
Sustainable Switch: World Court tells countries they must address climate change
To receive the full newsletter in your inbox for free sign up here.
Hello!
I'm back! You've probably been missing all your latest environment, social and governance news, but not to worry as today's newsletter is worth the wait.
This week, the United Nations' highest court delivered an opinion set to determine future environmental litigation, as the United States Environmental Protection Agency plans to reverse its scientific determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health.
Both the World Court opinion and EPA decisions take place as countries around the world struggle to stave off the effects of a heating planet. Keep scrolling for today's "Talking Points" stories for more on the impact of rising temperatures on Egypt and China.
Let's start with the landmark legal opinion by the International Court of Justice which said countries must address the "urgent and existential threat" of climate change by cooperating to curb emissions.
The ICJ said failure by countries to meet their climate obligations could, in specific cases, lead other states affected by climate change to litigate.
Judge Yuji Iwasawa said countries were obliged to comply with the "stringent obligations" placed on them by climate treaties and failure to do so was a breach of international law.
'Human right to a sustainable environment'
Judges were asked by the U.N. General Assembly to consider two questions after two weeks of hearings last December: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system?
Developing nations and small island states at greatest risk from rising sea levels made their case for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid.
Wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities.
Under international law, Judge Iwasawa said: "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights."
Historically, rich industrialised countries have been responsible for the most emissions. Iwasawa said these countries had to take the lead in addressing the problem and not doing so could pave the way for other states affected by climate change to seek reparations in litigation in specific cases.
Check out today's "In Conversation" comment by a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, on the ICJ ruling.
EPA re-thinking greenhouse gas emissions
While the ICJ's ruling mentioned the "existential threat" to the world posed by greenhouse gas emissions and the need for countries to cooperate on reduction targets, the U.S. EPA will reverse its scientific determination that those emissions endanger public health, removing the legal foundation that underpins all major climate regulations, two sources familiar with the discussions told Reuters.
Reversal of the "endangerment finding" would gut one of the most consequential federal standards that had enabled the U.S. to tackle climate change by regulating vehicles, industries, and energy-producing facilities that emit heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
Without the finding, the EPA could more easily undo major regulations that limit greenhouse gas emissions, the sources said.
One source said the proposal would focus on EPA's legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, not the scientific basis for it.
Lawyers have said that challenging the scientific basis of the finding would be difficult because the body of evidence that humans are causing climate change is 'unequivocal.'
The U.S. is the largest historical greenhouse gas emitter and currently the No. 2 emitter after China.
IN CONVERSATION
Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, shares her thoughts on the ICJ opinion: 'The verdict is out: polluters must pay. The Court declared the era of fossil fuel impunity over.
'This ruling's message is clear: under international law, there is no exemption for climate destruction.
'It sets a new global standard for urgent and effective climate action and clearly affirms that those suffering the impacts of climate devastation have a right to remedy and reparation.
'This offers a vital lifeline to frontline communities and nations, with far-reaching consequences for climate litigation and multilateral negotiations.
'This case started with a petition by the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change in a classic 'David vs Goliath' case. This victory for climate justice is a powerful testament to the leadership of Pacific youth, young campaigners across regions, and frontline nations.
'Advisory opinions are authoritative rulings anchored in binding international law and carry substantial legal weight. The reasoning behind this ruling will appear in judges' rulings and lawyers' briefs in numerous climate cases worldwide.
'This opinion will guide climate litigation at the local, regional, and national courts. It provides a foundation for climate policy-making and will ground local legislation and global negotiations in legal obligation.'
Today's Sustainable Switch was edited by Jane Merriiman
Think your friend or colleague should know about us? Forward this newsletter to them. They can also subscribe here.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
2 minutes ago
- Reuters
UN urges Australia to step up climate action
SYDNEY, July 28 (Reuters) - The United Nations climate chief has called on Australia to set an ambitious 2035 emissions target and accelerate its clean energy transition, warning a failure to act risks eroding living standards and regional stability. Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said Australia should "go for what's smart by going big". "Don't settle for what's easy. Bog standard is beneath you," he said at a Smart Energy Council event in Sydney. Australia faces scrutiny for backing new fossil fuel projects while seeking to co-host the UN COP31 climate summit with the Pacific next year. The centre-left Labor government, which took power in 2022 with a mandate to reduce carbon emissions, cleared the country's largest gas plant to run until 2070 in May – a decision that critics said called into question Australia's commitment to tackling climate change. Australia is also among the highest polluting countries per capita due to its coal power generation. Consultancy Wood Mackenzie has projected Australia is set to fall far short of its target of 82% renewable generation by 2030 due to state-level rollbacks, grid connection delays and inadequate investment. Stiell said the country's 2035 emissions reduction target, due in September, would be a 'defining moment' that could send a message that 'this country is open for clean investment, trade, and long-term partnerships'. Australia also had the opportunity to become a global leader in renewables and that 'doubling down on clean energy is an economic no-brainer', he said. He warned that a lack of action would erode living standards and destabilise Australia's neighbours in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, which were more susceptible to rising sea levels and extreme weather. 'This is the moment: to get behind a climate plan that doesn't just write that vision into policy – but delivers in spades for your people,' Stiell said.


Times
5 hours ago
- Times
Trump tilts at ‘windmills' that ruin view from his golf course
President Trump has claimed that wind turbines are an ecological 'con job' blighting the countryside, killing birds and driving whales 'loco'. During a press conference with Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, he said: 'I say to Europe, we will not allow a windmill to be built in the United States. They're killing us. They're killing the beauty of our scenery, our valleys, our beautiful plains.' On the third day of his visit to Scotland, Trump said that the wind turbines had ruined the view from the 18th hole of his Ayrshire golf course. 'Today, I'm playing the best course, I think, in the world,' he said. 'Turnberry, even though I own it, it's probably the best course in the world. And I look over the horizon and I see nine windmills. It's like, 'Great, at the end of the 18th'. I said, 'Isn't that a shame?' What a shame.' He added: 'It's the most expensive form of energy. They're made in China, almost all of them. When they start to rust and rot in eight years you can't really turn them off, you can't burn them. They won't let you bury the propellers, the props, because there's a certain type of fibre that doesn't go well with the land. 'That's what they say. The environmentalists say you can't bury them because the fibre doesn't go well with the land. In other words, if you bury it, it will harm our soil. The whole thing is a con job.' He claimed the turbines were being peddled by 'environmental hacks' but were not ecologically friendly as the fibres from which they are made do not break down. Trump also declared that wind turbines harmed nature with their noise and killed birds that were struck by the blades. 'It kills the birds. They're noisy. You know, you have a certain place in the Massachusetts area that over the last 20 years had one or two whales wash ashore and over the last short period of time they had 18, because it's driving them loco,' he went on. 'It's driving them crazy.'

Reuters
6 hours ago
- Reuters
US, Europe strike trade deal averting tariff threats
The United States has struck a framework trade deal with Europe, U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Sunday, averting a spiraling row between two allies who account for almost a third of global trade.