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
union of concerned scientists
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House to Take Up GOP Megabill Serving 'Oil Company CEOs, Hedge Fund Donors, and Climate Deniers'
"Senate Republicans advanced the most anti-environment, anti-job, and anti-American bill in history," said one campaigner.
Jul 01, 2025
After U.S. Senate Republicans on Tuesday sent President Donald Trump's so-called "Big Beautiful Bill" back to the House of Representatives, defenders of the planet sounded the alarm on several provisions that remain in the massive budget reconciliation package.
"This is a vote that will live in infamy," said Greenpeace USA deputy climate program director John Noël after Vice President JD Vance broke a tie to advance the legislation. "This bill is what happens when a major political party, in the grips of a personality cult, teams up with oil company CEOs, hedge fund donors, and climate deniers. All you need to do is look at who benefits from actively undercutting the clean energy industry that is creating tens of thousands of jobs across political geographies."
"The megabill isn't about reform—it's about rewarding the superrich and doling out fossil fuel industry handouts, all while dismantling the social safety nets on which millions depend for stability," Noël added. "It is a bet against the future."
Although Sen. Mike Lee's (R-Utah) provision to force the sale of public lands as well as a proposed excise tax on wind and solar projects were removed, other controversial policies survived, including required onshore and offshore fossil fuel lease sales, mandates for timber harvesting, the recision of various Inflation Reduction Act funding, an end to a moratorium on new coal leasing, and attacks on clean energy.
"Make no mistake, while the Senate did not include a punitive new excise tax on wind and solar projects, the bill is still devastating for the clean energy transition," warned Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) president Gretchen Goldman. "The bill would spike energy costs, threaten energy reliability, and strand hundreds of billions of dollars in clean energy and transportation investments along with the tens of thousands of domestic jobs that come with them. The provisions attacking clean energy and clean transportation are not about the budget, but rather Congress using the budget bill to boost fossil fuels by crushing these booming new industries."
Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous declared that "today, Senate Republicans advanced the most anti-environment, anti-job, and anti-American bill in history."
"This shortsighted plan will put lives at risk, endanger our growing economy, and raise electricity rates on families and small businesses," he said. "The proposal expands drilling on public lands and in the Arctic, guts cost-cutting clean energy investments and the thousands of stable jobs they've created, and includes massive giveaways to corporate polluters and the very wealthiest Americans."
Jealous celebrated that public outrage led to the federal land sales and excise tax provisions getting axed, but added that "even with those important changes, a terrible bill is still a terrible bill, and this proposal fails the American people in every measure."
Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign, also highlighted how the legislation—if signed into law—will benefit rich individuals and corporations while causing working-class Americans to lose their jobs and pay higher energy bills.
"The Senate has turned its back on our clean energy future, raising our utility bills while mortgaging our health and environment to deliver massive tax breaks for billionaires," Alt said. She warned of job losses and increased climate pollution, meaning "kids will struggle with asthma and other respiratory problems. And, more people will suffer from devastating extreme weather catastrophes."
Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, similarly said that "with spiking power demand and rising bills, we need more clean, affordable American energy, but Senate Republicans just voted to kill jobs and deliver the largest utility bill increase in U.S. history."
"Every senator who voted for this bill chose tax cuts for the wealthiest over the rest of our health, pocketbooks, public lands and waters, and a safe climate," Bapna argued. "This is like Robin Hood in reverse. The very rich will get richer and the rest of us will have to pay the price."
After 27 hours, Republicans passed their Big Ugly Bill—a catastrophic assault on health care, food, and climate.They chose Trump and billionaires over families and our future.This fight isn't over. Now it’s the House’s turn to stop it.We can't agonize—we must organize.
[image or embed]
— Senator Ed Markey (@markey.senate.gov) July 1, 2025 at 1:22 PM
The bill not only "will race us toward climate catastrophe" while giving tax breaks to the wealthy, said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog Public Citizen, it also "steals assistance from vulnerable Americans, the bill would supercharge Trump's barbaric mass deportation policy, and throw an extra $150 billion at Pentagon contractors."
