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
Climate Change
‘This is a fossil fuel crisis’, Greenpeace tells Senate gas tax Inquiry, citing homegrown renewables as path to energy security
CANBERRA, Tuesday 21 April 2026 — Greenpeace Australia Pacific has slammed gas corporation war profiteering and environmental damage in a scathing Senate hearing today as part of the Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources, urging fair taxation of gas corporations and the transition to secure, homegrown renewable energy to protect Australian households and the economy from future energy shocks.
Speaking at the hearing, Greenpeace said the US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has laid bare the fundamental flaws of an energy system built on fossil fuel extraction, geopolitical power plays and corporate greed, and will be a defining moment for how the world thinks about energy security.
Greenpeace’s submission and full opening remarks can be found here.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“This is not an energy crisis, it’s a fossil fuel crisis. The crisis we’re all facing lays bare the dangers of fossil fuel dependence, for our energy security, our communities, and for global peace and stability.
“Gas corporations like Woodside, Santos, Shell and Chevron — the same companies whose CEOs refused to front this Inquiry — are making obscene war profits, using the illegal war on Iran to price gouge, profiteer and push for more gas we don’t need — while people and our environment pay the price.
“Australians are getting smashed by soaring bills and the impacts of climate disasters — gas corporations should be paying their fair share to help this country, instead of sending billions offshore, tax-free.
“But we’re at a turning point — while gas corporations cynically push to open up more of our oceans and land to drilling for fossil fuels, our allies like the UK are doubling down on renewables in response to the fossil fuel crisis. Our trading partners in Asia are making the same reassessment of fossil fuels.
“Which is why the hearing today is crucial: an effective and well-designed tax on the gas industry’s obscene war time profits is a chance to channel funds to people and communities, fast-track the rollout of clean, secure homegrown wind and solar energy, while holding polluters accountable.
“Our dependence on fossil fuels leave us overexposed to the whims of tyrants like Trump — it’s in Australia’s national interest to end the fossil fuel chokehold for good and usher in the era of clean energy security.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
HOW WOODSIDE’S BROWSE GAS PROPOSAL THREATENS SCOTT REEF’S GREEN TURTLES AND PYGMY BLUE WHALES
Woodside’s Browse to NWS gas project is under assessment by the WA and Federal Governments right now. This is a project that involved drilling up to 50 gas wells around Scott Reef off the coast of WA. Gas would be extracted directly underneath Scott Reef and Sandy Islet and pumped through a 900-kilometre subsea pipeline to the NWS gas processing facility.
Woodside’s Browse gas project’s impact on Scott Reef’s marine habitats?
Scott Reef is one of Australia’s most ecologically significant marine environments, where green turtles breed, pygmy blue whales feed, and an array of at-risk species, including sharks, dolphins, whale sharks, rays, sawfish and sea snakes thrive. It is home to many threatened species, including some found nowhere else on Earth or in genetically isolated groups, magnifying its importance from a conservation perspective.
This delicate reef’s ecosystem faces multiple threats if Woodside’s Proposed Project goes ahead, including seismic blasting, gas flaring, noise pollution, artificial lighting, pipe laying and fast-moving vessels. The reef also faces the risk of a gas well blowout, which could have catastrophic and irreversible consequences for the region’s reefs and marine parks.
Woodside’s woeful marine impacts management plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles and endangered pygmy blue whales if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodsides management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Their assessment found that Woodsides management plans for these species misrepresents or does not assess the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s pygmy blue whales and green turtles. They’ve also surmised that if the project goes ahead the impacts contradict the Australian government’s own recovery plan for turtles and Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for Blue Whales.
The State and Federal Governments now have the opportunity to define their legacies on nature protection and save Scott Reef from Woodside’s dirty gas.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia with Dr Olaf Meynecke of Griffith University.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital feeding, foraging and resting habitat for pygmy blue whales.
Pygmy blue whales feed, forage and rest in the Scott Reef region every year. Scott Reef is recognised as a Biologically Important Area for the pygmy blue whale and is an important stop-over on their annual migration.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
- Woodside’s management plan claims of “no credible threat of significant impacts” are not supported by scientific evidence.
- The management plan relies on outdated whale population information.
- Woodside has claimed it is unclear whether Scott Reef is a foraging habitat for pygmy blue whales, despite the presence of pygmy blue whales and significant concentrations of krill being documented in the area.
- The PBWMP ignores the impacts of industrial noise on whale-to-whale communication. This is especially concerning as mother-calf pairs migrate through the Scott Reef Biologically Important Area shortly after calves are born. Mother-calf pairs rely on continuous, uninterrupted communications to maintain their connection.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital nesting ground for unique green turtles.
The green turtles that nest at Scott Reef’s low-lying Sandy Islet sand cay and nearby Browse Island are genetically unique and are classified as ‘Extremely Vulnerable’ in Australia’s Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
- The Browse project would operate within 20 kilometres of nesting habitat that’s critical to the survival of Scott Reef’s genetically unique and vulnerable green turtle population.
- Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan (TMP) misrepresents the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s green turtles.
- Claims in Woodside’s TMP about Scott Reef’s green turtle population size, nesting success and hatchling numbers are not backed by scientific evidence.
- The TMP proposes gathering updated data after the Browse project is approved.
- Woodside’s TMP proposes adding sand sourced elsewhere to Sandy Islet to counter subsidence and erosion, but fails to properly assess the associated risks.
To save Scott Reef and protect our oceans and animals, the State and Federal Governments must reject Browse.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodside’s management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits