

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.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
“From the Pacific to the world, this vote is a recognition that those who did the least to fuel this crisis should not be left to carry its heaviest burdens."
Despite efforts by the United States government to block and water down the effort, the United Nations, on Wednesday, in a 141-8 vote, backed a resolution that confirms member states have a legal obligation to address the planetary climate crisis by mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
With nearly two-thirds of the global body voting in favor, the eight countries that voted against the resolution were: Belarus, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the US, and Yemen. Twenty-eight nations abstained.
The adopted resolution, brought to the UN by the low-lying island nation of Vanuatu, codifies the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, which the ICJ issued last year. As UN News reports:
The resolution calls on all UN Member States to take all possible steps to avoid causing significant damage to the climate and environment, including emissions produced within their borders, and to follow through on their existing climate pledges under the Paris Agreement.
Governments are urged to cooperate in good faith and continuously coordinate efforts to tackle climate change globally and ensure that climate policies safeguard the rights to life, health, and an adequate standard of living.
Rebecca Brown, CEO and president of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), was among those celebrating the vote as a significant win.
"The science is clear: fossil fuels are the principal driver of the climate crisis. The path to climate justice runs through a rapid, just, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy."
“Today, the UN General Assembly affirmed what the International Court of Justice made clear — that climate action is a legal obligation," Brown said. "With this resolution, countries carry the ICJ’s historic ruling forward as a roadmap for climate action and accountability in the years to come. This resolution demonstrates that multilateralism works, and that the global majority stands resolute in defense of the rule of law, demands meaningful accountability, and real climate action. By acting together, we can prevent further climate harm, in line with science and the law, by speeding up a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels, protecting climate-vulnerable communities, and advancing climate justice."
In a statement following the vote, UN Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the outcome as the passage of the resolution "a powerful affirmation of international law, climate justice, science, and the responsibility of states to protect people from the escalating climate crisis."
Guterres thanked the leadership of Vanuatu and the broader coalition of island nations and others who led the fight for the resolution and demonstrated "moral clarity" on the issue for all the world to see.
"Those least responsible for climate change are paying the highest price. That injustice must end," he said. "The science is clear: fossil fuels are the principal driver of the climate crisis. The path to climate justice runs through a rapid, just, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy."

As Guterres championed the need for a redoubled effort to supplant fossil fuels with cleaner, more renewable forms of energy, environmental and human rights groups also championed the resolution's passage—especially in the face of opposition from the fossil fuel lobby and governments taking their side, like the US, Russia, Israel, and others.
In February, the Associated Press reported that the Trump administration—which has pulled out of the international Paris Agreement established in 2015 and continues to act overtly in the interests of the fossil fuel industry, which helped bankroll his 2024 campaign—was pushing members at the UN to mount a pressure campaign against Vanuatu to drop the resolution.
While US deputy ambassador to the UN Tammy Bruce claimed this week that the resolution included "inappropriate political demands relating to fossil fuels," groups like Amnesty International, 350.org, the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN), and many others heralded its passage precisely because of the pressure it rightly places on the oil, gas, and coal industries.
“At a time when fragmentation between nations feels more visible than ever, the UN resolution endorsing the ICJ climate ruling offers a renewed path for international cooperation," said Amnesty's Camile Cortez, a senior climate justice campaigner for Amnesty. "Political and authoritarian choices by some world leaders, like rolling back climate protections or revoking phase-out regulations, have weakened global progress just when we need stronger climate action. Fossil fuel infrastructure alone poses risks for the health and livelihoods of at least 2 billion people globally, roughly a quarter of the world’s population."
"Today, the international community has affirmed that climate justice is not charity but is anchored in accountability."
Fenton Lutunatabua, the Pacific and Caribbean lead for 350.org, said the UN vote represents a "critical next stage" for the ICJ's landmark ruling that "was not meant to sit on a shelf," but instead lead to action in line with international law and the obligations of member states.
"This vote shows the vast majority agreed there is an absolute obligation to stop runaway climate change," said Lutunatabua. "Today, we get closer to that goal, and our children get closer to a safer, more secure future. Our communities also get closer to receiving justice for the suffering the fossil fuel industry has caused, and the havoc wreaked upon our shorelines as we pay with our lives and our pockets to rebuild after yet another cyclone, yet another flood."
PICAN director Dr. Rufino Varea said the victory at the UN on Wednesday "belongs to every community that refused to let their future be written off" by those who have disregarded the damage caused by the climate crisis driven by the fossil fuel industry and broader corporate greed.
“From the Pacific to the world, this vote is a recognition that those who did the least to fuel this crisis should not be left to carry its heaviest burdens," said Varea. "For generations, Pacific peoples have protected our oceans, our lands, and our cultures while facing rising seas, loss, and displacement caused by others. Today, the international community has affirmed that climate justice is not charity but is anchored in accountability. Accountability to frontline communities, to future generations, and to the shared responsibility we hold to protect life, dignity, the environment, and our collective future. This moment belongs to every community that refused to let their future be written off.”
