Latest news with #ParisClimateAgreement
Irish Examiner
25 minutes ago
- Business
- Irish Examiner
Europe and China agree to take action on climate change during tense summit
China and the EU have issued a joint call to action on climate change during a tense bilateral summit in Beijing riven with major disagreements over trade and the war in Ukraine. The two economic giants issued a joint statement urging more emissions cuts and greater use of green technology and affirming their support for the Paris Climate Agreement, as well as calling for strong action at the upcoming Cop30 climate summit in Brazil. 'In the fluid and turbulent international situation today, it is crucial that all countries, notably the major economies, maintain policy continuity and stability and step up efforts to address climate change,' the joint statement said. Rebalancing our bilateral relation is essential. Because to be sustainable, relations need to be mutually beneficial The climate agreement was a silver lining on a stormy day when European leaders demanded a more balanced relationship with Beijing in talks with President Xi Jinping. They highlighted trade in their opening remarks, calling for concrete progress to address Europe's yawning trade deficit with China. 'As our co-operation has deepened, so have the imbalances,' European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said. 'We have reached an inflection point. Rebalancing our bilateral relation is essential. Because to be sustainable, relations need to be mutually beneficial.' Expectations had been low before the talks, initially supposed to last two days but scaled back to one. They come amid financial uncertainty around the world, wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, and the threat of US tariffs. Neither the EU nor China is likely to budge on key issues. European Council president Antonio Costa called on China to use its influence over Russia to bring an end to the war in Ukraine — a long-running plea from European leaders which is likely to fall again on deaf ears. Mr Xi called for deeper co-operation between China and Europe to provide stability in an increasingly complex world. Both sides should set aside differences and seek common ground, he said, a phrase he often uses in relationships like the one with the EU. We hope the EU will keep its trade and investment markets open, refrain from using restrictive economic and trade tools and provide a good business environment for Chinese companies to invest and develop in Europe Beijing is willing to strengthen co-ordination on climate and make greater contributions to addressing climate change, he said, but he pushed back against EU restrictions on Chinese exports. 'We hope the EU will keep its trade and investment markets open, refrain from using restrictive economic and trade tools and provide a good business environment for Chinese companies to invest and develop in Europe,' he said, according to state broadcaster CCTV. Besides trade and the Ukraine war, Ms von der Leyen and Mr Costa were expected to raise concerns about Chinese cyberattacks and espionage, its restrictions on the export of rare earth minerals and its human rights record in Tibet, Hong Kong and Xinjiang. The EU, meanwhile, has concerns about a looming trade battle with the US. Beijing's stance has hardened on the EU, despite a few olive branches, like the suspension of sanctions on European legislators who criticised Beijing's human rights record in Xinjiang province, where it is accused of a widespread campaign of repression against the Uyghurs. Like the US, the 27-nation EU bloc runs a massive trade deficit with China — around 300 billion euros (£260 billion) last year. It relies heavily on China for critical minerals and the magnets made from them for cars and appliances. The EU has imposed tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles to support its car makers by balancing out Beijing's heavy subsidies. China would like those tariffs revoked. The rapid growth in China's market share in Europe has sparked concern that Chinese cars will eventually threaten the EU's ability to produce its own green technology to combat climate change. Business groups and unions also fear that the jobs of 2.5 million car industry workers could be put in jeopardy, as well those of 10.3 million more people whose employment depends indirectly on EV production.
