Climate Crisis Is A Health Crisis - International Court Of Justice Ruling Reaction From Health Community
Responding to today's much-anticipated Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Dr Jeni Miller, Executive Director at the Global Climate and Health Alliance said:
'The International Court of Justice has delivered a historic affirmation: the climate crisis is a health crisis—and failure to act is a failure to protect life. The Court made clear that fossil fuels are the root cause of this crisis, and that a state's failure to curb emissions—including through fossil fuel production, subsidies, or exploration—may constitute an internationally wrongful act. This ruling confirms that governments and corporations have a legal duty to prevent further harm, uphold the right to health, and safeguard future generations. From deadly heat and toxic air to disease and displacement, the Court's message is clear—human health is not collateral damage. Health workers and advocates now have powerful legal backing to demand bold, science-based climate action rooted in justice including a just transition away from fossil fuels, for health and the duty to protect life across all ages and borders.'
About GCHA
The Global Climate and Health Alliance is a consortium of more than 200 health professionals and health civil society organisations and networks from around the world addressing climate change. We are united by a shared vision of an equitable, sustainable future, in which the health impacts of climate change are minimised, and the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation are maximised.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
5 days ago
- Scoop
As Latin America's Health Pays Price Of Climate Crisis, Wealthy Countries Must Deliver Climate Justice
Brasilia, 29 July 2025:- As the 2025 Global Conference on Climate and Health opens, more than 50 Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) health organisations today called on governments to stop fueling the climate crisis, and or wealthy countries take the lead on cutting climate warming emissions, provide comprehensive and fair finance to prevent and repair health damages and deepening inequalities in the LAC region, and to end exploitive resource extraction in the region. The conference, co-hosted by the World Health Organization, the Pan American Health Organization and the government of Brazil, is an official event in the lead up to the COP30 UN climate negotiations, which Brazil will host in November. In their Common Position of Latin America and the Caribbean on Climate Change and Health, which will be launched at the conference on July 31, the 50 signatory health organisations note the relevance of the COP30 Presidency's Belem Health Action Plan, which focuses on adapting health systems to be resilient in the face of climate impacts. They add, however, that 'it is crucial that the plan situate adaptation within the broader context of climate action, recognizing the limits of adaptation and the circumstances of health systems, especially in developing countries, where the lack of effective mitigation will quickly lead to the exhaustion of response capacity, severely impacting public health in Latin America and the Caribbean.' Calling climate change not just an environmental issue, 'but also…a major ethical and political challenge' - the Common Position makes clear that action is needed across sectors, and that action to address the drivers of climate change, including through a just transition to clean energy, and restoration of ecosystems, will bring positive benefits to people's health. The Common Position was spearheaded by the Latin America and Caribbean Network on Climate and Health, which is convened by the Global Climate and Health Alliance. 'As he prepares to lead the COP30 negotiations in November, COP30 President Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago must emphasize to participating governments that while making health systems more resilient is essential, protecting health goes far beyond just adapting our health systems', said Jeni Miller, Executive Director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance, which brings together over 200 health professionals and health civil society organisations and networks to address climate change. 'Health must be addressed as a cross-cutting priority - through emission reductions, just transitions in key sectors, reforming harmful development models, and strategic finance. Brazil must ensure that across all pillars of climate action, COP30 delivers ambitious commitments that protect people's health.' "At COP30, to prevent human suffering, and avoid overwhelming our health systems, , governments around the world must act across sectors such as agriculture, water and sanitation, housing, transport, and energy, and must address the primary driver of climate change by phasing out fossil fuels - doing so fairly and in ways that do not create new health harms', said Miller. 'As the impacts of climate change accelerate across Latin America and the Caribbean, the health of millions of people is already being compromised, health systems are coming under unprecedented strain, and economies face severe risk', said Milena Sergeeva, Liaison Officer for Latin America for the Global Climate and Health Alliance,. 