"Any member of Congress with a conscience knows that this bill must not become law," she added. "It's time for the House to stand up to President Trump and vote against it."
The GOP-controlled House had already passed a version of the megabill before every Senate Republican but Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Rand Paul (Ky.), and Thom Tillis (N.C.) advanced the latest edition on Tuesday. Now, the lower chamber's leaders plan to take up the new version in hopes of sending it to Trump's desk by his July 4 deadline.
"House members got it wrong the first time but have another chance now to do their jobs," said Goldman of UCS. "They must reject this bill, voting with their constituents in mind, not simply to avoid the ire of the president."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Warn Trump Attack on Nuclear Regulator Raises Disaster Risk
"Simply put," said one critic, "the U.S. nuclear industry will fail if safety is not made a priority."
May 23, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders on Friday that will overhaul the independent federal agency responsible for regulating the nation's nuclear power plants, aiming to expedite the construction of new nuclear reactors—a move that experts have warned will increase safety risks.
According to a White House statement, Trump's directives "will usher in a nuclear energy renaissance," in part by allowing Department of Energy laboratories to conduct nuclear reactor design testing, green-lighting reactor construction on federal lands, and lifting regulatory barriers "by requiring the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to issue timely licensing decisions."
The Trump administration is seeking to shorten the years-long NRC process of approving new licenses for nuclear power plants and reactors to within 18 months.
"If you aren't independent of political and industry influence, then you are at risk of an accident."
White House Office of Science and Technology Director Michael Kratsios said Friday that "over the last 30 years, we stopped building nuclear reactors in America—that ends now."
"We are restoring a strong American nuclear industrial base, rebuilding a secure and sovereign domestic nuclear fuel supply chain, and leading the world towards a future fueled by American nuclear energy," he added.
However, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) warned that the executive orders will result in "all but nullifying" the NRC's regulatory process, "undermining the independent federal agency's ability to develop and enforce safety and security requirements for commercial nuclear facilities."
"This push by the Trump administration to usurp much of the agency's autonomy as they seek to fast-track the construction of nuclear plants will weaken critical, independent oversight of the U.S. nuclear industry and poses significant safety and security risks to the public," UCS added.
Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the UCS, said, "Simply put, the U.S. nuclear industry will fail if safety is not made a priority."
"By fatally compromising the independence and integrity of the NRC, and by encouraging pathways for nuclear deployment that bypass the regulator entirely, the Trump administration is virtually guaranteeing that this country will see a serious accident or other radiological release that will affect the health, safety, and livelihoods of millions," Lyman added. "Such a disaster will destroy public trust in nuclear power and cause other nations to reject U.S. nuclear technology for decades to come."
Friday's executive orders follow reporting earlier this month by NPR that revealed the Trump administration has tightened control over the NRC, in part by compelling the agency to send proposed reactor safety rules to the White House for review and possible editing.
Allison Macfarlane, who was nominated to head the NRC during the Obama administration, called the move "the end of independence of the agency."
"If you aren't independent of political and industry influence, then you are at risk of an accident," Macfarlane warned.
On the first day of his second term, Trump also signed executive orders declaring a dubious "national energy emergency" and directing federal agencies to find ways to reduce regulatory roadblocks to "unleashing American energy," including by boosting fossil fuels and nuclear power.
The rapid advancement and adoption of artificial intelligence systems is creating a tremendous need for energy that proponents say can be met by nuclear power. The Three Mile Island nuclear plant—the site of the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history—is being revived with funding from Microsoft, while Google parent company Alphabet, online retail giant Amazon, and Facebook owner Meta are among the competitors also investing in nuclear energy.
"Do we really want to create more radioactive waste to power the often dubious and questionable uses of AI?" Johanna Neumann, Environment America Research & Policy Center's senior director of the Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy, asked in December.
"Big Tech should recommit to solutions that not only work but pose less risk to our environment and health," Neumann added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular