Latin America court calls for unified climate action as legal fights mount
SANTIAGO (Reuters) -Member states must cooperate to tackle climate change and not take actions that set back environmental protections, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) said in a non-binding advisory opinion issued on Thursday.
The court holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries and the advisory opinion, requested by Colombia and Chile, said that countries must also regulate and monitor corporate activities, especially those that generate greenhouse gases.
The opinion also said companies must adopt "effective" measures to combat climate change and states should discourage "greenwashing" and undue corporate influence in politics and regulations related to climate change.
States must also pass legislation for companies to act with "due diligence when it comes to human rights and climate change along their value chain."
States must also set binding GHG emission mitigation goals that "are as ambitious as possible" with concrete time frames. Cooperation must go beyond transboundary harm, the opinion said, and should go beyond mitigation and adaptation and cover all necessary measures to comprehensively respond to the climate emergency.
Maria Antonia Tigre, director of global climate change litigation at the Sabin Center at Columbia Law School, said that many countries rely on these opinions as precedent, even though they're non-binding.
"The (IACHR) is a little bit of a special case because it's highly influential in domestic courts," Tigre said, adding that regional supreme courts often cite IACHR opinions.
"The other aspect is if there is a contentious case on the topic, it will likely follow what's said in the advisory opinion," she said, citing a 2024 IACHR as an example.
In 2024, the IACHR ordered Peru to pay damages to a mining town, a decision that followed the 2017 interpretation of an 2017 advisory opinion the court issued that stated that a healthy environment was a human right.
The ruling builds on a global wave of climate litigation as countries, organizations and individuals are increasingly turning to courts for climate action.
Last year, the European Court of Human Rights said climate inaction violates human rights and a South Korean court said that the country's climate change law does not effectively shield future generations.
Vanuatu has also urged the top United Nations court to recognize the harm caused by climate change in its judgment on the legal obligation of countries to fight it and address the consequences of contributing to global warming. The ruling is expected this year.
The IACHR opinion noted that climate litigation is an "emerging field" but also an increasingly essential tool for holding states and companies accountable for climate change and obligations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
2 hours ago
- Fast Company
Other countries are stepping up after Trump pulled the U.S. out of the climate fight
When President Donald Trump announced in early 2025 that he was withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement for the second time, it triggered fears that the move would undermine global efforts to slow climate change and diminish America's global influence. A big question hung in the air: Who would step into the leadership vacuum? I study the dynamics of global environmental politics, including through the United Nations climate negotiations. While it's still too early to fully assess the long-term impact of the U.S.'s political shift when it comes to global cooperation on climate change, there are signs that a new set of leaders is rising to the occasion. World responds to another U.S. withdrawal The U.S. first committed to the Paris Agreement in a joint announcement by President Barack Obama and China's Xi Jinping in 2015. At the time, the U.S. agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025 and pledged financial support to help developing countries adapt to climate risks and embrace renewable energy. too weak. Since then, the U.S. has cut emissions by 17.2% below 2005 levels —missing the goal, in part because its efforts have been stymied along the way. Just two years after the landmark Paris Agreement, Trump stood in the Rose Garden in 2017 and announced he was withdrawing the U.S. from the treaty, citing concerns that jobs would be lost, that meeting the goals would be an economic burden, and that it wouldn't be fair because China, the world's largest emitter today, wasn't projected to start reducing its emissions for several years. Scientists and some politicians and business leaders were quick to criticize the decision, calling it 'shortsighted' and 'reckless.' Some feared that the Paris Agreement, signed by almost every country, would fall apart. But it did not. In the United States, businesses such as Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Tesla made their own pledges to meet the Paris Agreement goals. Hawaii passed legislation to become the first state to align with the agreement. A coalition of U.S. cities and states banded together to form the United States Climate Alliance to keep working to slow climate change. Globally, leaders from Italy, Germany, and France rebutted Trump's assertion that the Paris Agreement could be renegotiated. Others from Japan, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand doubled down on their own support of the global climate accord. In 2020, President Joe Biden brought the U.S. back into the agreement. Now, with Trump pulling the U.S. out again—and taking steps to eliminate U.S. climate policies, boost fossil fuels, and slow the growth of clean energy at home—other countries are stepping up. On July 24, 2025, China and the European Union issued a joint statement vowing to strengthen their climate targets and meet them. They alluded to the U.S., referring to 'the fluid and turbulent international situation today' in saying that 'the major economies . . . must step up efforts to address climate change.' In some respects, this is a strength of the Paris Agreement—it is a legally nonbinding agreement based on what each country decides to commit to. Its flexibility keeps it alive, as the withdrawal of a single member does not trigger immediate sanctions, nor does it render the actions of others obsolete. The agreement survived the first U.S. withdrawal, and so far, all signs point to it surviving the second one. Who's filling the leadership vacuum From what I've seen in international climate meetings and my team's research, it appears that most countries are moving forward. One bloc emerging as a powerful voice in negotiations is the Like-Minded Group of Developing Countries, a group of low- and middle-income nations that includes China, India, Bolivia, and Venezuela. Driven by economic development concerns, these countries are pressuring the developed world to meet its commitments to both cut emissions and provide financial aid to poorer countries. China, motivated by economic and political factors, seems to be happily filling the climate power vacuum created by the U.S. exit. In 2017, China voiced disappointment over the first U.S. withdrawal. It maintained its climate commitments and pledged to contribute more in climate finance to other developing countries than the U.S. had committed to $3.1 billion compared with $3 billion. This time around, China is using leadership on climate change in ways that fit its broader strategy of gaining influence and economic power by supporting economic growth and cooperation in developing countries. Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China has scaled up renewable energy exports and development in other countries, such as investing in solar power in Egypt and wind energy development in Ethiopia. While China is still the world's largest coal consumer, it has aggressively pursued investments in renewable energy at home, including solar, wind, and electrification. In 2024, about half the renewable energy capacity built worldwide was in China. While it missed the deadline to submit its climate pledge due this year, China has a goal of peaking its emissions before 2030 and then dropping to net-zero emissions by 2060. It is continuing major investments in renewable energy, both for its own use and for export. The U.S. government, in contrast, is cutting its support for wind and solar power. China also just expanded its carbon market to encourage emissions cuts in the cement, steel, and aluminum sectors. The British government has also ratcheted up its climate commitments as it seeks to become a clean energy superpower. In 2025, it pledged to cut emissions 77% by 2035 compared with 1990 levels. Its new pledge is also more transparent and specific than in the past, with details on how specific sectors, such as power, transportation, construction, and agriculture, will cut emissions. And it contains stronger commitments to provide funding to help developing countries grow more sustainably. In terms of corporate leadership, while many American businesses are being quieter about their efforts in order to avoid sparking the ire of the Trump administration, most appear to be continuing on a green path—despite the lack of federal support and diminished rules. i and Statista's ' America's Climate Leader List ' includes about 500 large companies that have reduced their carbon intensity (carbon emissions divided by revenue) by 3% from the previous year. The data shows that the list is growing, up from about 400 in 2023. What to watch at the 2025 climate talks The Paris Agreement isn't going anywhere. Given the agreement's design, with each country voluntarily setting its own goals, the U.S. never had the power to drive it into obsolescence. The question is whether developed and developing country leaders alike can navigate two pressing needs—economic growth and ecological sustainability—without compromising their leadership on climate change. This year's U.N. climate conference in Brazil, COP30, will show how countries intend to move forward and, importantly, who will lead the way.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Brazil vows to defend supreme court against Donald Trump's onslaught
Brazil has vowed to defend its supreme court from 'unacceptable interference' after Donald Trump imposed 50 per cent tariffs and sanctioned Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
CNN
3 hours ago
- CNN
Analysis: The US government has declared war on the very idea of climate change
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. Americans are used to whiplash in their climate policy. The US has been in and out and in and out again of the key Paris climate agreement over the past four presidencies. But in his second administration, President Donald Trump is not just approaching climate science with skepticism. Instead, his administration is moving to destroy the methods by which his or any future administration can respond to climate change. These moves, which are sure to be challenged in court, extend far beyond Trump's well-documented antipathy toward solar and wind energy and his pledges to drill ever more oil even though the US is already the world's largest oil producer. His Environmental Protection Agency announced plans this week to declare that greenhouse gas emissions do not endanger humans, a move meant to pull the rug out from under nearly all environmental regulation related to the climate. But that's just one data point. There are many others: ► Instead of continuing a push away from coal, the Trump administration wants to do a U-turn; Trump has signed executive orders intended to boost the coal industry and has ordered the EPA to end federal limits on coal- and gas-fired power-plant pollution that's been tied to climate change. ► Tax credits for electric vehicles persisted during Trump's first term before they were expanded during Joe Biden's presidency. Now, Republicans are abruptly ending them next month. ► The administration is also ending Biden-era US government incentives to bring renewable energy projects online, a move that actually appears to be driving up the cost of electricity. ► Republicans in Congress and Trump enacted legislation to strip California of its authority to ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles beginning in 2035. ► Trump is also expected to overturn national tailpipe standards enacted under Biden's EPA and is also to challenge California's long-held power to regulate tailpipe emissions. ► The authors of a congressionally mandated report on climate change were all fired; previous versions of the report, the National Climate Assessment, which showed likely effects from climate change across the country, have been hidden from view on government websites. ► Other countries, large and small, will gather in Brazil later this year for a consequential meeting on how the world should respond to climate change. Rather than play a leading role — or any role at all — the US will not attend. ► Cuts to the federal workforce directly targeted offices and employees focused on climate change. The list goes on. But it is the Trump administration's move to undo the 'endangerment finding' that could have the most lasting effect. The 2009 declaration that planet-warming pollution from fossil fuels endangers human health is what allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Now, anticipating the end of that endangerment finding, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin bragged of the 'largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States.' That's the kind of statement that will excite people who don't see a threat from climate change and strike fear in the hearts of those who do. Zeldin is a former congressman with little background in environmental policy but a demonstrated loyalty to Trump. He has described his mandate at EPA less in terms of protecting the environment than in terms of unleashing businesses from regulation. The Trump administration is justifying its move to gut the endangerment finding based on a report it commissioned from five climate skeptics. After a public comment period, the Trump administration can move to undo the endangerment finding in the fall. It would essentially close off the Clean Air Act as a vehicle to combat climate change. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who made millions in the fracking industry, commissioned the report. In a preface, he did not deny that climate change exists. 'Climate change is real, and it deserves attention,' he wrote. 'But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty.' In other words, Wright sees more damage to humans from cutting back on carbon emissions. That is a minority view in the scientific community, which has a much, much larger body of peer reviewed studies that raise the alarm about climate change. Most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues peer-reviewed reports with hundreds of authors from around world. The Trump administration has barred US government scientists from taking part in the next installment, due out in 2029. Katie Dykes, the commissioner of Connecticut's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, told me that you no longer need a government report to see the effects of changing climate. 'We see that the impacts of climate change have become part of everyday lives of our residents and our communities,' Dykes said. 'In ways that scientists were predicting years ago, we're seeing those impacts are happening faster and they're more severe than we had anticipated.' By moving to declare that greenhouse gas emissions don't endanger humans, the Trump administration is shifting the burden for dealing with climate change. 'This effort to undo this long-standing framework is really abandoning our communities and our residents to shoulder these costs and these impacts of climate change,' Dykes said. Those include health risks like respiratory illness, safety risks from extreme weather events, and impacts on infrastructure, housing and neighborhoods. 'We've seen these impacts already in our state in terms of extreme heat and drought, wildfires and flooding,' Dykes said. 'Seeing EPA walk away from decades of their core mission of protecting public health, reducing pollution and setting common sense standards at a national level is really concerning,' she added. The Trump administration's report should not be viewed as a scientific document, according to Andrew Dessler, director of the Texas Center for Extreme Weather at Texas A&M University. 'Their goal is not to weigh the evidence fairly but to build the strongest possible case for CO2's innocence,' he told my colleague Ella Nilsen. 'This is a fundamental departure from the norms of science.' Nilsen reached out to numerous scientists after the report's release. Phil Duffy, the chief scientist at Spark Climate Solutions, a nonprofit focused on climate change, told her tens of thousands of Americans die every year as a result of particulate pollution, but the numbers have declined as the US has reduced its dependence on coal. The Trump administration would reverse that trend. Michael Mann, director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media, sees a hostility to science in the Trump administration. 'Not since Stalin and Soviet Lysenkoism have we seen such a brazen effort to misrepresent science in service of an ideological agenda,' Mann told Nilsen, referring to the disastrous effects of political interference in the scientific process in the Soviet Union.
