SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
A group of senior women pose for a photo on May 30, 2022 after filing a lawsuit saying their human rights are being violated by the Swiss government’s climate inaction.
UNEP joined with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University to compile the Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review, and found that the number of climate crisis-related legal challenges filed across the world has more than doubled since the group’s first analysis in 2017.
Nearly 900 climate cases were filed in 2017, while 2,180 were brought to courts in 2022.
“Climate policies are far behind what is needed to keep global temperatures below the 1.5°C threshold, with extreme weather events and searing heat already baking our planet,” said Inger Andersen, executive director of UNEP. “People are increasingly turning to courts to combat the climate crisis, holding governments and the private sector accountable, and making litigation a key mechanism for securing climate action and promoting climate justice.”
A majority of cases have been filed in the United States, with plaintiffs arguing government agencies and companies are failing to comply with clean air and water laws and other regulations, taking aim at companies they say have “greenwashed” their climate records, and demanding that children have the right to a safe environment, among other litigation.
But the report finds that lawsuits in the Global South represent a “growing percentage of global climate litigation,” with more than 17% of lawsuits filed in developing countries including Small Island Developing States.
A majority of cases focused on residents’ right to a healthy environment and demands for national climate policies that reflect that right have been filed in the Global South, according to the report.
The Brazilian Supreme Court found in 2022 that the Paris climate agreement should be treated as a human rights treaty with “supranational status,” invalidating any Brazilian law that contradicts the agreement’s demand that nations reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in order to limit planetary heating to 1.5°C over preindustrial levels.
In Mexico in 2020, the Supreme Court invalidated a rule that would have allowed a higher ethanol content in gasoline, “concluding that the right to a healthy environment and the precautionary principle required the evaluation of the potential of increased GHG emissions and an analysis of the country’s commitments under the Paris Agreement,” reads the report.
In addition to federal courts in individual nations, international human rights panels have handed down landmark rulings in recent years, forcing companies and governments to change course on the climate.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee last year found that Australia had failed to adequately protect Indigenous Torres Straight Islanders from climate impacts, recognizing that “climate change was currently impacting the claimants’ daily lives and that, to the extent that their rights are being violated, Australia’s poor climate record was a violation of their right to family life and right to culture.”
Australian officials were ordered to adopt “significant climate adaptation measures” as a result of the historic ruling.
Plaintiffs in recently filed lawsuits may benefit from “an increasingly well-defined field of law” which has begun to provide an understanding of the human right to adequate climate policy, said UNEP and the Sabin Center.
As Common Dreams reported in March, a coalition of elderly women in Switzerland argued before the European Court of Human Rights that they are uniquely affected by insufficient climate action and by continued fossil fuel extraction, as older people are vulnerable to the extreme temperatures that the climate crisis is causing.
A number of similar cases have been brought by children who have argued—in Australia, the U.S., Argentina, Haiti, and elsewhere—that their rights have been violated by their government’s continued backing of fossil fuel emissions, improper waste disposal, and support for coal expansion.
Ongoing climate litigation largely centers on:
“Since 2020, few courts have yet to reach the merits of these types of claims, despite the growing body of science illustrating the connections,” reads the report. “The science of climate attribution continues to be central to climate litigation, and as more cases are filed and reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, as was anticipated in the 2020 Litigation Report, there will be increased judicial attention on the matter.”
As companies and governments seek to deny responsibility for climate harms, litigation targeting climate protesters may also be part of a “backlash” against campaigners’ lawsuits, said UNEP and the Sabin Center.
In some high-profile cases recently, protesters have emerged victorious when their actions have been the target of litigation.
As the Sabin Center noted, a New Zealand District Court ruled in 2020 that without direct action like that of protesters who trespassed on an oil platform, “change may be too late.” The campaigners were convicted but discharged without penalty.
In 2021, activists who halted operations at Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris were acquitted because a court found their actions “were taken in a ‘state of necessity’ to warn of future danger, namely climate change.”
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I’ve ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That’s why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we’ve ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here’s the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That’s not just some fundraising cliche. It’s the absolute and literal truth. We don’t accept corporate advertising and never will. We don’t have a paywall because we don’t think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
UNEP joined with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University to compile the Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review, and found that the number of climate crisis-related legal challenges filed across the world has more than doubled since the group’s first analysis in 2017.
Nearly 900 climate cases were filed in 2017, while 2,180 were brought to courts in 2022.
“Climate policies are far behind what is needed to keep global temperatures below the 1.5°C threshold, with extreme weather events and searing heat already baking our planet,” said Inger Andersen, executive director of UNEP. “People are increasingly turning to courts to combat the climate crisis, holding governments and the private sector accountable, and making litigation a key mechanism for securing climate action and promoting climate justice.”
A majority of cases have been filed in the United States, with plaintiffs arguing government agencies and companies are failing to comply with clean air and water laws and other regulations, taking aim at companies they say have “greenwashed” their climate records, and demanding that children have the right to a safe environment, among other litigation.
But the report finds that lawsuits in the Global South represent a “growing percentage of global climate litigation,” with more than 17% of lawsuits filed in developing countries including Small Island Developing States.
A majority of cases focused on residents’ right to a healthy environment and demands for national climate policies that reflect that right have been filed in the Global South, according to the report.
The Brazilian Supreme Court found in 2022 that the Paris climate agreement should be treated as a human rights treaty with “supranational status,” invalidating any Brazilian law that contradicts the agreement’s demand that nations reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in order to limit planetary heating to 1.5°C over preindustrial levels.
In Mexico in 2020, the Supreme Court invalidated a rule that would have allowed a higher ethanol content in gasoline, “concluding that the right to a healthy environment and the precautionary principle required the evaluation of the potential of increased GHG emissions and an analysis of the country’s commitments under the Paris Agreement,” reads the report.
In addition to federal courts in individual nations, international human rights panels have handed down landmark rulings in recent years, forcing companies and governments to change course on the climate.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee last year found that Australia had failed to adequately protect Indigenous Torres Straight Islanders from climate impacts, recognizing that “climate change was currently impacting the claimants’ daily lives and that, to the extent that their rights are being violated, Australia’s poor climate record was a violation of their right to family life and right to culture.”
Australian officials were ordered to adopt “significant climate adaptation measures” as a result of the historic ruling.
Plaintiffs in recently filed lawsuits may benefit from “an increasingly well-defined field of law” which has begun to provide an understanding of the human right to adequate climate policy, said UNEP and the Sabin Center.
As Common Dreams reported in March, a coalition of elderly women in Switzerland argued before the European Court of Human Rights that they are uniquely affected by insufficient climate action and by continued fossil fuel extraction, as older people are vulnerable to the extreme temperatures that the climate crisis is causing.
A number of similar cases have been brought by children who have argued—in Australia, the U.S., Argentina, Haiti, and elsewhere—that their rights have been violated by their government’s continued backing of fossil fuel emissions, improper waste disposal, and support for coal expansion.
Ongoing climate litigation largely centers on:
“Since 2020, few courts have yet to reach the merits of these types of claims, despite the growing body of science illustrating the connections,” reads the report. “The science of climate attribution continues to be central to climate litigation, and as more cases are filed and reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, as was anticipated in the 2020 Litigation Report, there will be increased judicial attention on the matter.”
As companies and governments seek to deny responsibility for climate harms, litigation targeting climate protesters may also be part of a “backlash” against campaigners’ lawsuits, said UNEP and the Sabin Center.
In some high-profile cases recently, protesters have emerged victorious when their actions have been the target of litigation.
As the Sabin Center noted, a New Zealand District Court ruled in 2020 that without direct action like that of protesters who trespassed on an oil platform, “change may be too late.” The campaigners were convicted but discharged without penalty.
In 2021, activists who halted operations at Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris were acquitted because a court found their actions “were taken in a ‘state of necessity’ to warn of future danger, namely climate change.”
UNEP joined with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University to compile the Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review, and found that the number of climate crisis-related legal challenges filed across the world has more than doubled since the group’s first analysis in 2017.
Nearly 900 climate cases were filed in 2017, while 2,180 were brought to courts in 2022.
“Climate policies are far behind what is needed to keep global temperatures below the 1.5°C threshold, with extreme weather events and searing heat already baking our planet,” said Inger Andersen, executive director of UNEP. “People are increasingly turning to courts to combat the climate crisis, holding governments and the private sector accountable, and making litigation a key mechanism for securing climate action and promoting climate justice.”
A majority of cases have been filed in the United States, with plaintiffs arguing government agencies and companies are failing to comply with clean air and water laws and other regulations, taking aim at companies they say have “greenwashed” their climate records, and demanding that children have the right to a safe environment, among other litigation.
But the report finds that lawsuits in the Global South represent a “growing percentage of global climate litigation,” with more than 17% of lawsuits filed in developing countries including Small Island Developing States.
A majority of cases focused on residents’ right to a healthy environment and demands for national climate policies that reflect that right have been filed in the Global South, according to the report.
The Brazilian Supreme Court found in 2022 that the Paris climate agreement should be treated as a human rights treaty with “supranational status,” invalidating any Brazilian law that contradicts the agreement’s demand that nations reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in order to limit planetary heating to 1.5°C over preindustrial levels.
In Mexico in 2020, the Supreme Court invalidated a rule that would have allowed a higher ethanol content in gasoline, “concluding that the right to a healthy environment and the precautionary principle required the evaluation of the potential of increased GHG emissions and an analysis of the country’s commitments under the Paris Agreement,” reads the report.
In addition to federal courts in individual nations, international human rights panels have handed down landmark rulings in recent years, forcing companies and governments to change course on the climate.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee last year found that Australia had failed to adequately protect Indigenous Torres Straight Islanders from climate impacts, recognizing that “climate change was currently impacting the claimants’ daily lives and that, to the extent that their rights are being violated, Australia’s poor climate record was a violation of their right to family life and right to culture.”
Australian officials were ordered to adopt “significant climate adaptation measures” as a result of the historic ruling.
Plaintiffs in recently filed lawsuits may benefit from “an increasingly well-defined field of law” which has begun to provide an understanding of the human right to adequate climate policy, said UNEP and the Sabin Center.
As Common Dreams reported in March, a coalition of elderly women in Switzerland argued before the European Court of Human Rights that they are uniquely affected by insufficient climate action and by continued fossil fuel extraction, as older people are vulnerable to the extreme temperatures that the climate crisis is causing.
A number of similar cases have been brought by children who have argued—in Australia, the U.S., Argentina, Haiti, and elsewhere—that their rights have been violated by their government’s continued backing of fossil fuel emissions, improper waste disposal, and support for coal expansion.
Ongoing climate litigation largely centers on:
“Since 2020, few courts have yet to reach the merits of these types of claims, despite the growing body of science illustrating the connections,” reads the report. “The science of climate attribution continues to be central to climate litigation, and as more cases are filed and reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, as was anticipated in the 2020 Litigation Report, there will be increased judicial attention on the matter.”
As companies and governments seek to deny responsibility for climate harms, litigation targeting climate protesters may also be part of a “backlash” against campaigners’ lawsuits, said UNEP and the Sabin Center.
In some high-profile cases recently, protesters have emerged victorious when their actions have been the target of litigation.
As the Sabin Center noted, a New Zealand District Court ruled in 2020 that without direct action like that of protesters who trespassed on an oil platform, “change may be too late.” The campaigners were convicted but discharged without penalty.
In 2021, activists who halted operations at Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris were acquitted because a court found their actions “were taken in a ‘state of necessity’ to warn of future danger, namely climate change.”
President Donald Trump doubled down on his threats to silence his critics Thursday, telling reporters aboard Air Force One that outlets that give him "bad press" may have their broadcast licenses taken away.
The threat came just one day after his Federal Communications Commission (FCC) director, Brendan Carr, successfully pressured ABC into pulling Jimmy Kimmel's show from the air by threatening the broadcast licenses of its affiliates over a comment the comedian made about the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me," Trump told the press gaggle. "I get 97% negative, and yet I won it easily. I won all seven swing states, popular vote, I won everything. And they're 97% against, they give me wholly bad publicity... I mean, they're getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away."
"When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump, that’s all they do," the president continued. "If you go back, I guess they haven’t had a conservative on in years or something, somebody said, but when you go back and take a look, all they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
He said that the decision would be left up to Carr, who has threatened to take away licenses from networks that air what he called "distorted" content.
It is unclear where Trump's statistic that networks have been "97% against" him originates, nor the claim that mainstream news networks "haven't had a conservative on in years."
But even if it were true, FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez says "the FCC doesn't have the authority, the ability, or the constitutional right to revoke a license because of content."
In comments made to Axios Thursday, Gomez—the lone Democrat on the five-member panel—said that the Trump administration was "weaponizing its licensing authority in order to bring broadcasters to heel," as part of a "campaign of censorship and control."
National news networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC do not have broadcasting licenses approved by the FCC, nor do cable networks like CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News. The licenses threatened by Carr are for local affiliates, which—despite having the branding of the big networks—are owned by less well-known companies like Nexstar Media Group and the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, both of which pushed in favor of ABC's decision to ax Kimmel.
Gomez said that with Trump's intimidation of broadcasters, the "threat is the point."
"It is a very hard standard to meet to revoke a license, which is why it's so rarely done, but broadcast license to the broadcasters are extremely valuable," she said. "And so they don't want to be dragged before the FCC either in order to answer to an enforcement complaint of some kind or under the threat of possible revocation."
Democratic lawmakers are vowing to investigate the Trump administration's pressure campaign that may have led to ABC deciding to indefinitely suspend late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) announced on Thursday that he filed a motion to subpoena Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr one day after he publicly warned ABC of negative consequences if the network kept Kimmel on the air.
"Enough of Congress sleepwalking while [President Donald] Trump and [Vice President JD] Vance shred the First Amendment and Constitution," Khanna declared. "It is time for Congress to stand up for Article I."
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, also said on Thursday that he was opening an investigation into the potential financial aspects of Carr's pressure campaign on ABC, including the involvement of Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which is the network's largest affiliate and is currently involved in merger talks that will need FCC approval.
"The Oversight Committee is launching an investigation into ABC, Sinclair, and the FCC," he said. "We will not be intimidated and we will defend the First Amendment."
Progressive politicians weren't the only ones launching an investigation into the Kimmel controversy, as legal organization Democracy Forward announced that it's filed a a Freedom of Information Act request for records after January 20, 2025 related to any FCC efforts “to use the agency’s licensing and enforcement powers to police and limit speech and influence what the public can watch and hear.”
After Hamas urged international support for the Global Sumud Flotilla, Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Thursday signaled another potential attack by claiming on social media that the peaceful humanitarian mission to feed starving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip "is a jihadist initiative serving the terror group's agenda."
While Israel has not taken responsibility for recent drone attacks on the Global Sumud Flotilla—whose name means perseverance in Arabic—the incidents have raised eyebrows, given the country's history of attacking previous ones. The foreign ministers of 16 other nations on Tuesday implored Israel not to target this flotilla, which involves activists and political leaders from dozens of countries, including eight US veterans.
As Middle East Eye reported Thursday, Hamas—which Israel and the United States designate as a terrorist organization despite its governance of Gaza—called for escalating the global movement in solidarity with the strip "in rejection of the [Israeli] occupation's aggression, crimes of genocide, and starvation."
"We call for mobilizing all means to support the Global Sumud Flotilla heading to Gaza, and we warn the occupation against targeting it," Hamas also said in a statement, part of which was quoted in the Israeli ministry's post on X.
Responding on the same platform, journalist Séamus Malekafzali said: "Past comments from the Israeli government about the aid flotillas focused on celebrity vapidity or didn't mention their aim at all. Now, they're honing in on it being a supposedly terrorist instrument. Feels like the response is being set up to be more severe than in the past."
The post came two days after Israel's Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism published a report titled "Global Sumud Flotilla": A Humanitarian Cover With Documented Links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
As Brussels Signal reported Thursday:
Flotilla representatives and critics dismissed these claims as Israeli disinformation, echoing accusations leveled at prior missions, and called the report a case of "guilt by association," reliant on photos and unverified affiliations rather than evidence of operational control.
Organizers emphasised transparent crowdfunding for aid, with no terror funding, and framed the convoy as a grassroots response to aid blockages.
Earlier this week, a commission of independent experts at the United Nations concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and an investigation from The New Humanitarian found that Israeli forces have killed nearly 3,000 Palestinian aid-seekers and wounded almost 20,000 others since October 2023. As of Thursday, the overall death toll has topped 65,000, though experts warn the true tally is likely far higher.