The International Court of Justice held this week that failing to protect the planet from global warming could be a violation of international law.
Of all the frustrations that go with watching the rise of the MAGA right here and around the world (and the rise of their billionaire and corporate allies), perhaps none tops the sense that they are never held accountable for anything—that on any given day U.S. President Donald Trump, and the minor Donald Trumps of the world, do things that at any other point in our lifetimes would have ended their political careers or landed them in jail. And… nothing. Some combination of utter brazenness, flooding the field with so many scandals that none stick, and the fear they induce in too many who might otherwise raise questions has let them get away with, well, murder. (And rape). But there’s some sense this week that that might not go on forever.
In the Middle East, for instance, Israel and America’s cruel decision to starve Gazans into submission is beginning to bring even the timid off the sidelines—as the pictures of protruding ribs flooded the news, France announced yesterday that it would recognize a Palestinian state, and it seems possible that Britain may follow suit as early as today.
And in America the Epstein case seems, at the least, to be making the White House sweat—they may well be able to cover up files, buy off witnesses like Ghislaine Maxwell, and shutter D.C. till things die down. But for once it’s not automatic—one senses that a few more Americans are seeing through to the ugly core.
Meanwhile, in the longest-running crime of all—the decades-old and ongoing effort by the oil industry, with massive amounts of government backup, to wreck the planet’s climate—there was an interesting new development. The International Court of Justice held this week that failing to protect the planet from global warming could be a violation of international law. As The Associated Press explained, judges in the Hague ruled that “countries could be in violation of international law if they fail to take measures to protect the planet from climate change, and nations harmed by its effects could be entitled to reparations”:
“Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system... may constitute an internationally wrongful act,” court President Yuji Iwasawa said during the hearing. He called the climate crisis “an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”
The ruling came in a suit brought by the low-lying island state of Vanuatu, and backed by 130 other nations. As United Nations chief António Guterres said:
This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice, and for the power of young people to make a difference. Young Pacific islanders initiated this call for humanity to the world. And the world must respond.
It’s not clear what this means in the immediate future—there’s no way for the court to force, say, Exxon, or the United States, to pay reparations for the damage they’ve done. As the chief judge said, international courts can play “an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem.” But for those nations that still pay some attention to international opinion (which would be most nations except ours), the ruling will be one more spur to action—it will certainly heighten the rhetoric and the stakes at COP30, the next global climate talks which will be held (sans America) in Belem, Brazil in November.
And it’s not as if there’s no chance that this will eventually mean something. European-based oil companies, for instance—which often have some state ownership and control—may be more exposed. "The legal consequences resulting from the commission of an internationally wrongful act may include... full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation, and satisfaction," said ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa on behalf of the 15-judge panel.
At the moment the oil companies imagine themselves to be unshakable colossi, astride the world because they control Washington. But as so often, it is in the moment of greatest hubris that disaster looms. Here’s an ominous little note for them: Chinese data yesterday showed that Beijing has managed to essentially end all imports of oil and gas from America. That’s a big change—as Bloomberg notes: “Crude is the most heavily traded commodity in the world and China the biggest buyer. In June last year, its purchases from the U.S. were worth nearly $800 million.” But no more—remember, China is currently installing 100 solar panels a second, and more than half the cars it sells have a plug dangling out the back. They’re figuring out how to say buzz off to Big Oil.
So imagine, for a moment, a scene in 2029, when the balance of power has shifted in Washington—and when it’s become clear that we no longer really need fossil fuels to power the world. It’s not impossible to imagine that an America seeking to rejoin the world, and needing to make amends for the utter stupidity of the Trump years, might not see the oil industry as a useful sacrifice to offer the rest of the planet. “Restitution, compensation, satisfaction.” Justice delayed is justice denied, as the British Prime Minister William Gladstone correctly remarked. But to everything there is a season, as King Solomon also correctly remarked.
At any rate: we keep fighting. Next stop on our calendar is of course Sun Day, and in honor of the glory days of high summer here’s a particularly juicy version of the logo that popped up in the global gallery this week:

"Even as fossil fuel expansion continues under the U.S.' influence... major polluters—past and present—cannot continue to act with impunity and treat developing countries as sacrifice zones to further feed corporate greed."
Vanuatu's government on Wednesday hailed the landmark International Court of Justice advisory opinion that countries have a legal obligation to take cooperative action against the "urgent and existential threat" of human-caused planetary heating, while demanding an end to the impunity enjoyed by major polluters including the United States, which is leading an ecocidal fossil fuel expansion under President Donald Trump.
The ruling by the ICJ—a United Nations organ also known as the World Court—states that "climate change is a common concern" and "cooperation is not a matter of choice for states but a pressing need and a legal obligation."
Furthermore, the tribunal underscored that "nompliance with emission-reduction commitments by a state may constitute an internationally wrongful act," suggesting a legal mechanism for reparations for countries suffering loss and damage from climate harms caused by wealthier polluters.
Vanuatu Minister of Climate Change Adaptation, Meteorology and Geo-Hazards, Energy, Environment, and Disaster Management Ralph Regenvanu said in a statement that "the ICJ ruling marks an important milestone in the fight for climate justice."
"We now have a common foundation based on the rule of law, releasing us from the limitations of individual nations' political interests that have dominated climate action," he noted. "This moment will drive stronger action and accountability to protect our planet and peoples."
"The nations most responsible for emissions should be held accountable."
"Even as fossil fuel expansion continues under the U.S.' influence, along with the loss of climate finance and technology transfer, and the lack of climate ambition following the U.S.' withdrawal from the Paris agreement, major polluters—past and present—cannot continue to act with impunity and treat developing countries as sacrifice zones to further feed corporate greed," he continued.
"The Global South is bearing the brunt of a crisis it did not create," Regenvanu stressed. "Families are losing their homes, entire cultures are at risk of disappearing, and lives are being shattered by man-made climate disasters. The nations most responsible for emissions should be held accountable for any violations of legal obligations and they must also step up and lead in providing resources and support to aid those most affected."
"A victory in the world's highest court is just the beginning," he added. "Success will depend on what happens next through coordinated efforts across diplomacy, politics, litigation, and advocacy to turn this moment into a true turning point."
While some of the world's biggest polluters pursue fossil-fueled energy agendas, low-lying Pacific island nations including Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and the self-governing New Zealand territory of Niue are working to draft a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty (FFNPT). Such an accord would aim to end the expansion and phase out production of fossil fuels while ensuring a just transition to renewable energy. In 2023, California became the largest economy in the world to endorse a FFNPT.
Vanuatu was the first nation to endorse the FFNPT, having done so in 2022.
"Every day we are experiencing more debilitating consequences of the climate crisis," Vanuatu President Nikenike Vurobaravu said at the time. "Fundamental human rights are being violated, and we are measuring climate change not in degrees of Celsius or tons of carbon, but in human lives. This emergency is of our own making."
"For the first time, it feels like justice is not just a dream but a direction," said Flora Vano, an activist from Vanuatu.
The world's highest court said in a landmark advisory opinion handed down Wednesday that countries have a legal obligation to take cooperative action against the climate crisis, which the United Nations body characterized as an "urgent and existential threat."
Reading the ruling aloud during a closely watched hearing, International Court of Justice (ICJ) President Yuji Iwasawa said that "climate change is a common concern" and "cooperation is not a matter of choice for states but a pressing need and a legal obligation."
"Non-compliance with emission-reduction commitments by a state may constitute an internationally wrongful act," the advisory opinion states, opening the door to reparations for countries harmed by the fossil fuel-driven crisis.
The ICJ ruling, which is expected to bolster new and existing climate lawsuits worldwide, stemmed from a 2023 U.N. General Assembly resolution introduced by the low-lying nation of Vanuatu, which—along with more than 130 other governments—demanded that the world's highest court issue an opinion on nations' legal obligations to combat the climate emergency.
"Tonight I'll sleep easier," Flora Vano, country manager of ActionAid Vanuatu, said in a statement following Wednesday's decision. "For the first time, it feels like justice is not just a dream but a direction. The ICJ has recognized what we have lived through—our suffering, our resilience, and our right to our future. This is a victory not just for us but for every frontline community fighting to be heard. Now, the world must act."
"As the Trump administration takes extreme steps to prioritize corporate polluters over public health and the environment, the legal recklessness of doing so has been laid bare."
Danilo Garrido, legal counsel at Greenpeace International, hailed the advisory opinion as "the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level."
"The ICJ advisory opinion marks a turning point for climate justice, as it has clarified, once and for all, the international climate obligations of states, and most importantly, the consequences for breaches of these obligations," said Garrido. "This will open the door for new cases, and hopefully bring justice to those who, despite having contributed the least to climate change, are already suffering its most severe consequences."
"The message of the court is clear: The production, consumption, and granting of licenses and subsidies for fossil fuels could be breaches of international law," Garrido added. "Polluters must stop emitting and must pay for the harms they have caused."
The ICJ opinion comes as the Trump administration in the U.S.—historically the world's largest emitter of planet-warming greenhouse gases—works to expand fossil fuel drilling, withdraws from cooperative global efforts to fight the climate crisis, and rolls back green energy investments.
The U.S. faced backlash over its position on the case before the ICJ, which was argued last December—when the Biden administration was in power. The Biden administration's representative was accused of arguing that "countries do not have clear legal obligations to reduce carbon pollution."
Delta Merner, a lead scientist with the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that Wednesday's opinion from the ICJ "leaves no room for ambiguity—governments cannot ignore their legal responsibilities to prevent further climate harm."
"This ruling makes clear that obligations under existing international law are not voluntary or symbolic; they are enforceable duties rooted in science, human rights, and intergenerational equity," said Merner. "The court also affirmed that countries must rein in corporate polluters, and if they fail, they’re responsible for helping to fix the damage."
"As the Trump administration takes extreme steps to prioritize corporate polluters over public health and the environment, the legal recklessness of doing so has been laid bare by the new advisory opinion," Merner continued. "This decision heralds a new frontier in the movement for climate accountability."
"This opposition to strong international law on climate justice categorically undermines the Biden administration's climate legacy," said Ashfaq Khalfan of Oxfam America.
The Biden administration faced backlash from scientists, advocacy groups, and vulnerable Pacific islands on Wednesday for arguing before the United Nations' highest court that the Paris agreement is sufficient and countries should not face additional legal obligations to fight the climate emergency.
The U.S. position, outlined at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by State Department legal adviser Margaret Taylor, was deemed "morally bankrupt" by Oxfam America, which
decried the administration's insistence that "countries do not have clear legal obligations to reduce carbon pollution, especially as it prepares to turn over the executive office to a proven climate denier like President-elect [Donald] Trump."
"This opposition to strong international law on climate justice categorically undermines the Biden administration's climate legacy," Ashfaq Khalfan, Oxfam America's climate justice director, said Wednesday. "The U.S. has today denied any firm obligation to reduce carbon pollution to safer levels, phase out fossil fuel production, or provide funding to lower-income countries to help with renewable energy and protection from climate harms. Governments have failed to do what is necessary to protect humanity from the climate crisis, and it is essential that the ICJ holds them to account by pushing them towards concrete action to ensure climate justice."
Taylor argued during her presentation in The Hague on Wednesday that "the U.N. climate change regime, with the Paris agreement at its core, is the only international legal regime specifically designed by states to address climate change" and that "cooperative efforts through that regime provide the best hope for protecting the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations."
While technically a legally binding international treaty, the Paris accord has failed to arrest the rise of planet-warming carbon emissions, which have surged to an all-time high this year. The agreement—from which the U.S. is expected to withdraw for a second time under Trump—has no enforcement mechanism, and its language leaves ample room for countries to continue burning fossil fuels at levels that scientists say are incompatible with a livable future.
"The U.S. is content with its business-as-usual approach and has taken every possible measure to shirk its historical responsibility, disregard human rights, and reject climate justice."
Delta Merner, lead scientist for the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, criticized the U.S.—the largest historical polluter—for resisting "calls for climate accountability" at Wednesday's ICJ hearing.
"Instead of taking responsibility for its contributions to the climate crisis, the United States used its 30-minute slot to downplay the role of the courts for global climate action, emphasize nonbinding national commitments under the Paris agreement, and reject the notion of historical responsibility," said Merner. "By framing climate change as a collective action challenge without clear legal obligations for individual states, the United States dismissed the potential for redress or binding accountability measures that advance justice for climate-vulnerable nations."
"In the face of stonewalling from major polluters, we applaud the leadership of Vanuatu and others for advancing this process," Merner added. "These proceedings must continue to center the voices of frontline communities."
The Pacific island of Vanuatu first launched the push for an ICJ advisory opinion on climate in 2021. Less than two years later, the U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution calling on the ICJ to issue an opinion on countries' legal obligations regarding the global fight against climate change.
Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's special envoy for climate change and environment,
criticized the U.S. presentation at Wednesday's landmark hearing and said treaties such as the Paris agreement can't be "a veil for inaction or a substitute for legal accountability."
"These nations—some of the world's largest greenhouse gas emitters—have pointed to existing treaties and commitments that have regrettably failed to motivate substantial reductions in emissions," said Regenvanu. "There needs to be an accounting for the failure to curb emissions and the climate change impacts and human rights violations that failure has generated."
Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, expressed outrage at what he described as "a disheartening attempt by the U.S. to evade its responsibilities as one of the world's largest polluters."
"The U.S. is content with its business-as-usual approach and has taken every possible measure to shirk its historical responsibility, disregard human rights, and reject climate justice," Prasad added.
"What started in the Pacific is now a historic climate justice campaign, as the world's most urgent problem of climate change reaches the worlds highest court," said one campaigner.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) heard arguments Monday in the largest climate case ever brought before it as a coalition of low-lying and developing nations demanded larger polluting nations be held to account under international law for causing "significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment" with runaway fossil fuel emissions over recent decades.
In the first day of hearings in The Hague that could last weeks, multiple representatives from the Pacific island of Vanuatu, which is leading the coalition of over 100 countries and allied organizations, laid the blame for the climate crisis at the feed of a small number of states that are large emitters of greenhouse gases.
"We know what the cause of climate change is: a conduct of specific States ... Vanuatu's contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is negligible, and yet we are among those most affected by climate change," said Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the Republic of Vanuatu.
"We find ourselves on the frontlines of a crisis we did not create," said Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's special envoy for climate change and environment, told the court.
Monday's historic moment at The Hague follows years of work on the part of Pacific Island nations, particularly Vanuatu, to push for the ICJ to take up the issue of global warming and human rights. The stakes of the planetary emergency are particularly high for these countries, which are under threat from rising seas and other climate impacts.
Ilan Kiloe, legal counsel for the Melanesian Spearhead Group, a regional subgroup that includes Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu, issued a stark warning during his remarks to the court: "Climate change is now depriving our peoples, again, of our ability to enjoy our right to self-determination in our lands. The harsh reality is that many of our people will not survive."
Last year, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on climate change and human rights. The measure, which was introduced by Vanuatu and co-sponsored by more than 130 governments, requested that the world's highest court outline countries' legal responsibilities for combatting fossil fuel-driven climate change and the legal consequences of failing to meet those obligations.
Over the next two weeks, the court will hear statements from nearly 100 nations, including wealthy developed countries such as the United States. Advisory opinions, unlike judgments, are not binding—but Vanuatu and other supporters hope that a forthcoming opinion would accelerate action around the climate emergency.
The country began pushing for the ICJ resolution in 2021, following a campaign launched in 2019 by a group of students from the University of the South Pacific.
"What started in the Pacific is now a historic climate justice campaign, as the world's most urgent problem of climate change reaches the world’s highest court," said Shiva Gounden of Greenpeace Australia Pacific.
"The next two weeks of hearings are the culmination of collective campaigning from 2019, powerful advocacy, and mobilizing the world behind this landmark campaign, to ensure the human rights of current and future generations are protected from climate destruction, and the biggest emitters are held accountable."
Polly Banks, Vanuatu country director for Save the Children, who travelled to The Hague for the proceedings, said that "the hearing before the Court goes to questions about the efficacy, equity and fairness of the current responses to climate change, which are particularly relevant for children, who have contributed the least to climate change but will be most affected by its consequences."
"Currently, only 2.4% of climate finance from multilateral funding sources is child-responsive. Even without the Court's opinion, we know that states need to do far more to protect children from the worst impacts of this crisis, by significantly increasing climate finance to uphold children’s basic rights and access to health, education and protection," Banks added.
The start of hearings at The Hague come on the heels of a COP29 climate summit that was heavily criticized. The summit focused heavily on climate finance, but the resulting deal was panned by critics as rich nations agreed to voluntarily provide just $300 billion to help developing nations decarbonize and deal with the impacts of the climate emergency. Poor nations and climate campaigners had demanded over a trillion dollars in funding in the form of debt-free grants and direct payments.
"This is a moment of generational change, one that is needed to safeguard our environment and signal to coming generations that the world is truly serious about doing so," said one legal expert on ecocide.
Campaigners against ecocide, the destruction of nature, applauded what one leader called a "key moment" in the fight to protect the natural world and communities that are most vulnerable to climate damage on Monday as three Pacific island nations proposed that the International Criminal Court formally recognize the crime.
Vanuatu, which first made a similar proposal in 2019, was joined by Samoa and Fiji in submitting the proposal to the ICC, which was established in 2002 to prosecute cases regarding genocide and crimes against humanity.
"Vanuatu considers it imperative that the international community takes this conversation seriously, and we warmly invite all member states to engage," said Ralph Regenvanu, special envoy for climate change and environment for Vanuatu, in a statement. "Legal recognition of severe and widespread environmental harm holds significant potential to ensure justice and, crucially, to deter further destruction."
The recognition of environmental and ecosystem destruction as a crime could allow the court to prosecute individuals accused of ecocide, such executives of pollution-causing companies whose activities are linked to planetary heating and the sea-level rise and intense storms small island nations increasingly face and officials of governments that continue to emit high levels of greenhouse gases.
Philippe Sands, a law professor at University College London and co-chair of an expert panel on the legal definition of ecocide, said that as drafted, the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, "cannot adequately address environmental harms" and must be changed to reflect "a growing recognition that severe environmental destruction deserves the same legal accountability as other grave international crimes that focus on the human."
"People clearly understand that the most severe forms of environmental destruction harm all of us, and that there is real deterrent potential in creating personal criminal liability for top decision-makers."
“There is a manifest gap in the statute of the ICC, and ecocide is now firmly on the agenda, a vital and necessary moment for an effective international law," said Sands. "This is a moment of generational change, one that is needed to safeguard our environment and signal to coming generations that the world is truly serious about doing so."
Sands told The Guardian that he is "100% certain" that ecocide will ultimately be recognized as an international crime, but with the matter tabled for a full discussion by the ICC at a later date, a long deliberation process is expected.
The Pacific nations introduced the proposal at the ICC days after the Global Commons Survey, conducted by Ipsos UK, found that 72% of people in G20 countries believe ecocide should be recognized as a crime.
Jojo Mehta, co-founder and CEO of Stop Ecocide International, said last week that "widespread civil society demand" has driven the European Union to recognize "conduct comparable to ecocide" as a "qualified" offense, and Belgium to adopt ecocide as a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison and fines as high as $1.8 million.
"We're seeing significant policy shifts in favor of ecocide legislation at the domestic, regional, and international levels," said Mehta. "People clearly understand that the most severe forms of environmental destruction harm all of us, and that there is real deterrent potential in creating personal criminal liability for top decision-makers. Damage prevention is always the best policy, which is precisely what ecocide law is about."
Some of the world's biggest polluters, including the United States, China, and Russia, are not member states of the ICC, and could challenge the court's jurisdiction if accused of ecocide—but Mehta said Monday that "by establishing legal consequences, we create a guardrail that compels decision-makers to prioritize safety for people and planet, fundamentally altering how they approach their obligations."
"We also create a route to justice for the worst harms," she said, "whether they occur in times of conflict or in times of peace."
Regenvanu said Vanuatu has prioritized the recognition of ecocide as a crime after suffering significant climate damage for years, with the government already having relocated six towns due to irreversible sea level rise.
"Environmental and climate loss and damage in Vanuatu is devastating our island economy, submerging our territory, and threatening livelihoods. This tragedy is not unique to Vanuatu but is shared by many small island nations that, despite bearing the least responsibility for the crisis, suffer most from its impacts," said Regenvanu. "We urge ICC member states to take note of the very substantial civil society support for this initiative around the world as it moves forward in this crucial discussion."
"We have witnessed a win for climate justice of epic proportions," said Vanuatu's prime minister after the passage of a resolution asking the world's highest court to clarify national obligations for climate action and the legal consequences of inaction.
Climate justice advocates cheered Wednesday after the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory opinion on climate change and human rights.
The newly approved measure, introduced by Vanuatu and co-sponsored by more than 130 governments, asks the world's highest court to outline countries' legal responsibilities for combatting the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency and the legal consequences of failing to meet those obligations.
"We have witnessed a win for climate justice of epic proportions," Vanuatu Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau said after the resolution was adopted by consensus. "Today's historic resolution is the beginning of a new era in multilateral climate cooperation, one that is more fully focused on upholding the rule of international law and an era that places human rights and intergenerational equity at the forefront of climate decision-making."
"This is a landmark moment in the fight for climate justice as it is likely to provide clarity on how existing international law... can be applied to strengthen action on climate change."
Like other Pacific Island nations, Vanuatu bears little responsibility for the climate crisis but is acutely vulnerable to its impacts, including existentially threatening sea level rise and intensified cyclones such as those that displaced thousands in the region just weeks ago. The country began pushing for the ICJ resolution in 2021, following a campaign launched in 2019 by a group of students from a university in nearby Fiji.
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) hailed its passage as "a historic moment."
So too did Marta Schaaf, director of Amnesty International's Climate, Economic, and Social Justice program.
"This is a landmark moment in the fight for climate justice as it is likely to provide clarity on how existing international law, especially human rights and environmental legislation, can be applied to strengthen action on climate change," said Schaaf. "This will help mitigate the causes and consequences of the damage done to the climate and ultimately protect people and the environment globally."
“We salute this remarkable achievement by Vanuatu, and other Pacific Island states, which originally brought this urgent call to advance climate justice to the U.N.," Schaaf continued. "Today's victory sprang from the efforts of youth activists in Pacific Island states to secure climate justice."
Schaaf urged the ICJ "to provide a robust advisory opinion to advance climate justice." Last week's report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, she noted, shows that "the 1.5°C global warming limit agreed to in Paris in 2015 is likely to be breached before 2035 unless urgent action is taken." Temperature rise of roughly 1.1°C to date is already fueling catastrophic weather, with even more lethal impacts on the horizon barring transformative action.
"We see some fossil fuel-producing states both resisting calls to phase them out, and falsely promoting carbon capture and storage as a technological fix for the climate," said Schaaf. "An advisory opinion from the court can help put a brake on this accelerating climate disaster."
CIEL's Climate and Energy program director Nikki Reisch also applauded the resolution, saying it marks an important step "toward clarifying what existing law requires states to do to curb climate change and protect human rights."
"Courts can translate the clear scientific evidence that fossil fuels are driving the climate crisis into clear legal imperatives to phase them out now and implement proven available solutions."
Despite volumes of indisputable scientific evidence highlighting the need quickly replace fossil fuels—the leading source of greenhouse gas pollution—with renewables, last year's COP27 negotiations ended, like the 26 preceding U.N. climate summits, with no concrete commitment to wind down coal, oil, and gas production.
In the absence of a needed crackdown on the fossil fuel industry, immensely profitable oil and gas giants are planning to expand their operations in the coming years even though their executives know it means locking in additional planet-heating emissions and cataclysmic temperature increases.
While a handful of Pacific Island governments are leading calls for a global just transition to clean energy, other governments are actively aiding the continued extraction and combustion of fossil fuels.
Earlier this month, for instance, the Biden administration, which claims to view the climate crisis as an existential threat, approved ConocoPhillips' Willow project in the Alaskan Arctic—the largest proposed oil drilling endeavor on public land in U.S. history—and moved ahead with Lease Sale 259, one of the largest-ever offshore drilling auctions in the Gulf of Mexico.
As CIEL pointed out, "impacted communities across the globe are finding themselves with few alternatives but to resort to courts in their pursuit of clear rules to guide state climate action and hold states accountable for their failures."
According to The New York Times:
The [ICJ's] opinion would not be binding. But, depending on what it says, it could potentially turn the voluntary pledges that every country has made under the Paris climate accord into legal obligations under a range of existing international statutes, such as those on the rights of children or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That could, in turn, lay the groundwork for new legal claims. (A few national courts have already relied in part on international law to rule in favor of climate activists' lawsuits.)
Courts play a critical role "in breaking through the inertia when politics break down," said Reisch. "Courts can translate the clear scientific evidence that fossil fuels are driving the climate crisis into clear legal imperatives to phase them out now and implement proven available solutions. They also can—and indeed must—hold states accountable for the mounting suffering caused by their failure to act."
Describing climate justice as "both a moral imperative and a prerequisite for effective global climate action," U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres called the ICJ resolution "essential."
Advisory opinions issued by the world's top court "have tremendous importance and can have a long-standing impact on the international legal order," he added. Such a move "would assist the General Assembly, the U.N., and member states to take the bolder and stronger climate action that our world so desperately needs."
The passage of the ICJ resolution comes just days after a pair of scholars put forth a novel legal theory of "climate homicide," which aims to hold fossil fuel corporations criminally liable for disaster deaths.
"As Pacific leaders shoulder the burden of climate leadership," this call "is a reminder that despite the doom and gloom, another world is possible, a fossil fuel-free world that is just, equitable, and sustainable."
Climate justice advocates celebrated Friday after a half-dozen island nations committed to building a "fossil fuel-free Pacific" and urged all governments to join them in bringing about an equitable phaseout of coal, oil, and gas.
From Wednesday to Friday, Vanuatu and Tuvalu co-hosted the 2nd Pacific Ministerial Dialogue on Pathways for the Global Just Transition from Fossil Fuels in Port Vila, Vanuatu. The summit came amid an ongoing state of emergency in Vanuatu, which was hammered earlier this month by a pair of Category 4 cyclones. Participants described the current devastation as "just the most recent example of the extensive and ongoing fossil fuel-induced loss and damage suffered by" Pacific Islanders.
At the conclusion of the three-day meeting, ministers and officials from six countries—Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Tonga, Fiji, Niue, and the Solomon Islands—agreed on the Port Vila Call for a Just Transition to a Fossil Fuel-Free Pacific.
The resolution—issued "on behalf of present and future generations, communities on the frontlines, and all of humanity"—calls for immediate international action to accelerate a just transition from dirty to clean energy in accordance with what experts have shown is necessary to avert the worst consequences of the climate crisis.
"The science is clear that fossil fuels are to blame for the climate emergency," says the document. "This is a crisis driven by the greed of an exploitative industry and its enablers. It is not acceptable that countries and companies are still planning on producing more than double the amount of fossil fuels by 2030 than the world can burn to limit warming to 1.5°C."
"Every second wasted on climate inaction and clinging to fossil fuels puts lives, homes, livelihoods, cultures, and ecosystems in jeopardy."
Among other things, the resolution implores policymakers in the Pacific and around the world to join the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) and negotiate a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty (FFNPT) to end the expansion of coal, oil, and gas extraction and to expedite a fair global shift to renewables. It also cautions lawmakers to avoid phrases like "unabated" or "inefficient," warning that such terminology "creates loopholes for fossil fuel producers."
In a statement, Oil Change International global policy lead Romain Ioualalen said, "Faced with devastating climate impacts resulting from the world's continued addiction to fossil fuels, Pacific governments have once again demonstrated what true leadership looks like."
"The contrast between the U.S. and other rich countries approving new oil and gas fields in clear defiance of science, and the commitment to build a prosperous and resilient fossil fuel-free Pacific could not be more obvious and highlights the complete disregard the fossil fuel industry and its enablers have for people and communities most affected by the climate crisis," said Ioualalen. "Countries must urgently heed the call for an immediate end to fossil fuel expansion that is emanating from the Pacific. We look forward to Pacific countries continuing to be vocal champions for a just and equitable phaseout of fossil fuels on the global stage, including at COP28 later this year."
Samoan climate justice activist Brianna Fruean said that "this dialogue of Pacific ministers is stepping outside of the box and acknowledging that we must try new ways to save ourselves—and that is going to require a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty."
"While the guilty continue to reap profit off the expansion of fossil fuels behind our backs," said Fruean, "the meeting is bringing renewed energy to Pacific leadership that will not just echo across our islands but drive action with our allies globally."
Despite bearing almost no historical responsibility for the climate crisis, Pacific Islanders are acutely vulnerable to rising sea levels and increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather. Policymakers from the region have long been leaders in demanding ambitious efforts to slash greenhouse gas pollution at speed and scale, including by putting the idea of a FFNPT on the table in 2016. Just last year, Vanuatu and Tuvalu became the first national governments to endorse such a measure, while Tuvalu also recently joined the BOGA as a core member.
"Every second wasted on climate inaction and clinging to fossil fuels puts lives, homes, livelihoods, cultures, and ecosystems in jeopardy," said Lavetanalagi Seru, regional policy coordinator at Pacific Islands Climate Action Network. "As Pacific leaders shoulder the burden of climate leadership, the Port Vila Call for a Just Transition to a Fossil Fuel-Free Pacific is a reminder that despite the doom and gloom, another world is possible, a fossil fuel-free world that is just, equitable, and sustainable."
The region's new resolution states that "we have the power and responsibility to lead, and we will. Pacific leaders called for the Paris agreement to limit warming to 1.5°C, and have demanded an end to the development and expansion of fossil fuel-extracting industries, starting with new coal mines. Pacific civil society has challenged the world to step up the fight for urgent fossil fuel phaseout and effective climate action."
In recent weeks, Vanuatu has been leading an ongoing push for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on "how existing international laws can be applied to strengthen action on climate change, protect people and the environment, and save the Paris agreement."
The document unveiled Friday calls for "redoubled efforts to reaffirm, strengthen, and codify legal obligations with respect to the global phaseout of fossil fuels," including by supporting the adoption of the Vanuatu-led ICJ resolution at the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly at the end of this month.
"The contrast between the U.S. and other rich countries approving new oil and gas fields in clear defiance of science, and the commitment to build a prosperous and resilient fossil fuel-free Pacific could not be more obvious."
According to Seru, "The phaseout of fossil fuels is not only a challenge, but an opportunity to promote economic development and innovation in the Pacific region."
To that end, the Port Vila document calls for "new Pacific-tailored development pathways based on 100% renewable energy."
350.org Pacific managing director Joseph Sikulu welcomed this week's developments, saying in a statement that "our people need global leaders to follow the innovation of Pacific representatives at the Pacific Ministerial Dialogue, it is a matter of survival."
"Our people also need energy to power their homes, their fishing boats, and their schools, which is where we are ready to work with governments in their commitment to progress the development and implementation of fossil-free development pathways at the grassroots level," he added.
In order to make that a reality, the document calls for increasing "public and private finance for the just transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy at the scale required, with innovative, simplified mechanisms and reforms of existing financial institutions."
Cansin Leylim, 350.org associate director of global campaigns, applauded Pacific Island nations for "once again showing immense leadership in the fight against the climate crisis, a crisis they had no part in creating."
"Pacific leaders have told us time and again—in order to stay below 1.5°C, the historically responsible countries need to immediately commit to a fossil fuel-free future without loopholes," said Leylim. "This means ensuring adequate and grant-based climate finance is swiftly mobilized to both adapt to the crisis and limit the heating to survival limits, ensuring energy independence and resource resilience with renewable energy."
Tzeporah Berman, chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, predicted that this week's "historic meeting" will "have far-reaching consequences."
More than 100,000 people in Vanuatu--half the country's population--still lack access to clean water, a month after Cyclone Pam devastated the Pacific island nation, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) said Wednesday.
Two-thirds of Vanuatu's water and sanitation infrastructure has been damaged, wrecked, or contaminated, UNICEF said in a statement.
"There is water but quality is not that good because of the contamination," UNICEF's Vanuatu chief Ketsamay Rajphangthong told Reuters in a phone interview on Wednesday. "When the water is contaminated there's lots of risks coming after that, especially diarrhea and also other forms of disease."
Cyclone Pam hit Vanuatu on March 13 and tore apart the tiny island nation with winds that reached 210 miles per hour--killing 11 people, uprooting trees, destroying houses, and cutting off almost all electrical power, leaving behind a "looming threat of hunger and thirst."
With nearly 70 percent of wells contaminated, UNICEF is providing water purification tablets and plastic sheets for rainwater harvesting, but acknowledged that the measure is only a temporary solution, Reuters reports.
Rajphangthong noted that the lack of sanitation increases danger for women and children, who are forced to walk to shower and toilet facilities further from home, or defecate in the open, which makes them vulnerable to abuse.
Aid groups have warned of impending food and water shortages since the cyclone hit. On March 20, Vanuatu's humanitarian coordinator for the UN, Osnat Lubrani, told the Associated Press, "The relief has to start coming now, because if it doesn't come in the next two days or so, then we will have problems with food and with water."
With resources in Vanuatu already strained under the effects of climate change, Pacific Island leaders recently renewed the call for global leaders to act on climate finance.
"We see the level of sea rise...The cyclone seasons, the warm, the rain, all this is affected," Vanuatu's President Baldwin Lonsdale told the UN's World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, Japan in March. "This year we have more than in any year...Yes, climate change is contributing to this."