“Six out of nine [Planetary Boundaries] processes have breached the safe levels, with all six showing trends of increasing pressure in all control variables, suggesting further boundary transgression in the near future,” the first planetary health check concluded.

—

The planet is in “critical condition,” scientists concluded after a planet health check revealed that six out of nine planetary boundaries have been breached.

According to the assessment, the first yearly scheduled report on the wellbeing of Earth systems, six boundaries have already been transgressed: climate change, biosphere integrity, land system change, freshwater change, biogeochemical flows, and the introduction of novel entities. Only three boundaries – atmospheric aerosol loading, stratospheric ozone depletion, and ocean acidification – remain within the safe operating space, though the latter is also quickly approaching the threshold.

“For the first time Patient Earth goes through a full Health Check. The verdict is clear – the patient is in critical condition,” Rockström said in a post on X (formerly known as Twitter).

First published in 2009, the planetary boundaries framework defines and quantifies the limits within which human activities can safely operate without causing irreversible environmental changes. It does so by identifying nine critical Earth system processes and defining thresholds – or boundaries – that should not be exceeded to maintain a stable, sustainable, and habitable planet. Transgressing them heightens risks of breaching critical tipping points that would bring about irreversible shifts to the planet, threatening humanity and life as we know it.

“Boundaries are set to avoid tipping points, to have a high chance to keep the planet in state as close as possible to the Holocene, that allows it to maintain its resilience, stability, and life support capabilities. Go beyond and we enter a danger zone… the uncertainty range of science,” Johan Rockström, director of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and lead author of the planetary boundaries framework, told Earth.Org in April. 

According to the report, humanity has five years to reverse planetary boundary trends, with 50% cuts in climate emissions required by decade’s end.

‘Shocking’ Trends

Early understanding of the anthropogenic impacts of human activities on the planet did not lead to the fundamental changes our society needed at the time to prevent the situation from worsening further. Thanks to our inaction in recent decades, we now find ourselves in completely uncharted territory. 

“Humanity has opened the gates to hell,” United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres told the UN General Assembly in 2023, warning that “humanity’s fate is hanging in the balance.”

The past nine years have been the hottest on record, with 2023 topping the ranking and 2024 on track to be even hotter.

What’s even more worrisome is that climate scientists are struggling to understand or explain these trends, which climate scientist Zeke Hausfather last year famously described as “absolutely gobsmackingly bananas.” 

“We had seen El Niño conditions before, so we expected higher surface temperatures [last year] because the Pacific ocean releases heat. But what happened in 2023 was nothing close to 2016, the second-warmest year on record. It was beyond anything we expected and no climate models can reproduce what happened. And then 2024 starts, and it gets even warmer,” Rockström told Earth.Org. “We cannot explain these [trends] yet and it makes scientists that work on Earth resilience like myself very nervous.”

Recent data also show a relentless rise in global sea temperatures, which have doubled since the 1960s.

“There has always been the assumption that the ocean can cope with this, that the ocean is able to absorb this heat in a predictable, linear way, without causing surprise or any sudden abrupt changes. Up until 2023. Because suddenly, temperatures [went] off the charts, and that’s what is so shocking,” the Swedish scientist remarked.

Read the full interview: Toward a New Global Approach to Safeguard Planet Earth: An Interview With Johan Rockström

The post Earth in ‘Critical Condition’ As Six of Nine Planetary Boundaries Breached appeared first on Earth.Org.

In August, the Korean Constitutional Court ruled a provision of the country’s climate law unconstitutional. The verdict, the first of its kind in Asia, will have huge implications for the region, where similar climate litigation cases are underway. Earth.Org spoke with some of the young activists involved in the case and the attorney who represented them about their four-year court battle and the significance of their efforts for South Korea and the region.

—

Young activists and environmental groups fighting for a better planet across Asia now have a success story to look up to. In August, a top court in South Korea ruled the country’s measures to fight climate change insufficient for protecting the rights of its citizens, marking the end of a four-year legal battle and Asia’s first climate litigation ruling of its kind.

The implications are huge, as many legal experts have pointed out. But, most importantly, the courageous acts and perseverance demonstrated by the young plaintiffs prove that people’s voice matters – and it can have a remarkable impact.

‘Unconstitutional’

On August 29, the South Korean Constitutional Court declared a provision of the country’s climate law unconstitutional. The court unanimously ruled that Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth is not in conformity with the Constitution. It gave the government until February 28, 2026 to amend the law.

The legislation in question contains a series of key policies aimed at addressing climate change and promoting sustainable development, including legally binding emissions reduction targets, renewable energy promotion, energy efficiency and sustainable transportation.

Article 8, Section 1 of the Framework prescribes an emissions reduction target of “not less than 35%” compared to 2018 levels to be reached by decade’s end. However, the framework does not set any legally binding targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2031. This absence means the government cannot guarantee the protection of future generations, a right engrained in its Constitution, the court ruled. However, it dismissed other claims challenging the Carbon Neutrality Basic Plan and the enforcement decrees of the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth. 

Attorney Sejong Youn, who represented the case, said the ruling of unconstitutionality “has binding authority over all state institutions by law, and it is the duty of  the National Assembly and the government as mandated by law.”

“The core reason for the unconstitutionality is the regulation of reduction targets that impose an excessive burden without considering the rights of future generations,” he added.

Young activists wept for joy on the court steps following the verdict. In a joint statement, the plaintiffs said the ruling represented “meaningful progress in protecting everyone’s rights beyond the climate crisis” and marked an “achievement for all those who have been excluded from the national climate response process while confronting the climate crisis.”

In a statement issued shortly after the verdict, the government said it “respected” the decision and it plans to “faithfully implement follow-up measures.”

The Children Behind It All

Nineteen young activists first brought the case to the court in March 2020. They were part of youth environmental organization Youth 4 Climate Action, a group spearheading the Korean segment of the global school climate strike movement, and aged between 14 and 19 at the time of the filing.

Hyunjung Yoon was one of them. She was only 15 when she joined the Youth Climate Litigation as a plaintiff, motivated by the need to “connect with more people” sharing her concerns about the climate crisis.

“I first came face to face with the severity of the climate crisis in the summer of 2019,” Yoon told Earth.Org in an email interview in September. “I happened to watch a documentary about the climate crisis. I was shocked because it was so different from what I had learned about global warming in school. I used to think that global warming was something that would happen in 100 years, that I didn’t need to worry about it, and that it only affected polar bears. But the documentary told me that we have less than 10 years to go, and that meant I couldn’t escape the effects of the climate crisis.”

The eye-opening documentary marked a turning point in the young girl’s life. She became vegan and started picking up trash, but quickly realised that collective action – and not individual practices – was the only way to ignite much needed policy change.

“I looked for something I could do, and when I found out that youths like me were protesting in Korea, I decided to protest in Ulsan, where I live. I picked up boxes from the recycling bin, wrote down what I wanted to say with crayons and paints, and started picketing in front of my school, in front of the city hall, and in front of the park,” she explained. Discussions with the superintendent, city councillors, and the vice mayor in her community all went unheard, she said. “[T]hey weren’t interested in addressing the climate crisis, they just took pictures with me and posted them on Facebook.”

Borim Kim recalled a similar feeling of hopelessness when trying to “spread the word” on climate change. The young activist has been leading Youth 4 Climate Action and working on the litigation since late 2019.

“[W]e have long demanded that policymakers of government, legislative and executive, enact laws to stop the climate crisis,” Kim told Earth.Org in an email interview in September. “Sometimes we picketed in the streets, sometimes we stood to spread the word, sometimes we skipped school and took to the streets, sometimes we organized walkouts led by hundreds of youth. We met with policymakers in person to demand that they reduce fossil fuels, create better-oriented greenhouse gas reduction plans, and secure social safety nets. But the changes were always too small, and relying on their voluntary will was unlikely to solve the problem to the point where we would be safe enough.”

Inspired by climate litigation cases underway around the world, the group began considering doing something similar in their home country, an unprecedented move, and one that many lawyers at first discouraged, Kim said.

“[W]hen we were looking into the possibility of filing a constitutional petition in [2019], we were told that it would be impossible, that it would be difficult to be recognized as a plaintiff, and we were worried that the Constitutional Court would even take up the case because there was no such case in Asia, let alone Korea,” the activist recalled.

A long search for counsels to represent them in the legal claim eventually led to Attorney Youn. He is the director of Plan 1.5, a Seoul-based non-profit that “focuses on aligning the Government’s climate policies with the Paris Agreement climate target” by providing legal support to civil society groups going after big polluters.

“[W]hen we met [the plaintiffs], it did not take long to understand that this is not something we can say no to just because it was a difficult case,” Youn told Earth.Org in September. “It was challenging in the legal sense, but all of the fact and the arguments were undeniably legitimate.”

Refining the lawsuit took “a little over a year and a half,” Kim recalled, adding that lawyers and media partners were involved in the process.

“The lawyers we met in the process of creating the campaign believed in the possibility of change, and naturally, the discussion about whether climate litigation was possible in Korea began,” she said. “We realized that while there are many different types of judicial actions we could take, we could clearly argue that the fact that the country’s emissions reductions were not properly set and implemented violated our fundamental rights. I didn’t think a constitutional challenge was a sure thing, but I also didn’t think it was a lost cause.”

The team referred back to previous climate litigation in the Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, and the United States, though it had to find a way to create a case in line with the Korean context – something that was never attempted before, Kim said.

“We spent a lot of time organizing and researching the history of the Constitutional Court, the justices’ precedents, and so on, which often coincided with the time I spent outside of the courtroom building the campaign, and it was exciting to see the potential for change that a constitutional complaint could create in the face of no change,” the activist said, recalling the hardships of familiarizing with legal and bureaucratic processes paired with the excitement of seeing the case take shape.

“We were really happy when the case was referred to the court shortly after we filed it. It felt like the case was really starting to take off,” she told Earth.Org. Their claim was later combined with three additional lawsuits filed by civil society groups, bringing the total number of plaintiffs to 255.

‘Only the Beginning’

According to Attorney Youn, the ruling “opens up important opportunity to enhance the overall climate action in Korea” and will likely “trigger a broader and stronger trend of judicial victories on climate change.”

Pointing at the anti-dictatorship and democracy movements of the 1980s, and at the civil, labor, and gender rights movements in the 1990s and 2000s, Youn said he is hopeful that the South Korean civil society will once again succeed in leading and pushing for change, this time in the name of climate justice.

For the young plaintiffs, the verdict is only the beginning.

“The Constitutional Court’s ruling was necessary because we need to strengthen our national climate action to a level that protects our fundamental rights,” said Yoon. “Now that the ruling has given us more opportunities to improve our climate response, we will work to move beyond the ways in which we have failed. We still have opportunities to reduce the risks of the climate crisis, and there are things we can do. I want to continue this movement for as long as I can.”

Kim echoed a similar sentiment. He told Earth.Org that while “the ball is now in the court of legislation and administration” to ensure the law is amended accordingly, Youth 4 Climate Action’s efforts to raise public awareness on the climate crisis will continue.

“We will work to ensure that we do not repeat the failed approach of the past, where national reductions are made in a way that removes the context of people’s lives,” the activist said, adding that “only a climate movement organized in this way can make a difference.”

The case’s impact on public opinion in South Korea has been huge, as demonstrated by the more than 30,000 people that took to the streets in Seoul days after the verdict to demand more action on climate change.

They marched under the slogan “Let’s Change the World, Not the Climate,” which is representative of what the ruling may signify not just for South Korea but also for Asia, where similar cases are under way.

“South Korea’s Constitutional Court has sent an unequivocal message that climate action is a legal duty,” said Co-Director of the Climate Litigation Network Sarah Mead. “As the first ruling of its kind in Asia, this hugely significant victory will have a positive ripple effect throughout the region and provide further support to the dozens of similar cases that are currently pending across the world.”

Japan, where climate litigation is still a novelty, last month saw a group of young activists file its first-ever youth climate lawsuit. The 16 plaintiffs, aged between 15 and 29, argue that 10 major Japanese thermal power companies contribute to climate change and thus infringe upon some fundamental human rights.

In Taiwan, a climate litigation case is awaiting resolution in its Constitutional Court. The lawsuit was filed in 2021 by Greenpeace East Asia, the Environmental Jurists Association, and four individual plaintiffs, who accuse Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs’ (MOEA) Regulation for Large Power Consumers of being unambitious and in breach of the country’s climate laws. According to the regulation, high electricity users are obliged to shift 10% of their contracted capacity to renewable energy.

In Indonesia, 14 individuals have lodged a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission, alleging that the government is infringing on their constitutional rights by not implementing adequate mitigation and adaptation measures as well as measures to limit the temperatures rise to below 1.5C, as set in the legally binding Paris Agreement. The plaintiffs, aged between 7 and 59, claim to have faced “life-threatening hazards, reduced physical and mental well-being, increased health risks, food and water insecurity, along with disruption to their education and livelihoods” because of climate change.

For the two young Korean activists, there is no doubt that the South Korean case will have a snowball effect.

“We hope that seeing change happen in South Korea will inspire others who are pursuing similar judicial action for climate justice,” said Kim. “In fact, our case was built on the victories of other countries that came before us, so we’re hopeful that there will be examples of change that will be even better than ours.”

“Young climate activists around the world are building their own movements in different environments, but I believe we are in this together,” said Yoon. “Without the victories of other climate lawsuits in the Netherlands, Germany, Montana, and elsewhere, the victory of the Korean climate lawsuit would not have been possible.”

Featured image: Youth4ClimateAction.

You might also like: Explainer: Climate Litigation – Trends and Impact

The post Meet South Korea’s Young Activists Spearheading Climate Action in Asia appeared first on Earth.Org.

Current targets and policies will increase Azerbaijan’s greenhouse gas emissions by around 20% between now and 2030, Climate Action Tracker said on Wednesday. The COP29 host, a petrostate, came under fire last week for failing to mention the fossil fuel phaseout in its list of priorities for the upcoming summit.

—

Azerbaijan, the country selected to host the year’s most important climate summit, is “moving backward” on climate action, an assessment of its climate policies revealed.

Conducted by Climate Action Tracker (CAT), an independent scientific project monitoring governments emissions reduction plans, the analysis concluded that the country’s policies and targets are “far from consistent” with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to “well below” 2C by the end of the century.

To avoid overshooting the Paris goal completely, the world would need to reduce emissions by 43% compared with levels in 2019. And yet, according to CAT, Azerbaijan’s greenhouse gas emissions are set to rise by 20% to 2030.

In its latest Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) submission, the country pledged to achieve a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century compared to 1990 levels. However, it dropped a 2030 target that was included in its predecessor.

NDCs are national plans for emissions reduction that each signatory to the Paris Agreement is required to set up and update every five years. According to Article 4.3 of the agreement, each submission should be more ambitious than the previous ones.

“Overall, we rate Azerbaijan’s climate action as ‘Critically insufficient’,” the assessment concluded. “Along with setting a more stringent climate target, Azerbaijan needs to significantly increase the ambition of its climate policies to reverse the present rapid growth in emissions and set its emissions on a firm downward trajectory.”

Azerbaijan is a highly fossil fuel-dependent state and the oldest oil-producing region in the world. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), oil and gas account for about 90% of the nation’s exports’ revenue and 60% of the government’s budget.

The United Nations came under fire in January after appointing the petrostate to lead the COP29 summit in November, the third petrostate in a row to host the talks after the United Arab Emirates (UAE) last year and Egypt in 2022. 

In April, Azeri President Ilham Aliyev said his country will continue to invest in gas production in order to meet European Union demand for energy in a “sign of responsibility.” The remarks were part of his opening speech on the second day of the Petersberg Climate Dialogue, a yearly international conference co-hosted by the German Foreign Office and the current COP presidency that brings together selected countries to prepare for the UN summit.

“Having oil and gas deposits is not our fault. It’s a gift of God. We must be judged not by that but on how we use this resource for the development of the country, for reduction of poverty, unemployment and what is our target with respect to [the] green agenda,” Aliyev remarked.

Last week, the COP29 host was once again at the center of criticism for failing to include any mentions of a plan to phase out fossil fuels in its summit’s Action Agenda. Instead, the country outlined global energy storage, electric grids, and climate finance as priorities.

This is despite the COP28 deal’s unprecedented call to “transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner to achieve net-zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.”

The burning of coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and heat is the single-largest source of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the primary drivers of global warming by trapping heat in the atmosphere and raising Earth’s surface temperature.

Global fossil fuel consumption has more than doubled in the last 50 years as countries around the world have worked to improve their standards of living and economic output. Scientists have long warned that curbing fossil fuel extraction and consumption is the only way to halt global warming and secure a liveable future.

The post COP29 Host Azerbaijan’s Climate Action ‘Critically Insufficient’ to Meet Paris Goal, Assessment Reveals appeared first on Earth.Org.

In a 2C warmer planet, an event like Storm Boris in Central Europe would be a further 5% more intense and 50% more frequent, World Weather Attribution said on Wednesday.

—

The exceptionally heavy downpours that triggered deadly floods in Central Europe earlier this month, affecting two million people, was made at least twice as likely by human-made climate change, a new attribution report has revealed.

Storm Boris unleashed unprecedented rains throughout the region, causing rivers and reservoirs to swell to alarming levels. All affected countries – Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and northern Italy – experienced flooding and power cuts. Tens of thousands were evacuated and at least 24 were killed.

The four-day downpours were made at least twice as likely and 7% heavier due to human-made climate change, World Weather Attribution (WWA), an academic collaboration studying extreme event attribution, said on Wednesday. The group’s rapid attribution study revealed that the amount of rain that fell between September 12-16 was the heaviest ever recorded across Central Europe, and covered an area even greater than previous historical floods recorded in 1997 and 2002.

The downpours formed as cold polar air from the north met with warm air in Southern Europe as it flew over the Alps. Heat and moisture drawn up from the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, which have been much hotter than usual for more than a year, exacerbated the storm, fuelling it for days before it moved back inland.

Days before the events unleashed, weather models flagged the potential of a “massive rainfall event” and “catastrophic flooding,” prompting scientists to raise the alarm and authorities to issue early warnings and prepare for the flooding. Ahead of the storm, Czech authorities released large volumes of water from tributary dams in the East of the country to bring reservoir levels down and create storage.

“These floods were big, widespread and hugely damaging. They were well forecast and the planning and action taken, by both individuals and authorities, undoubtedly helped save lives,” said Hannah Cloke, Professor of Hydrology at University of Reading and one of the authors of the study. “Yet many people still tragically died. For some, they were unable to imagine the effects of such intense rainfall. It is vital, as extreme rainfall gets more extreme, that we develop new ways of helping people understand the risks.”

WWA warned that the continuous burning of fossil fuels will further increase the likelihood and intensity of devastating storms. In a 2C-warmer world, an event like Storm Boris would be 5% more intense and 50% more frequent, the 24 researchers involved in the study warned.

The past nine years have been the hottest on record, with 2023 topping the ranking. Last year’s record-breaking temperatures can be partly attributed to the return of El Niño, a weather pattern associated with the unusual warming of surface waters in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. However, despite the gradual weakening of the pattern, temperatures continued to rise. Earlier this month, European scientists confirmed that the world just endured its hottest summer on record. This string of record temperatures, they said, is increasing the likelihood of 2024 being even hotter than last year.

A warmer planet does not just impact events like Storm Boris. It also makes other weather events such as heatwaves and tropical cyclones more frequent and severe, besides contributing to further melting ice caps, rising sea levels, and the disruption of biodiversity and ecosystems.

The burning of coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and heat is the single-largest source of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These are the primary drivers of global warming as they trap heat in the atmosphere and raising Earth’s surface temperature. Global fossil fuel consumption has more than doubled in the last 50 years, as countries around the world aim to improve their standards of living and economic output. In 2023, all three of the most potent GHGs – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide – reached record highs.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has urged countries to halt new gas and oil field projects, arguing that this is the only way to keep the 1.5C-compatible net-zero emissions scenario alive.

“The 1997 and 2002 floods in Central Europe were described as once in a century events, but two decades later, global warming has increased from 0.5 to 1.3°C, and they’ve happened again,” said Bogdan H. Chojnicki, a climatologist at Poznań University of Life Sciences and one of the study’s authors, adding that Europe is warming faster than the rest of the world. “The trend is clear – if humans keep filling the atmosphere with fossil fuel emissions, the situation will be more severe.”

Featured image: Wikimedia Commons.

The post ‘Heaviest Rain Ever’ That Triggered Deadly Floods in Central Europe Made Twice As Likely By Climate Change, Study Finds appeared first on Earth.Org.

“For decades, ExxonMobil has been deceiving the public to convince us that plastic recycling could solve the plastic waste and pollution crisis when they clearly knew this wasn’t possible,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

—

California is suing fossil fuel giant ExxonMobil over “decades” of deceiving campaigns that have allegedly contributed to exacerbate the plastic pollution crisis.

Filed by the state’s Attorney General Rob Bonta in the San Francisco County Superior Court, the first-of-its-kind lawsuit seeks to hold the American multinational accountable for its active contribution to plastic pollution, one of the biggest environmental threats of our lifetime.

“For decades, ExxonMobil has been deceiving the public to convince us that plastic recycling could solve the plastic waste and pollution crisis when they clearly knew this wasn’t possible,” Bonta said in a statement issued on Monday.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) accuses ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest petrochemical companies, of deceiving Californians for five decades about the real environmental impact of its plastic products. Through “misleading public statements” and “slick marketing,” the company allegedly tricked consumers into thinking that all of its products are recyclable, despite knowing that this option is neither technically nor economically viable for “the vast majority” of its products.

The lawsuit singles out ExxonMobil as the world’s largest producer of polymers, which are used by other companies to manufacture single-use plastics, and argues that most plastic items collected in the state can be traced back to the company.

In 2021, a Plastic Waste Makers Index report estimated that the Exxon, China-owned Sinopec and US-based Dow – the world’s top-three largest polymer producer generating single-use plastic waste – accounted for about 16% of global single-use plastic waste.

In the statement, the DOJ accused the company of misleadingly making use of the chasing arrows, a symbol strongly associated with recycling, to promote its plastic products. “In reality, only about 5 percent of U.S. plastic waste is recycled, and the recycling rate has never exceeded 9 percent,” the statement read.

You might also like: Your Guide to Recycling Plastics

The lawsuits also explicitly addresses Exxon’s “advanced recycling” program, alleging that the company hides “important truths” about its technical limitations.

Advanced recycling is an umbrella term to describe a variety of technologies that can turns certain types of plastic polymer back into their original molecules so they can be processed and used over and over. On its website, Exxon describes it as a strategy to strengthen the circularity of its plastic products, though the lawsuit argues that plastics produced through this technology “contain so little plastic waste that they are effectively virgin plastics deceptively marketed as ‘circular’… and sold at a premium.”

“ExxonMobil’s ‘advanced recycling’ program is nothing more than a public relations stunt meant to encourage the public to keep purchasing single-use plastics that are fueling the plastics pollution crisis,” the DOJ said.

Global Crisis

Over 99% of plastic is derived from fossil fuels, including natural gas and crude oil, and contains chemicals that are known endocrine disruptors and threaten human health.

When plastic production started in the 1950s, only a small amount of plastics were produced, and resulting plastic waste was relatively manageable. Since then, waste has more than doubled – today, approximately 300 million tonnes of plastic waste are generated globally each year. About 60% of this waste ends up in our natural environment or landfills, while only around 9% is recycled.

Plastic is difficult to recycle because it can degrade in quality during the recycling process, limiting its ability to be repeatedly recycled. The different types of plastics often need to be sorted and processed separately, adding complexity and cost to recycling operations. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, by 2060, the global plastic recycling rate might be just 17%.

Plastic pollution is one of the biggest problems affecting the marine environment, with an estimated 11 million tons of plastic entering the ocean annually. Roughly 40% of the ocean’s surface is covered in plastic debris and if our plastic consumption continues, it is estimated that by 2050, there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean.

Plastic does not biodegrade. Instead, it degrades in quality and with time breaks down into smaller pieces – which we commonly refer to as microplastics – through processes such as weathering and exposure to wave action, wind abrasion, and ultraviolet radiation from sunlight. These fragments of plastic are smaller than 5mm and larger than 1 micron (1/1000th of a millimetre) in length, close in size to one sesame seed.

Microplastics has been found them pretty much everywhere – inside marine creatures and in mammal feces, in food and bottled water, and even in human blood. Because this is still a relatively new research field, scientists cannot yet fully estimate the long-lasting impact of these particles on animals and humans.

In February, an in-depth report by the Center for Climate Integrity revealed how the plastic industry and Big Oil – including Exxon – deceived the public for decades while contributing to the plastic waste crisis.

“Petrochemical companies – independently and through industry trade associations and front groups – have deceived consumers, policymakers, and regulators into believing that they could address the plastic waste crisis through a series of false solutions,” the report read.

More on the topic: The Plastic Diet: Has Plastic Pollution Reached its Tipping Point?

Climate Litigation

Courtrooms around the world have become a key battleground in the public debate over climate change and environmental damage, with climate litigation consolidating as a popular strategy in tackling the ongoing climate crisis.

At least 230 new cases were filed globally last year alone, according to a recent report by the Gratham Research Institute. 47 of them concerned “climate-washing,” meaning they challenged “inaccurate government or corporate narratives regarding contributions to the transition to a low-carbon future.” The report noted that more than 140 such cases have been filed to date worldwide, particularly in the last few years.

Targets of these cases include polluting companies such as airlines, major fossil fuel companies as well as financial institutions over misleading claims to sell their financial products and services.

Featured image: City of Greenville, North Carolina/Flickr.

The post California Sues ExxonMobil Over ‘Decades-Long’ Deceiving Plastic Recyclability Campaign appeared first on Earth.Org.

The UN Pact For Future offers a blueprint to tackle 21st-century challenges – from conflicts and environmental threats to financing development. It also includes two annexes towards a responsible and sustainable digital future and the protection of future generations.

—

The United Nations General Assembly on Sunday adopted a blueprint to bring the world’s increasingly divided nations together to tackle the challenges of the 21st century.

The 42-page “Pact for the Future” covers a broad range of themes, including peace and security, sustainable development, climate change, digital cooperation, human rights, gender, youth and future generations, and the transformation of global governance. It also includes two annexes: a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations.

“We are here to bring multilateralism back from the brink,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres as he thanked world leaders and diplomats for unlocking “the door” to a better future. “Now it is our common destiny to walk through it. That demands not just agreement, but action.”

Among the 56 actions and commitments that countries pledged to achieve are some addressing the climate crisis, such as accelerating efforts to meet obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement. The signatories also reaffirmed the COP28 deal – which calls on nations to “transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner to achieve net-zero by 2050” and to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030 – and their commitment to the conservation targets set in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

The pact also addresses climate finance, with countries “recognizing” the importance of adaptation finance and committing to “further operationalize and capitalize” new funding arrangements for the Loss and Damage Fund, which was formally adopted at COP27 in 2022. Contributions to the fund at last year’s UN climate summit in Dubai reached just over $700 million, less than 0.2% of the economic and non-economic losses developing countries face every year from global warming.

More on the topic: Explainer: What Is ‘Loss and Damage’ Compensation?

COP29 host Azerbaijan last week announced its plans to launch two climate finance initiatives during the summit, which will take place in the capital Baku in November. However, there is little indication that countries will be able to agree on a new global climate fundraising goal, which a recent UN report says needs to reach at least $500 billion per year. 

The “game-changing” pact – as Guterres described it – was adopted despite a last-minute, isolated sabotage attempt on the grounds that it represented western interests. Russia’s deputy minister of foreign affairs, Sergey Vershinin, introduced an amendment emphasizing the “principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states,” a move backed by Belarus, North Korea, Iran, Nicaragua, Sudan and Syria. The amendment was overwhelmingly dismissed and the pact was subsequently adopted  was adopted by 143 votes in favour to 7 against and 15 abstentions.

“Petrostates tried to derail the Pact for the Future but… transitioning away from fossil fuel & tripling renewables still stands,” said Andreas Sieber, Associate Director of Policy & Campaigns at 350.org. “As countries prepare to unveil their emissions targets, leaders have one job to do: deliver 1.5-aligned climate goals.”

But according to 350.org, “the real will be the delivery” of the commitments. Indeed, the pact and its annexes are non-binding, raising concerns about their implementation.

Featured image: Xabi Oregi/Pexels.

The post World Leaders Commit to ‘Inclusive, Networked Multilateralism’ As They Adopt UN Pact For Future appeared first on Earth.Org.

A little under 3,000 climate litigation cases seeking to hold governments and corporations accountable for their actions have been filed around the world since 1986. The past decade has seen an unprecedented surge in such cases and dozens of landmark victories around the world. But what exactly is climate litigation, how powerful of an instrument is it really in the fight against climate change, and where is it heading?

—

Climate change litigation cases seeking to hold governments and corporations accountable for their actions are on the rise worldwide, as suggested in a recent Gratham Institute report.

2023, the hottest year in our planet’s history, was an important year for climate change litigation globally, with national and international courts ruling and advising on fundamental climate matters. Landmark cases brought forward by people from all walks of life have paved the way for others to come forward. They have also proven that citizen action can succeed in holding businesses and governments accountable for their actions.

In this article, Earth.Org looks at what climate litigation is and how it has evolved and grown in the past five decades. It also spotlights key cases that shook the world and shaped this emerging legal field.

What Is Climate Litigation?

Individuals of all ages, environmental groups, and affected communities have been increasingly seeking legal avenues to hold government and corporations accountable for their contribution to climate change and inaction, with rather positive results.

In the past decade, climate litigation has consolidated as a popular strategy in tackling the ongoing climate crisis – or, as the United Nations Environment Programme puts it, as “a frontier solution to change the dynamics of the fight against climate change.” It has been described as an “attempt to control, order or influence the behaviour of others in relation to climate governance,” and it has been used by governments, private actors, civil society and individuals locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally.

The Global Climate Change Litigation database is the most comprehensive database on the matter. Set up in 2011, it is regularly updated by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, an affiliated center of the Columbia Climate School at Columbia University.

As of September 17, 2024, the database contained 2,796 cases – 1,850 filed in the US and 946 in the rest of the world. 70% of these cases have been filed in the past decade alone (2015-2024), following the adoption of the landmark Paris Agreement. It also includes cases brought before international or regional courts or tribunals.

At present, the database features cases from over 55 countries – with the US, the UK, Brazil, and Germany leading the way. Little over 200 cases have been recorded in the Global South, with Brazil accounting for 88 of them.

The database classifies cases filed around the world – except in the US – as (1) lawsuits against governments (including those challenging environmental assessment and permitting, human rights violations and environmental crimes) and (2) lawsuits against corporations and individuals.

It also keeps track of requests for advisory opinions submitted to national and international courts. Advisory opinions are non-legally-binding advises issued by a court regarding the constitutionality or interpretation of a specific law.

Meanwhile, cases filed in the US are organized by type of claim, such as (1) federal statutory claims (such as those challenging the National Environmental policy Act and the Endangered Species Act); (2) constitutional claims; (3) state law claims; (4) common law claims; and (5) public trust claims. It also lists cases concerning the regulation, marketing, and commercialization of carbon offsets and credits; trade agreements; and climate adaptation.

Around 5% of all cases have been filed before international or regional courts, human rights tribunals and authorities, with nearly half of the total (44 cases as of September 2024) filed before the Courts of Justice of the European Union.

Recent Trends and Key Cases

The aforementioned report by the Gratham Research Institute, published earlier this year, identified a “consolidation and concentration of strategic litigation efforts” around the world. At least 230 new cases were filed globally, with countries such as Panama and Portugal seeing their first-ever climate lawsuits.

To better understand the drivers of litigation, the Institute developed a typology of the types of behaviour that cases seek to discourage or incentivise.

Of the 233 cases documented last year, 97 (nearly 42%) were classified as “integrating climate consideration cases,” i.e. “cases that seek to integrate climate considerations, standards, or principles into a given decision or sectoral policy, with the dual goal of stopping specific harmful policies and projects, and mainstreaming climate concerns in policymaking.”

47 cases filed last year concerned “climate-washing,” meaning they challenged “inaccurate government or corporate narratives regarding contributions to the transition to a low-carbon future.” The report noted that more than 140 such cases have been filed to date worldwide, particularly in the last few years. Targets of these cases include polluting companies such as airlines, major fossil fuel companies as well as financial institutions over misleading claims to sell their financial products and services.

Among the highest-profile and most frequently discussed cases are what the Gratham Research Institute describes as “government framework cases.” These are lawsuits “that challenge the ambition or implementation of climate targets and policies affecting the whole of a country’s economy and society.”

More than 110 such cases have been filed around the world since the Paris Agreement was passed in 2015, with 15 new filed last year. They target government’s policy responses to the climate crisis, often in relation to the Paris accord, as well as the enforcement of climate protection measures to meet environmental targets. Plaintiffs often build their case on the basis that specific climate goals or protection measures are in violation of basic human rights and increase their vulnerabilities to climate change impacts.

Another way of holding governments and corporations accountable is to challenge their “failure to adapt” to climate change, i.e. “to take climate risk into account.” 64 such cases were filed since 2015, mostly at US and Australian courts.

According to a 2023 report by the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), adaptation cases are still limited. Indeed, besides having to provide evidence of failure to address past and current climate change impacts – a prerequisite for cases about mitigation – adaptation lawsuits must also account for projections of future impacts.

The report also identified five new cases concerning the “polluter pays” principle – the idea that the costs of polluting activities should be borne by the party who caused it, rather than the individual or community who suffer from the consequences of pollution. These cases typically seek “monetary damages from defendants based on an alleged contribution to harmful impacts of climate change.” Of the 34 such cases filed since 2015, mostly in the US, the majority remain open.

More on the topic: Explainer: What Is the Polluter Pays Principle and How Can It Be Used in Climate Policy?

It is important to note than not all climate litigation cases are necessarily supportive of climate action. In some cases, corporations may file lawsuits to obstruct or hinder climate policies that affect their operations.

According to the Gratham Research Institute report, nearly 50 of all climate litigation cases filed in 2023 were not aligned with climate targets. These involved disputes over the incorporation of climate risk into financial decision-making and “just transition cases” challenging “the distributional impacts of climate policy or the processes by which policies were developed, normally on human rights grounds.” Strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) have also become a common tool to censor, intimidate, or silence critics by burdening them with costly lawsuits, often on grounds that the critiques are defamatory. Journalists, media outlets, and human rights defenders are the main targets of such lawsuits.

In May, the European Union introduced new rules to combat the use of SLAPPs, allowing those targeted by these lawsuits to request a case dismissal early as manifestly unfounded. Those who have brought the legal challenge forward also risk having to bear the costs of the proceedings as well as potential penalties.

Plaintiffs and Defendants

A look at recent climate litigation cases uncovers a growing effort by civil society actors to use the courts to raise awareness about climate action and hold powerful polluters accountable. Individuals and NGOs are beyond most climate cases and about 70% of all cases filed in 2023.

Young people have also increasingly been at the forefront of climate litigation. Many of them have scored historic victories, strengthening youth climate movements worldwide and inspiring fellow activists to follow suit.

Overall, young people often demonstrate a more profound understanding of climate change compared to adults and older generations. According to a InterClimate Network survey published in 2021, more than 8 in 10 young people are concerned about climate change and think it is already having a negative effect on people’s lives. Three-quarters of those surveyed also said they believe the climate crisis will affect their life in the future.

Meanwhile, a 2021 Lancet survey of 10,000 people aged 16-25 across ten countries revealed that more than 50% experienced emotions related to climate anxiety. The study identified dissatisfaction with government responses to the climate crisis as a factor driving anxiety and feelings of betrayal among young people.

For many, these feelings have translated into action campaigns, whether it is through peaceful protests and public disruption campaigns or through the courts. Global climate movements such as Greta Thunberg’s Fridays for Future have brought the topic into the mainstream in recent years, allowing a new generation of young climate leaders – often nicknamed “the climate generation” – to push for change and educate the rest of the world about climate change.

“The climate crisis won’t be solved by any one country doing particularly well, but it won’t be solved if even one country doesn’t get on board,” Hyunjung Yoon, a young South Korean activist, told Earth.Org in September. “Young climate activists around the world are building their own movements in different environments, but I believe we are in this together.”

Yoon is one of 19 young plaintiffs who recently scored a landmark win at South Korea’s Constitutional Court, which ruled that the country’s climate targets are unconstitutional.

Governments, companies, and trade associations also file climate cases. The report suggests that “many but by no means all” cases filed by the latter two are not aligned with climate action. These three actors are also the main defendants in climate litigation, with governments historically targeted by the majority of cases. In 2023, over 70% of all cases involved government actors among the defendants compared to 26% involving companies, according to the report.

As some of the aforementioned cases show, companies across different sectors are increasingly the target of climate lawsuits, notably since the enactment of the Paris Agreement. Targeted industries include fossil fuels, airlines, food and beverage, e-commerce, and financial services. Of all cases filed last year, the majority involved companies dealing with fossil fuel exploration, production, and transportation, closely followed by transport, freight and storage companies and business services. Retail, agriculture, and fashion companies were also targeted, albeit in smaller numbers.

Impact

Courtrooms around the world have become a key battleground in the public debate over climate change, and recent verdicts have sent an unequivocal message to the world – that climate action is a legal duty.

In 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the most authoritative scientific body on climate change – recognized that climate litigation “has influenced the outcome and ambition of climate governance,” adding that its impact is “promising.”

Recent research has demonstrated that the impact of climate litigation extends beyond the parties involved and also affects public opinion and future litigation. Considerable media attention that environmental litigation generates can also influence how climate policy is perceived.

As some lawyers put it: “Whilst environmental related litigation is both complex and costly, it is not just the outcome that is important. The activism and attention that environmental litigation generates can be just as (if not more) significant as a court judgment for ‘win’ or ‘lose’.”

In recent years, there has been a notable surge in the prevalence of climate change litigation with strategic intent. These cases are strategically designed to push for more ambitious climate-related objectives. They seek to impact policies, uphold standards, question the allocation of public resources, and scrutinize the reliability and precision of disclosures related to climate matters. Through these legal actions, stakeholders aim to drive systemic change, compel governments and institutions to uphold higher environmental standards, and ensure transparency and accountability in climate-related decision-making processes.

Climate litigation has successfully challenged governments’ climate targets and agendas as well as their authorization of high-emitting projects, setting important precedents for climate action and emissions reduction. The landmark “Urgenda” case in 2019, which saw the Netherlands’ top court ordering the Dutch government to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by the end of 2020 compared with 1990 levels, made global headlines and has had ripple effects around the world.

Polluting companies are also increasingly being held accountable for their actions and ordered to compensate for the damage they cause. These cases also carry serious reputational and supply chain risks.

No matter the outcome, climate litigation plays a crucial role in shaping the discourse around climate change, holding key actors accountable, and advancing the global agenda for sustainable and responsible environmental practices.

The post Explainer: Climate Litigation – Trends and Impact appeared first on Earth.Org.

“Through our actions we are sending clear signals to markets that fossil fuels are not welcome,” 14 leaders of states, regions and cities from around the globe wrote in a letter to UN heads of state ahead of a key climate summit in New York later this week.

—

The time has come for world leaders to listen to the voices of cities and states at the forefront of climate action and work alongside them to halt the expansion of fossil fuels, according to a letter signed by dozens of city and state leaders and addressed to UN heads of state.

The call comes ahead of the United Nation’s Summit of the Future, which is set to kick off on Sunday in New York, and the UN General Assembly High-Level Week. World leaders at the summit are set to adopt the Pact for the Future, an intergovernmental blueprint for multilateral governance in an age of crisis.

“As you meet for the General Assembly and Summit of the Future, we as leaders of States and Cities, urge you to transition your countries away from fossil fuels,” the letter, signed by 14 mayors, governors, and subnational leaders across five continents, read. Together, they represent more than 40 million people. The signatories hope their call will add pressure on national leaders to turn their positive words about transitioning away from fossil fuels – a pledge they made at last year’s COP28 –  into concrete action.

Home to 56% of the global population, cities are responsible for 70% of global primary energy consumption and 60% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. They are also at the forefront of climate change, vulnerable to water-related hazards such as floods, droughts, sea level rise, and storm events as well as extreme heat. But as their climate vulnerability grows, so do their efforts in mitigating and adapting to a warming planet.

“Mayors and governors are making huge strides in improving building energy efficiency – from homes to offices and schools – electrifying bus fleets, scaling up renewable energy, setting up clean energy utilities, and creating good green jobs to build cleaner, safer communities,” the letter read. “Through our actions we are sending clear signals to markets that fossil fuels are not welcome.”

More on the topic: How Cities Are Bracing For More Heat

And yet, world leaders have been slow at recognizing the key role cities play in the journey to decarbonization. A recent UN-Habitat report found that only 27% of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) – national plans for emissions reduction that each signatory to the Paris Agreement is required to set up and update every five years – prominently featured urban sectors and identified them as a priority. Among the NDCs with strong urban focus are those of low- and middle-income countries including China, Colombia, Morocco, India, South Africa, and Turkey.

39% had moderate levels of urban content and the remaining 35% had low to no mention, including high-income and highly urbanized countries and regions such as Canada, Japan, the European Union, and the US along with Brazil, Indonesia, and Nigeria.

Speaking with Earth.Org in June, Lea Ranalder, Associate Programme Management Officer, Human Settlements at UN-Habitat acknowledged the gap between how cities are affected by climate change and how this is reflected in the NDCs.

“There’s a big disconnect between what projects need to happen and where the money goes. And it also has to do with our current climate finance infrastructure, where cities, depending on where they are, have problems getting the money.”

Ranalder’s sentiment was echoed in the letter.

“At a time when we need faster, fairer action, G20 nations continue to pour billions into fossil fuel  subsidies. It’s time to stop propping up these polluting industries and use these funds to scale up local and equitable climate action instead,” the signatories – which included the mayors of Milan, Boston, Montreal, Paris, and Barcelona – said.

Working with cities, Ranalder said, would allow countries to “tackle the climate crisis faster, more efficiently, and more effectively and with people in mind.” And yet, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) latest Assessment Report, $384 billion has so far been spent on climate action in urban areas, representing just 10% of what is necessary to build low-carbon and climate-resilient cities.

Featured image: Lieut. Commander Mark Moran, NOAA Corps, NMAO/AOC via Flickr.

The post Cities, States Leaders Call on World Leaders to Ban Fossil Fuels Ahead of UN Summit appeared first on Earth.Org.

Azerbaijan’s ecology minister and COP29 President-Designate Mukhtar Babayev said climate finance, energy storage and grids and methane reduction were “top priorities” at the upcoming summit.

—

Azerbaijan has unveiled a list of priorities for the upcoming climate summit, which included global energy storage, electric grids, and climate finance but left out the production and consumption of planet-warming fossil fuels.

In a letter to Parties and Constituencies published Tuesday, the COP29 Presidency outlined a series of voluntary initiatives and outcomes on its Action Agenda, laying out in full the series of pledges and declarations that it will use to supplement the negotiated COP agenda and accelerate climate action.

Climate change affects everyone differently: We face extreme heat, water scarcity, and declining water levels in the Caspian Sea that have a direct impact on our lives and livelihoods,” the letter, signed by Azerbaijan’s ecology minister and COP29 President-Designate Mukhtar Babayev, read. “But we are also a source of solutions and opportunities, such as our abundant wind and solar potential, which can play an important role in the renewable energy landscape, supporting transition to low-emissions and climate resilient development not only at the national, but also at the regional and global level, and we are determined to lead by example.

Through two initiatives – the Climate Finance Action Fund (CFAF) and the Baku Initiative for Climate Finance, Investment and Trade (BICFIT) – Azerbaijan is making climate finance its top priority. Announced in July, the CFAF will be capitalized with contributions from fossil fuel-producing countries and companies, with Azerbaijan as the founding contributor. Funds will be directed towards climate mitigation, adaptation, and R&D projects in developing countries as well as to support the next generation of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to limit global warming to 1.5C as set out in the Paris Agreement.

However, there is little indication that countries will be able to agree on a new global climate fundraising goal, which a recent UN report says needs to reach at least $500 billion per year. 

The Presidency is also committing to increasing global energy storage capacity six times above 2022 levels, reaching 1,500 gigawatts by 2030, through grid enhancement; accelerating climate-positive digitalisation and emission reductions in the Information and Communication Technology sector; and reducing methane emissions from the waste sector.

The outcome Declaration will also include targets for tourism in NDCs to promote sustainability and increase the sector’s resilience as well as calls for integrated approached to combat water-related issues, as outlined in the Action Agenda.

“We have developed initiatives to address all climate pillars, involve global, regional, national and subnational groups, take a holistic view of sustainable development, and include all demographics within an inclusive process that delivers inclusive outcomes.”

In July, the Presidency unveiled the two-week agenda and thematic days, which include climate finance, youth, education, tourism and gender equality.

Azerbaijan’s president Ilham Aliyev came under fire in January after appointing a 28-member, all-men committee tasked with preparing and implementing the Action Plan related to the organization and conduct of the summit. Following widespread backlash and criticism, Aliyev later announced the addition of 12 women, bringing the total number to 40.

On Monday, 122 civil society groups led by the Women and Gender Constituency (WGC), one of the nine stakeholder groups of the UNFCCC, sent a letter to the COP29 Presidency decrying the lack of progress on negotiations to renew the flagship gender action plan under the UNFCCC. The letter expresses concern about the lack of progress on the Enhanced Lima Work Programme, which aims to advance gender balance and integrate gender considerations, and criticises the lack of official response to previous efforts to raise the issue.

“The COP29 Presidency is failing to deliver for women in all their diversity, with a worrying lack of progress on negotiations to renew the Gender Action Plan,” said WGC’s Gina Cortés Valderrama. “Talks in Baku in November will only succeed if the essential groundwork is done in advance, but with only 2 months left to go, time is running out. We’re launching an urgent appeal to the Presidency to work with us to ensure climate action and gender justice go hand in hand.” 

Reactions

Several UN bodies, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF, congratulated Babayev and said they welcomed the agenda.

In a post on X (formerly known as Twitter), WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called the agenda “ambitious,” adding that it “further prioritizes health in the drive for stronger climate action.”

Meanwhile, Deputy Executive Director of Partnerships at UNICEF Van der Heijden pledged to “continue to work closely with COP29 and alongside partners to ensure Parties deliver child-responsive policies, finance and action for a better future for every child.”

Controversies

Notably, the Action Agenda did not include any mentions of phasing out planet-warming fossil fuels: coal, natural gas, and oil. This is despite the COP28 deal’s unprecedented call to “transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner to achieve net-zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.”

The burning of coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and heat is the single-largest source of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the primary drivers of global warming by trapping heat in the atmosphere and raising Earth’s surface temperature. Global fossil fuel consumption has more than doubled in the last 50 years as countries around the world have worked to improve their standards of living and economic output. However, scientists have long warned that curbing fossil fuel extraction and consumption is the only way to halt global warming and secure a liveable future.

The appointment of Azerbaijan, a highly fossil fuel-dependent state and the oldest oil-producing region in the world, as the COP29 host has reignited debates over the role of fossil fuels in the UN summit as it marked the third petrostate in a row to host the talks after the United Arab Emirates (UAE) last year and Egypt in 2022. 

Similar to last year’s talks, which were led by the head of the state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc) Sultan Al-Jaber, Babayev has ties with the fossil fuel industry and worked at state-owned oil and gas company Socar for more than two decades.

Countless environmental groups and countries called on the UN – which organizes COP meetings – to push for the adoption of conflict of interest guidelines for the COP presidency.

In May, 26 US lawmakers said they were “deeply concerned” by Babayev’s appointment in an open letter addressed to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Climate Envoy John Podesta. They also warned that Azerbaijan’s “poor human-rights record” and fossil fuel dependency could compromise the UN climate talks.

In April, Aliyev said his country will continue to invest in gas production in order to meet European Union demand for energy in a “sign of responsibility.” The remarks were part of his opening speech on the second day of the Petersberg Climate Dialogue, a yearly international conference co-hosted by the German Foreign Office and the current COP presidency that brings together selected countries to prepare for the UN summit.

“Having oil and gas deposits is not our fault. It’s a gift of God,” he said. “We must be judged not by that but on how we use this resource for the development of the country, for reduction of poverty, unemployment and what is our target with respect to [the] green agenda,” Aliyev remarked.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), oil and gas account for about 90% of Azerbaijan’s exports’ revenue and 60% of the government’s budget.

Featured image: IISD/ENB | Mike Muzurakis.

Follow our trusted coverage of COP29.

The post No Mention of Fossil Fuel Phaseout in COP29 Presidency’s Agenda appeared first on Earth.Org.

In June, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said advertising and PR agencies are enabling planetary destruction and urged them to stop promoting fossil fuel companies and drop existing clients.

—

The Dutch city of The Hague passed a groundbreaking law on Thursday to ban advertisements promoting fossil fuel products and services, the first city in the world to do so.

Effective from January 1, 2025, the new ban applies to fossil fuel products and high-carbon services such as cruise ships and air travel. The legislation is a crucial step in the city’s transition to net zero, which it aims to reach by 2030.

“The Hague wants to be climate neutral by 2030. Then it is not appropriate to allow advertising for products from the fossil industry,” said Leonie Gerritsen, a member of the city council for the Party for the Animals and one of the backers of the new local law.

For many, the ban will have repercussions beyond the local level and could act as a potential catalyst for similar actions worldwide.

British author, political economist and campaigner Andrew Simms said “any sensible, responsible authority” should follow The Hague’s example.

“The city of The Hague has declared it is no longer willing to promote its own self destruction by banning in law adverts for the most polluting products and lifestyles. After the hottest summer on record and the huge, rapidly growing health and economic costs of air pollution from burning fossil fuels, this legal move is one of the easiest steps governments can take at the city and national level,” Simms said. “When you are in a climate-crisis hole, the simplest thing to do is stop digging and that means not advertising the things that got you in trouble to begin with,” he added.

The move comes months after UN Secretary-General António Guterres called on countries to ban fossil fuel advertising in the same way they restricted tobacco.

“Many in the fossil fuel industry have shamelessly greenwashed, even as they have sought to delay climate action – with lobbying, legal threats, and massive ad campaigns. They have been aided and abetted by advertising and PR companies – Mad Men fuelling the madness,” Guterres said in a speech in June to mark World Environment Day.

In his speech, Guterres said advertising and PR agencies as well as news media and tech companies are enabling planetary destruction and urged them to stop promoting fossil fuels and drop existing clients. “Fossil fuels are not only poisoning our planet – they’re toxic for your brand,” he said.

Fossil fuel giants have repeatedly used international events, social media platforms, and influencers to promote their planet-warming activities.

A 2023 analysis by the Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) found that major fossil fuel corporations pumped millions of dollars into digital advertising in the lead-up to COP28, the year’s most important climate summit. The UN conference is notorious for allowing fossil fuel lobbyists to join the talks. According to an analysis by the Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO) coalition, at least 2,456 representatives from the world’s largest polluters were granted access to the talks in Dubai last year. At COP27 in Glasgow, the number was 636.

In May of last year, CAAD also accused video streaming platform YouTube of profiting from ads on climate disinformation videos. The global coalition of over 50 leading climate and anti-disinformation organizations identified 200 examples of YouTube videos containing climate misinformation and disinformation, which collectively served ads to over 73 million viewers.

FIFA’s four-year global partnership deal with Saudi Aramco, one of the largest oil companies in the world, to sponsor the 2026 men’s World Cup as well as the Women’s World Cup in 2027, is just another example.  

Thijs Bouman, Associate Professor at the University of Groningen and author of the paper “A ban on fossil ads is essential, but other measures are also needed”, said that fossil fuel advertising “normalizes and promotes unsustainable behavior and discourages sustainable behavior, actively undermining current climate policy.”

“Major government investments are needed to counteract the negative effect of fossil advertising. If fossil advertising is banned, these resources can be better deployed, for example to strengthen sustainable options and facilities such as public transport,” Bouman said.

The post The Hague Becomes First City in the World to Outlaw Fossil Fuel Advertising, Months After UN-Chief Call to Stop Fueling Disinformation appeared first on Earth.Org.