Morocco World
an hour ago
- Politics
- Morocco World
ICJ Says Polluters Can be Held Responsible for Climate Change
Rabat – The International Court of Justice at The Hague in the Netherlands handed down a ruling on climate justice and accountability on Wednesday. This follows a long, landmark legal case initiated by Vanuatu. The court has ruled that developing nations have the right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure. Nations can also sue for compensation . However, these decisions would need to be made on a case-by-case basis, and be supported by strong evidence linking the damage to climate change. . During the evidence-based hearings in December last year, the court heard from a number of different nations on ecological damage. The ICJ opinion can also lead to countries that are the biggest emitters being sued for fossil fuel production. It also opens the door for smaller nations to present their cases. The case was brought forward by Vanuatu, a small Pacific Island nation , and backed by 130 countries, as many states have faced threats from climate change and harsh environmental conditions. Vanuatu's coral reefs have recently suffered from a series of devastating natural disasters, rising sea levels, and climate change. This has resulted in widespread coral bleaching across the nation in what the government has referred to as ecocide. The decision is non-binding but will be considered a legal benchmark in terms of environmental law. It is the first-ever opinion on climate change and ecological justice. It will serve as a standard for future court decisions. This is one of the largest cases overseen by the ICJ, with judges having been through tens of thousands of pages of documents and heard over two weeks of oral arguments. Fifteen judges from the ICJ announced their decision on Wednesday. The decision of the court is non-binding at the present time, but it has the potential to be used by national governments and international organisations. The judgment goes further than climate change agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement and COP decisions. Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law, told the Associated Press that this case 'makes this so important because it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action. It's not just about future targets, it also tackles historical responsibility because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots.' The case was first sent to court in 2023, and Vanuatu presented its testimony in December. Activists have insisted that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is not enough, and in their opinion, the ICJ is 'the only international jurisdiction with a general competence over all areas of International Law, which allows it to provide such an answer.' Many similar court rulings have been made recently, including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which found that countries have a legal duty to avoid environmental harm and to protect ecosystems. The European Court of Human Rights came to a similar conclusion. This decision will outline the obligations of nations and potential penalties for the negative effects of ecocide. It will also seek to have ecocide seen as a crime under international law. It will look at what states should be doing in terms of their human rights obligations and the impact of the sea-level rise and climate change. It will also look at the potential for action to be taken by bigger states, which are the largest contributors of Greenhouse Gas emissions, towards smaller , more affected states. Action on climate change has become more vital in recent years as the effects have intensified exponentially over the last decade, with sea levels rising by an average of 4.3 centimetres a year, and an increase of 1.3 °C in global average temperature. Pacific Island nations have been at the front line of climate change. As sea levels rise, their territory disappears. Several states are likely to have disappeared by 2050, destroying entire communities. This decision and announcement mark a historic landmark for ecological accountability and environmental justice.
The Hill
19 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
UN top court: Failure to act against climate change could violate international law
The top court of the United Nations on Wednesday declared that countries have an obligation to combat climate change — and that a failure to do so could constitute a violation of international law. Judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) adopted an advisory opinion on the subject that emphasized the 'duty' of states 'to use all means at their disposal' to minimize harm to the environment. The opinion tasked governments with cooperating on this mission, noting that 'a breach by a state of any obligations' identified in the advisory 'constitutes an internationally wrongful act.' Potential consequences of such violations could include 'full reparation to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction,' the document stated. In remarks prior to reading out the opinion, ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa stressed that the climate questions raised in the proceedings 'represent more than a legal problem.' 'They concern an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperil all forms of life and the very health of our planet,' Iwasawa said. The judges delivered their non-binding opinion with unanimous support, marking just the fifth time the body has done so in its 80-year history, according to the UN. The advisory ruling followed years of lobbying from island nations, arguing that they were at the mercy of climate-induced sea-level rise. The UN General Assembly decided to ask the ICJ for its advisory opinion in 2023, in a case led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu. 'International law, whose authority has been invoked by the General Assembly has an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem,' Iwasawa said on Wednesday. 'A complete solution to this daunting and self-inflicted problem requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge,' he added. While the advisory opinion emphasizes the responsibility of nations to act with due diligence to combat climate change, it also recognizes that those duties are 'differentiated' among countries. When taken as a whole, however, these efforts should collectively contribute to limiting global warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius, as agreed upon in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, per the opinion. In a press conference following the ICJ's delivery, Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's climate change minister, expressed satisfaction not only with the opinion, but also with the fact that it was unanimous. 'It really points to the critical nature of this issue, and also the consensus of most people in the world that we need to really address it as a matter of urgency,' Regenvanu said. Describing the ruling as 'a landmark moment,' the minister added that 'the evidence is clear, and we can see it everywhere, that climate change is affecting everybody, all over the world.' Ilan Kiloe of the Melanesian Spearhead Group Secretariat — a regional government agency in Vanuatu — added that area residents have already 'suffered forced relocation' and have 'lost much of what defines us as Pacific Islanders.' 'And climate change has only gotten started,' Kiloe said. Vishal Prasad, campaign director for Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, described the opinion as 'a lifeline and an opportunity to protect all that we hold dear.' 'This ruling is also a testament to the resolve of people everywhere, those at the front lines who chose not to allow the decisions of a minority of countries to dictate the future of the global majority,' he said. The ICJ opinion, Prashad added, provides countries with a foundation to build a more sustainable and equitable future. As far as wrongful acts and reparations are concerned, attorney Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh said she believes that 'the court has made it crystal clear' that injured states could now raise 'a whole range of defenses' against polluters. 'It really strengthens the legal basis for such claims going forward,' added Wewerinke-Singh, an international lawyer at Blue Ocean Law who served as legal counsel for Vanuatu's case. She expressed hope that many polluting states would now prefer to voluntarily pay off reparations, rather than engaging in litigation. Responding to questions about the United States, a major polluter that does not recognize the ICJ's legal authority, Wewerinke-Singh said that as a U.N. member, the U.S. does, however, accept the court's advisory function. Since the U.N. General Assembly, including the U.S., requested the ICJ's opinion, the U.S. 'is also supposed to follow this advice' as long as it remains part of the U.N., she explained. In the aftermath of the ruling, Regenvanu — Vanuatu's climate change minister — said that next steps will involve taking the ICJ ruling back to the General Assembly and pursuing a resolution to support its implementation. 'We hope to set a new status quo and provide the structural changes needed to give our current and future generations hope for a healthy planet and a sustainable future,' Regenvanu said. 'Let this be the moment when we see a change and the world turns its face towards climate justice, and this legal clarity provides us with the moral courage to take this forward,' the minister added.
