- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
Latin America’s top court of human rights has decided for the first time that people have the right to a “healthy climate” without “dangerous” human interference, and has urged states to regulate fossil fuel extraction and exploration, in a landmark climate decision.
Culminating a two-year process that involved more than 260 submissions from governments, companies and local communities, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) on Thursday handed down an advisory opinion requested in 2023 by Chile and Colombia to clarify state obligations related to the climate crisis.
In a public hearing held at the court’s headquarters in the Costa Rican capital of San José, Judge Nancy Hernández read out the trailblazing decision on climate change, which for the first time in IACHR history stated a clear link between the “climate emergency” and human rights. The opinion also recognises that states and companies have an obligation to mitigate global warming and its impacts.
“The evidence we saw during the hearings and written submissions shows us that there is no more margin for indifference,” said Judge Hernández. “This is a contribution from law, but law alone is not enough. Success depends on what each one of us can do.”
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean states, where its advisory opinions are binding. But the strongly-worded climate ruling states that it is binding for all signatories of the Organization of American States, including the US and Canada.
The Peruvian farmer who has changed the climate litigation landscape forever
What does the advisory opinion say?
The landmark 230-page ruling mentions for the first time a subcategory of the human right to a healthy environment, by introducing a “right to a healthy climate”. Court judges said that this is defined as a climate system “free of anthropogenic interference dangerous” for nature and people.
According to the court ruling, states are also expected to cooperate to take actions to reduce emissions that are “as ambitious as possible”, and are obliged to prevent harm by carrying out environmental impact studies.
Recognising the significant climate impact of specific industries, the judges said states have a “minimum” duty to “supervise and control” exploration, extraction and processing of fossil fuels, as well as the cement and agriculture industries.
The advisory opinion also states that governments must establish “differentiated obligations” for companies with higher historical emissions, and impose stricter “duties on companies that carry out activities that generate greater GHG emissions”.
Sergio Diaz, legal director of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, said the opinion makes clear that governments in the Americas must take more ambitious measures against climate change, including addressing the main source of planet-heating emissions: fossil fuels.
“In this context, the adoption of new binding norms that clearly regulate the non-proliferation of fossil fuels is essential if states hope to comply with their human rights obligations,” he said in a statement.
What could a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty look like?
Luisa Gómez, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), said the court decision was innovative – not only because of what it says, but also because there was a very extensive process behind it.
Aside from the 263 written submissions, the court judges carried out three site visits, holding one hearing in Barbados and two in Brazil, with the aim of reaching communities most affected by climate change. The court said it was “the advisory process with most participation in the tribunal’s history”.
“Historic” moment for climate litigation
CIEL’s Gómez hailed the court decision as “historic” and a “watershed moment”, due to the detailed new tools it creates for litigation and policy-making, and the potential for influencing other human rights courts.
Catalina Fernández, head of Multilateral Human Rights at Chile’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told Climate Home that the court decision sets a “more demanding standard” that can help governments and civil society push climate action forward.
“Each state has different realities and there is no unique recipe for everyone. But we hope that this decision can set a minimum standard,” Fernández said. “The court gives us a hand in this process but we still need political will from governments and civil society.”
UN development conference backs innovative ways to boost climate finance
The advisory opinion also provides a clear set of guidelines for countries to bring to the COP30 summit in Belem later this year, said Liliana Ávila, director of human rights and environment at the nonprofit Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA).
Gómez, of CIEL, said that the court decision “makes life easier for everyone”, including states and communities wanting to bring forward more climate cases.
“There’s less room for impunity. It’s clear now where climate change comes from – and it’s clear that those responsible need to take measures,” said Gómez.
Other human rights courts have recognised that the failure of states to address climate change can breach human rights, with climate cases increasingly making it to the world’s highest courts, according to a 2025 report by the London School of Economics (LSE).
Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland had breached the human rights of its citizens by not doing enough to cut planet-warming emissions.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is expected to deliver an advisory opinion on the legal obligation of states to limit climate change later this year. Experts said the ICJ ruling is expected to be influenced by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ decision.
The climate-vulnerable Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, which led the global push for an ICJ opinion, also participated in the IACHR proceedings by making a written submission.
Responding to the Americas ruling, Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s Minister of Climate Change Adaptation, Energy and Environment, noted that all regional and international courts have an important role to play in advancing climate justice.
“Together, they can pave the way for a more integrated approach to international law that addresses the human rights dimensions and remedy the historical climate injustices that the Global South increasingly suffer from in the climate emergency,” he said in a statement.
The post Top Latin American court upholds right to “healthy climate”, urges fossil fuel control appeared first on Climate Home News.
Top Latin American court upholds right to “healthy climate”, urges fossil fuel control
Continue Reading
Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.
WA needs a clear and forward-thinking plan if it is going to become a competitive renewable energy powerhouse and maintain its economic strength through the energy transition.
“Western Australians know a faster renewable energy transition will lower their household expenses and prevent harmful climate pollution. But the community also needs clear direction to ensure this transition will create jobs, lower costs and not cause undue environmental harm.
“Here, sectors representing a broad range of interests have laid the groundwork for those outcomes, clearly outlining what is needed to create a future for WA that is good for the environment, for the climate, for workers and for the economy.
Summary
The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan sets out a strategic roadmap to position Western Australia as a global clean energy superpower while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
The report establishes three overarching goals:
- Creating local employment.
- Maintaining industrial competitiveness.
- Lowering household energy costs
To realize this vision, the framework details actionable measures to follow on from the recent WA Government announcement of a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2031 for the South West Interconnected System. This includes developing a statewide Renewable Energy Target, coordinating statewide workforce and training pipelines, strategically planning regional infrastructure to safeguard high-value biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing through household electrification incentives and First Nations equity partnerships. Ultimately, the plan highlights that establishing clear policy and regulatory certainty will unlock lower energy bills, boost power reliability, and secure the state’s global competitiveness in emerging green commodity export markets.
Key Findings
- Statewide Renewable Energy Target and Emissions Reduction Targets: The report calls for a statewide RET and 1.5°C aligned emission reduction targets to remove policy risk, lower capital costs, and attract clean energy investment.
- Transformative Job Creation: Accelerating the transition offers massive employment prospects, including up to 8,800 solar and battery jobs by 2050, as well as 24,000 ongoing and 11,000 construction jobs in a commercial green iron industry.
- Industrial Electrification & Competitiveness: Requiring large gas users to adopt binding electrification timetables and providing concessional financing will protect existing energy-intensive manufacturers from rising energy costs and impending domestic gas shortfalls.
- Green Commodity Export Leadership: Western Australia can build new export markets in green iron, green ammonia, and offshore oil/gas decommissioning by constructing shared common-user infrastructure and setting dedicated Green Commodity Export Targets.
- Coordinated Workforce & Training Pipeline: To address critical skill shortages the plan recommends establishing a WA Clean Energy Jobs Plan 2050, three regional training hubs, and dedicated pathways for female and under-represented apprentices.
- Environmental Safeguards & Community Benefits: Fast-tracked development must be paired with State Planning Policies that avoid high-biodiversity and cultural heritage lands, mandate new data centres to run on additional renewable power, and deliver household electrification rebates and First Nations equity partnerships.
What you can do
WA has an opportunity to lead on sustainable, clean energy and associated industries. You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.
Article 20 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that developed countries “shall provide new and additional financial resources” to developing countries to meet the costs of implementing measu