is trying to “make beef seem climate-friendly”. The industry “may have enlisted environmental groups to persuade people to ‘feel better’ about eating beef”, the outlet said, based on this document. The strategy was created by a communications agency, MHP Group, and addressed to the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef. One of the key messages of the plan was to communicate the “growing momentum in the beef industry to protect and nurture the Earth’s natural resources”. MHP Group did not respond to a request for comment, according to DeSmog.

Watch, read, listen

MAKING WAVES: A livestream of deep-sea “crustaceans, sponges and sea cucumbers” has “captivated” people in Argentina, the New York Times outlined.

BAFFLING BIRDS: The Times explored the backstory to the tens of thousands of “exotic-looking” parakeets found in parks across Britain.

PLANT-BASED POWER: In the Conversation, Prof Paul Behrens outlined how switching to a plant-based diet could help the UK meet its climate and health targets.

MARINE DISCRIMINATION: Nature spoke to a US-based graduate student who co-founded Minorities in Shark Science about her experiences of racism and sexism in the research field.

New science

Applying biochar – a type of charcoal – to soils each year over a long period of time can have “sustained benefits for crop yield and greenhouse gas mitigation”, according to a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study.
New research, published in PLOS Climate, found that nearly one-third of highly migratory fish species in the US waters of the Atlantic Ocean have “high” or “very high” vulnerability to climate change, but the majority of species have “some level of resilience and adaptability”.
A study in Communications Earth & Environment found a “notable greening trend” in China’s wetlands over 2000-23, with an increasing amount of carbon being stored in the plants growing there.

In the diary

18-29 August: Second meeting of the preparatory commission for the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction | New York
24-28 August: World Water Week | Online and Stockholm, Sweden
26-29 August: Sixth forum of ministers and environment authorities of Asia Pacific | Nadi, Fiji

Cropped is researched and written by Dr Giuliana Viglione, Aruna Chandrasekhar, Daisy Dunne, Orla Dwyer and Yanine Quiroz. Please send tips and feedback to cropped@carbonbrief.org

The post Cropped 13 August 2025: Fossil-fuelled bird decline; ‘Deadly’ wildfires; Empty nature fund appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Cropped 13 August 2025: Fossil-fuelled bird decline; ‘Deadly’ wildfires; Empty nature fund

Greenhouse Gases

Holding the line on climate: EPA

Published

5 days ago

August 13, 2025

Alice Rush

CCL submits a formal comment on EPA’s proposed endangerment finding rollback

By Dana Nuccitelli, CCL Research Manager

On July 29, the EPA proposed to rescind its 2009 endangerment finding that forms the basis of all federal climate pollution regulations.

Without the endangerment finding, the EPA may not be allowed or able to regulate greenhouse gas pollution from sources like power plants or vehicle tailpipes, as they have done for years. News coverage has framed this as a “radical transformation” and a “bid to scrap almost all pollution regulations,” so it has appropriately alarmed many folks in the climate and environment space.

At CCL, we focus our efforts on working with Congress to implement durable climate policies, and so we don’t normally take actions on issues like this that relate to federal agencies or the courts. Other organizations focus their efforts on those branches of the government and are better equipped to spearhead this type of moment, and we appreciate those allies.

But in this case, we did see an opportunity for CCL’s voice — and our focus on Congress — to play a role here. We decided to submit a formal comment on this EPA action for two reasons.

First, this decision could have an immense impact by eliminating every federal regulation of climate pollutants in a worst case scenario. Second, this move relates to our work because the EPA is misinterpreting the text and intent of laws passed by Congress. Our representatives have done their jobs by passing legislation over the past many decades that supports and further codifies the EPA’s mandate to regulate climate pollution. That includes the Clean Air Act, and more recently, the Inflation Reduction Act. We at CCL wanted to support our members of Congress by making these points in a formal comment.

There has been a tremendous public response to this action. In just over one week, the EPA already received over 44,000 public comments on its decision, and the public comment period will remain open for another five weeks, until September 15.

To understand more about the details and potential outcomes of the EPA’s actions, read my article on the subject at Yale Climate Connections, our discussion on CCL Community, and CCL’s formal comment, which represents our entire organization. As our comment concludes,

“In its justifications for rescinding the 2009 endangerment finding, the Reconsideration has misinterpreted the text of the Clean Air Act, Congress’ decadeslong support for the EPA’s mandate to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and other major sources, and the vast body of peer-reviewed climate science research that documents the increasingly dangerous threats that those emissions pose to Americans’ health and welfare. Because the bases of these justifications are fundamentally flawed, CCL urges the EPA to withdraw its ill-conceived Reconsideration of the 2009 endangerment finding. The EPA has both the authority and the responsibility to act. Americans cannot afford a retreat from science, law, and common sense in the face of a rapidly accelerating climate crisis.”

After the EPA responds to the public comment record and finalizes its decision, this issue will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court several years from now.

In the meantime, CCL will continue to focus our efforts on areas where we can make the biggest difference in preserving a livable climate. Right now, that involves contacting our members of Congress to urge them to fully fund key climate and energy programs and protect critical work at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and Department of Energy. We’ve set an ambitious goal of sending 10,000 messages to our members of Congress, so let’s all do what CCL does best and make our voices heard on this critical issue.

This action by the EPA also reminds us that federal regulations are fragile. They tend to change with each new administration coming into the White House. Legislation passed by Congress – especially when done on a bipartisan basis – is much more durable. That’s why CCL’s work, as one of very few organizations engaging in nonpartisan advocacy for long-lasting climate legislation, is so critical.

That’s especially true right now when we’re seeing the Trump administration slam shut every executive branch door to addressing climate change. We need Congress to step up now more than ever to implement durable solutions like funding key climate and energy programs, negotiating a new bipartisan comprehensive permitting reform bill, implementing healthy forest solutions like the Fix Our Forests Act, and advancing conversations about policies to put a price on carbon pollution. Those are the kinds of effective, durable, bipartisan climate solutions that CCL is uniquely poised to help become law and make a real difference in preserving a livable climate.

For other examples of how CCL is using our grassroots power to help ensure that Congress stays effective on climate in this political landscape, see our full “Holding the Line on Climate” blog series.

The post Holding the line on climate: EPA appeared first on Citizens' Climate Lobby.