SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
arctic
European Court of Human Rights Delivers 'Quantum Leap for Climate Accountability'
"Requiring governments to assess the global climate consequences of oil and gas combustion before approving new fossil projects is common sense, and long overdue," said one campaigner.
Oct 28, 2025
Although the European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday sided with the Norwegian government over six young adults and a pair of climate groups, the plaintiffs still welcomed the tribunal's ruling as "a major step forward," in the words of Frode Pleym, head of Greenpeace Norway.
The case stems from the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy granting 10 exploration licenses to 13 companies for fossil fuel production in the Arctic Barents Sea in 2016. The plaintiffs argued that doing so violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or the right to respect for private and family life.
The court unanimously held that "there had been no violation" of Article 8, but it also affirmed that the government must conduct a full environmental impact assessment, including greenhouse gas emissions from combustion, for any new petroleum production.
"It's a relief to see the court recognize what science has told us for years—that new oil and gas fields threaten our most basic human rights," Pleym said in a statement. "Requiring governments to assess the global climate consequences of oil and gas combustion before approving new fossil projects is common sense, and long overdue."
Young Friends of the Earth Norway, which sued alongside Greenpeace and the six individuals, also praised the ruling as progress.
"This decision is a quantum leap for climate accountability," said the group's leader, Sigrid Hoddevik Losnegård. "The government can no longer continue its oil and gas policy as if climate change doesn't exist. This judgment will have ripple effects far beyond Norway."
I can think of at least seven ways fossil fuel producers could wiggle out of this, but still: holy shit this is huge.
[image or embed]
— Dr. Genevieve Guenther (she/they) (@doctorvive.bsky.social) October 28, 2025 at 7:17 AM
The plaintiffs noted in a joint statement that the ruling "builds on" recent decisions from the International Court of Justice and the UK Supreme Court. The ICJ said in a landmark advisory opinion in July that countries have a legal obligation to take cooperative action to address the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency. At the time, Danilo Garrido, legal counsel at Greenpeace International, hailed the development as "the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level."
That decision came roughly a year after the UK's top court ruled that Surrey authorities' approval of the Horse Hill drilling project "was unlawful" because they didn't consider "emissions that will occur when the oil produced is burnt as fuel," as required by law. Friends of the Earth UK called the ruling "a heavy blow for the fossil fuel industry" that could impact other projects.
The European court's Tuesday decision came less than two weeks away from the start of the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference in Belém, Brazil. In preparation for COP30, the UN on Tuesday released a report warning that governments' climate plans would reduce fossil fuel emissions by just 10% by 2035 compared to 2019 levels, far short of what is needed to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting temperature rise this century to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
As Oil Change International pointed out in a June report, Norway and three other wealthy nations—Australia, Canada, and the United States—account for the majority of planned oil and gas expansion over the next decade. This month, the group commissioned a poll that found a majority of Norwegians believe their country should either stop exploring for new oil and gas or slow down the pace.
"The data show that Norwegians increasingly want political leadership that aligns the country's oil policy with its climate goals," Oil Change's North Sea campaign manager, Silje Lundberg, said Monday. "People are calling time on endless oil expansion—it's the government that's stuck in the past. The public clearly wants a plan to phase down oil and gas and deliver real climate leadership, not more empty talk from ministers protecting the industry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Invading Greenland Won’t Protect Us From the Climate Crisis
It is of course possible that further melting will lead to increased tensions in which Arctic territory becomes an especially valued possession. But other threats are far more urgent, including the one causing the melting.
May 24, 2025
Greenland does not, on the face of it, seem to be the kind of place that a superpower like the United States would regard as a vital component of its security. With fewer than 60,000 inhabitants in an area roughly one-quarter the size of the contiguous United States, it is the least densely populated nation on Earth. Its only industries of note are fishing and, to some extent, tourism, and its northernmost point is as close to the North Pole as Los Angeles is to Denver.
Yet President Donald Trump insists the United States needs Greenland “very badly,” to the extent that he won’t “rule out” using force to attain it.
Such covetousness almost certainly owes at least something to the prospect of access to the mineral resources, including lithium, that Greenland is believed to harbor. But Trump himself has suggested a different motivation, musing in an interview about “Russian boats and… Chinese boats, gunships all over the place… going up and down the coast of Greenland.”
A world that has warmed enough for the Arctic Ocean to be truly ice-free is a world that will be experiencing even more droughts, heatwaves, wildfires, and other extreme weather events, at the potential cost of millions upon millions of dollars in damage and extensive loss of life.
Trump’s obsession with annexing Greenland is a confounding solution to a problem that doesn’t even exist.
Moscow and Beijing undeniably have an increasing number of vessels operating year-round in Arctic waters. In Russia’s case, that’s hardly surprising: Russia accounts for 53% of the region’s coastline. But its interests, and indeed those of China’s, have little to do with Greenland and a lot to do with its own Arctic waters, specifically the seaway along its north coast that Russia refers to as the Northern Sea Route (NSR). As sea ice decreases in thickness and extent as a result of climate change, the NSR is slowly opening up. As a result, Moscow sees this passageway as a potential source of riches and national pride and even a way to reorder international trade.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has declared that the NSR will ultimately “replace the Suez Canal” as the favored transit route between Atlantic and Pacific. It is presently a long way short of that: Just under 40 million tons of goods shipped through the NSR in 2024, almost exclusively on Russian and Chinese vessels, compared to 525 million tons that transited Suez. But it is far more than the 7 million tons that traveled the passage in 1987.
The Northwest Passage—the frequently narrow, shallow, and twisting pathway through the islands of Canada’s High Arctic—tells a similar story on a smaller scale. From the 16th through the 19th centuries, multiple expeditions perished in the ice of the Northwest Passage; after it was finally navigated for the first time in 1906, there were just 67 further transits over the course of the 20th century. Thanks to melting sea ice, there were 41 transits of the Northwest Passage in 2023 alone.
While both the Northwest Passage and NSR are more navigable than in the past, both are still challenging to sail through during all but the very warmest weeks of the year. Even as the Arctic heats up four times faster than the rest of the globe, its seas are unlikely to be consistently ice-free during summer before mid-century at the earliest. The anticipation of such an eventuality, however, has led to a jockeying for position and influence, and a rumbling discord among Arctic powers.
Canada and Russia regard the Northwest Passage and NSR respectively as their national waters, and they intend to dictate who can use them and when. Moscow requires any vessel that wants to transit the NSR to apply for permission up to four months in advance and mandates icebreaker escorts for most ships—often at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars.
The United States chafes at such restrictions, arguing that both waterways are international straits, open to vessels from all nations.
“We’re concerned about Russia’s claims to the international waters of the Northern Sea Route,” said then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in 2019, adding with a swipe at Canada that “we recognize Russia is not the only nation making illegitimate claims.”
Interestingly, China is broadly in accord with the U.S. position; but, as is its wont, the country is playing the long game. Notwithstanding Trump’s talk of Chinese gunships off Greenland, Beijing’s interest in the Arctic thus far appears to be entirely mercantilist. Particularly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China is the only country whose commercial vessels transit the NSR with some regularity. In 2012 the Chinese icebreaker Xue Long even explored the feasibility of crossing from Atlantic to Pacific across the Arctic Ocean via the North Pole.
It is of course possible that further melting will lead to increased tensions in which Arctic territory becomes an especially valued possession. But other threats are far more urgent. While the rest of the world is not heating up as rapidly as the Arctic, it is still warming. And a world that has warmed enough for the Arctic Ocean to be truly ice-free is a world that will be experiencing even more droughts, heatwaves, wildfires, and other extreme weather events, at the potential cost of millions upon millions of dollars in damage and extensive loss of life.
It is, to put it mildly, unfortunate that Donald Trump continues to insist that climate change is a “hoax.” Because reducing emissions rapidly is a far better way to protect Americans than idle threats to invade an ice-covered island.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Grim News for the Planet' as Arctic Sea Ice Hits Record Low
"The environment does not care about politics. Keep spewing greenhouse gases and face the consequences."
Mar 06, 2025
European Union officials said the Copernicus Climate Change Service had issued its latest "stark reminder of why climate action is urgent" when the bloc's program announced that it observed less sea ice covering the Earth's oceans last month than at any other point in recorded history.
In the Arctic, sea ice reached its lowest monthly extent on record, at 8% below average, in early February, and it remained below the previous record for the rest of the month.
The oceans were missing an area of ice roughly the size of the United Kingdom last month, according to Copernicus (C3S), and the finding was not an anomaly in recent sea ice observations.
February marked the third consecutive month in which record low sea ice levels for the corresponding month were observed in the Arctic.
C3S reported that in the Antarctic, sea ice levels have rapidly declined in 2025 after appearing to recover to near-record levels in December 2024.
Last month, sea ice near the South Pole reached its fourth-lowest monthly extent, at 26% below average.
C3S said the daily sea ice extent in the Antarctic may have also reached its annual minimum toward the end of the month, which will be confirmed later in March; if confirmed, it would be the second-lowest annual minimum in the satellite record.
"February 2025 continues the streak of record or near-record temperatures observed throughout the last two years," said Samanatha Burgess, strategic lead for climate at the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. "One of the consequences of a warmer world is melting sea ice, and the record or near-record low sea ice cover at both poles has pushed global sea ice cover to an all-time minimum."
The melting sea ice was recorded as global average temperatures rose 1.59°C (2.8°F) above the pre-industrial average last month, making it the third-warmest February on record.
In Europe, the temperatures that most exceeded averages were recorded last month in parts of Scandinavia, Iceland, and the Alps. Outside of Europe, "temperatures were most above average over large parts of the Arctic."
The low extent of sea ice will lead to "more solar heat absorbed by the darker oceans," and "faster warming," said Simon Oldridge, a climate campaigner.
The loss of sea ice can also lead to the collapse of ocean currents that are crucial for marine life to thrive.
C3S reported on the record-low sea ice levels as campaigners in the U.S. and around the world condemned recent anti-climate actions taken by U.S. President Donald Trump and the Republican Party, including the country's exit from the Paris climate agreement, the GOP's passing of a bill to end a federal program aimed at reducing planet-heating methane emissions, and Trump's push to fast-track fossil fuel projects—as scientists warn that new extractive projects have no place on a pathway to limiting planetary heating and avoiding its worst impacts.
"The environment does not care about politics," said public health expert Ali Khan. "Keep spewing greenhouse gases and face the consequences."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular