This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
After the adoption of the ParisAgreement, which included a notable recognition of the human rights dimensions of climate change, courts have seen a rights turn in climate litigation. The rise of rights-based climate litigation. In Shrestha v.
Bolsonaro pointed out that other countries had been allowed to manage their naturalresources with little outside interference, even if there were adverse environmental consequences, and specifically referenced the history of developed nations like Germany and France. effectively implement[ing] the ParisAgreement on Climate Change.”.
The Amazon rainforest, the country’s not-so-secret weapon to mitigate climate change, features prominently in the litigation. The petition also relies on the international climate change framework (the UNFCCC and the ParisAgreement, which have both been incorporated in Brazilian law). I wrote about some of those here and here.)
At the beginning of COP 27, the Rainforest Action Network, in a report endorsed by many environmental groups, found that Bank of America, J.P. BP, Shell, Aramco and two Texas oil and gas companies, Pioneer NaturalResources and Diamondback Energy, all received between $23 billion and $31 billion in financing.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content