USA Today
a day ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Climate change is an 'existential threat,' says landmark ruling from UN court
The non-binding opinion by the International Court of Justice is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world. THE HAGUE, July 23 (Reuters) - The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday underlined "the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change" as it started to read out an opinion on the legal obligations of states to take action. The non-binding opinion by the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world. "Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," judge Yuji Iwasawa said. The reading of the opinion was ongoing and the court had not yet announced its conclusions. Ahead of the ruling, supporters of climate action gathered outside the ICJ, chanting: "What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now!" Although it is non-binding, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the ICJ in The Hague will nevertheless carry legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. "It is so important, it could be one of the most consequential legal rulings of our times because of the scope of the issues that it touches, which run to the very heart of climate justice," said Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law. The two questions the U.N. General Assembly asked the judges to consider were: 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? In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, 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. Developing nations and small island states argued 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. Paris agreement In 2015, at the conclusion of U.N. talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the U.N. said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100. What is the Paris Climate Agreement? Trump signs order to withdraw US, again As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate‑related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. So far, the results have been mixed. A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was still a victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate to tackle climate change. Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point, even if the ruling itself is advisory. The ruling could also make it easier for states to hold other states to account over climate issues like pollution or emissions. "The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of international law," said Fijian Vishal Prasad, one of the law students that lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so. "This opinion is applying binding international law, which countries have already committed to," Chowdhury said. (Additional reporting by Ali Withers in Copenhagen and Zoran Mikletic, Marta Fiorin, Farah Salhi in The Hague; Writing by Stephanie van den Berg and Ingrid Melander, editing by Ed Osmond and Barbara Lewis)
Saudi Gazette
a day ago
- Politics
- Saudi Gazette
Trump administration pulls US out of Unesco again
PARIS — The US has said it will leave the United Nations' culture and education agency Unesco, accusing it of supporting "woke, divisive cultural and social causes". Unesco's Director General Audrey Azoulay described the decision as "regrettable" but "anticipated". The move is the latest step in the Trump administration's efforts to cut ties with international bodies, after removing the US from the World Health Organization and Paris Climate Agreement, as well as cutting funding for foreign relief efforts. Unesco has 194 member states around the world, and is best known for listing world heritage sites. The US' decision will take effect from December 2026. The state department said Unesco's "globalist, ideological agenda for international development" was "at odds with our America First foreign policy". It also described the inclusion of the Palestinians in Unesco in 2011, as "highly problematic, contrary to US policy, and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organization".Those claims "contradict the reality of Unesco's efforts, particularly in the field of Holocaust education and the fight against antisemitism," the organisation's head Audrey Azoulay said."This decision contradicts the fundamental principles of multilateralism, and may affect first and foremost our many partners in the United States of America— communities seeking site inscription on the World Heritage List, Creative City status, and University Chairs," she Unesco head said the agency had been preparing for Washington's move, diversifying its sources of funding. Currently, she said, Unesco was getting about 8% of its budget from the 2017, during his first presidency, Trump pulled the US out of Unesco but the decision was later reversed under Joe Biden's the Obama administration, in 2011, the US halted $60m in funds that had been earmarked for Unesco.A state department spokesperson at the time said former President Barack Obama's hand was forced due to a US law that prohibited the transfer of funds after Unesco granted the Palestinian Authority full Paris-based UN agency was set up in November 1945 — shortly after World War Two — to promote peace and security through global co-operation in education, arts, sciences and culture. — BBC