'A 2024 dengue outbreak in the Americas affected 12.6 million people. Two-thirds of health facilities in the region are in high climate-risk zones. In the Caribbean, over 250% of a country's GDP can be wiped out in one day by a severe hurricane. As these impacts result from a climate crisis overwhelmingly created by high income developed countries, wealthy countries must provide support to countries in the LAC region, in the form of financing, open access to data, and technology transfer, so that LAC countries have the means to respond.' The fifty organisations from across Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) that have developed the Common Position joined forces in the spirit of a mutirão (collective effort) - to bring forward their diverse perspectives into a joint call to action. The Common Position will be launched on July 31 at the climate and health conference, in Idea Labs session 3, from 14:30-15:00. 'Increasing climate ambition in Latin America and the Caribbean can be a great opportunity to reduce inequalities that have existed for more than 500 years in the region, which are structural determinants of health', said Francisco Chesini from the Iberomerican Society for Environmental Health, one of the Common Position signatory organizations. 'At a critical moment of global climate crisis, Latin America and the Caribbean are speaking out, identifying threats to health, their highly diverse environmental conditions, and notorious social inequalities, and presenting proposals to address them', said Christovam Barcellos, Head Researcher at the Laboratory of Health Information, Institute of Scientific and Technological Communication and Information in Health, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Ministry of Health - Brasil. "As young health advocates in Latin America and the Caribbean, we are witnessing how climate change is deepening historical health inequities', said Marcelo Manturano, Regional Director for the Americas at the International Federation of Medical Students' Associations, a signatory organization. 'From our position at IFMSA, we are committed to intergenerational, inclusive, and justice-based action, because a healthy planet is not only a right, but a condition for the health and dignity of our peoples." "Air pollution and climate change are an atmospheric combination that is undermining our life on the planet. Inaction is no longer an option. Science-based collaboration will make the difference." said Selene Martínez Guajardo, Executive Director of the Citizen Observatory of Air Quality of the Monterrey Metropolitan Area (OCCAMM), a signatory organization. "The Chilean Society of Preventive Medicine and Nutrition (SOCHIMENUP) is committed to maintaining and strengthening collaboration with its South American peers', said Dr. Francisca Soto-Aguilar Bralic, President of the Chilean Society of Preventive Medicine and Nutrition (SOCHIMENUP), a signatory organization. 'Our motivation is clear, and our vision is shared: to use scientific knowledge in health and nutrition as a fundamental tool for building a more resilient and healthy future in the face of the challenges of climate change." 'We believe that protecting the climate means protecting the health of all people, which is why we are committed to promoting comprehensive, evidence-based actions to address the impacts of climate change on the health of Ecuadorians and ensure a more just, healthy, and resilient future', said Dr. Francisco Rosero, Coordinator of the International Relations Commission and General Coordinator of Commissions, at the Ecuadorian Society of Public Health, a signatory organization. In addition to providing recommendations for governments in the region, the health organisations also call on the international community to: Ensure that transitions to a fossil-fuel-free economy are fair and healthy, protecting health and human rights in the face of the growing global demand for critical minerals and agricultural products affecting the region. Place adaptation in the broader context of climate action in the Belém Health Action Plan. Increase international support to strengthen regional capacities in health and climate change, facilitating the transfer of technologies, financial resources, and open data for the generation of scientific evidence and institutional strengthening in the region. Implement strict international measures to limit the undue influence of polluting industries in international climate negotiations. Ensure that climate finance mechanisms prioritize projects that protect health.
Scoop
23-07-2025
- Scoop
Climate Crisis Is A Health Crisis - International Court Of Justice Ruling Reaction From Health Community
The Hague, 23 July 2025 Responding to today's much-anticipated Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Dr Jeni Miller, Executive Director at the Global Climate and Health Alliance said: 'The International Court of Justice has delivered a historic affirmation: the climate crisis is a health crisis—and failure to act is a failure to protect life. The Court made clear that fossil fuels are the root cause of this crisis, and that a state's failure to curb emissions—including through fossil fuel production, subsidies, or exploration—may constitute an internationally wrongful act. This ruling confirms that governments and corporations have a legal duty to prevent further harm, uphold the right to health, and safeguard future generations. From deadly heat and toxic air to disease and displacement, the Court's message is clear—human health is not collateral damage. Health workers and advocates now have powerful legal backing to demand bold, science-based climate action rooted in justice including a just transition away from fossil fuels, for health and the duty to protect life across all ages and borders.' About GCHA The Global Climate and Health Alliance is a consortium of more than 200 health professionals and health civil society organisations and networks from around the world addressing climate change. We are united by a shared vision of an equitable, sustainable future, in which the health impacts of climate change are minimised, and the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation are maximised.
Scoop
17-07-2025
- Scoop
Study Slams Family Court's Reliance On 'Junk' Research
The Family Court is basing decisions on 'junk' evidence and putting children's futures at risk, according to a new journal article. You might imagine the expert evidence heard in the Family Court, such as what's provided by court psychologists, would stand up to scrutiny… not so, according to a scathing new journal article. The study suggests judges, lawyers and psychologists in New Zealand's Family Court are routinely accepting 'junk' evidence to support critical decisions about children's lives. University of Auckland law scholar Associate Professor Carrie Leonetti reviewed 29 Family Court judgements under the New Zealand Care of Children Act in which court professionals claimed to be citing academic research to support their decisions. Her investigation finds they frequently cited material that was not academic research, instead relying on online content, unpublished handouts, and presentations from conferences or legal training sessions. "Clinical psychologists, often working without specialised forensic training, are presenting evidence that would not withstand academic scrutiny," she says. "I'm shocked at how judges never go … 'but but but'… and ask some questions. We need to define what's real, what isn't, what's reliable, and what's not.' New Zealand's Evidence Act 2006 and the High Court Rules require expert witnesses to base their recommendations on evidence that's within their area of expertise and generally accepted within a scientific field and specify the literature they rely on. Yet Leonetti's paper details breaches of these requirements – including experts opining outside their area of expertise, misrepresenting research, and failing to qualify sweeping claims. Examples include statements like "almost all disclosures of sexual abuse by children whose parents have separated are false" or "studies show that all children are better off in shared care" – broad claims Leonetti says are based on misrepresented or misunderstood literature. "The Court's reliance on a small, fringe collection of writings from conferences, trainings, and legal journals rather than peer-reviewed science publications is dangerous and unjust." Associate Professor Carrie LeonettiAuckland Law School Leonetti's paper, published in the Indiana Health Law Review, says some professionals referenced controversial or discredited theories while omitting landmark studies like research into Adverse Childhood Experiences, which shows the long-term traumatic impact of exposure to family violence in childhood. She says Family Court judges, lawyers, and psychologists frequently misrepresent or misuse academic literature, dismissing evidence they disagree with and cherry-picking non-peer-reviewed material to support pre-existing views. The paper also identifies what Leonetti dubs "Family Court favourites" – a small number of obscure authors and articles cited disproportionately by court professionals, regardless of their academic significance. "The Court's reliance on a small, fringe collection of writings from conferences, trainings, and legal journals rather than peer-reviewed science publications is dangerous and unjust." She also highlights the high cost of accessing peer-reviewed scientific publications and the rise of "predatory" academic journals. "Since the 2000s, thousands of online journals with little to no peer review have emerged, making it difficult for non-experts to identify scientifically valid research." This erosion of the meaning of academic publication, says Leonetti, has made it harder for non-experts, such as judges, lawyers, and court psychologists, to 'separate the wheat from the chaff when deciding which literature warrants consideration and which is the functional equivalent of self-publication. "These courts are essentially making life-changing decisions about children's futures based on what amounts to professional folklore rather than scientific evidence." The study recommends broad reform, including forensic training for clinical psychologists, enhanced mechanisms for accessing rigorous, peer-reviewed research and comprehensive training for court personnel in understanding peer-reviewed research. "For a start, court psychologists should have forensic training. Much of the 'research' they reference isn't drawn from academic journals or subjected to rigorous peer review. It's often recycled evidence that's been put forward by paid expert witnesses abroad, particularly in the US where poorly regulated expert evidence is highly monetised.' "Then there's the issue of judges accepting this in court, not questioning the author, the name of the journal, whether it's peer-reviewed... simply not looking into things further." Judges shouldn't allow psychologists (or lawyers for the child or themselves) to make blanket statements relating to "the literature" or "research" or "studies showing", says Leonetti. "Any psychologist or other expert who cannot describe in detail, provide copies of, and explain the application of academic research on which their opinions are based lacks the qualification to offer expert forensic evidence."
