View previous stories
	Climate Change is an Existential Threat to Humanity by WWF, ICJ, Grantham Research Institute, agencies   Oct. 2025   Banking on Climate Breakdown. The Banking industry’s net zero alliance shuts down. (Guardian News)   The global banking industry’s net zero target-setting group has announced it will shut down immediately, amid faltering climate commitments around the world.   The Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), which was rocked by a wave of departures after Donald Trump’s re-election, said its remaining members had “voted to transition from a member-based alliance and to establish its guidance as a framework”.   “As a result of this decision, NZBA will cease operations immediately,” a spokesperson said.   Jeanne Martin, co-director of corporate engagement at the responsible investment group ShareAction, described it as “bitterly disappointing”.   “Senior bankers need to be far more courageous in this decisive moment for all our futures and must use their influence to push up standards for accountability on climate if we are to stand any chance of making the clean energy transition happen.”   Lucie Pinson, the director of Reclaim Finance, said she “won’t mourn” the demise of the NZBA. “Its purpose was never to take real action, but to create the illusion of measures in order to ward off the risk of regulation. At least its demise brings clarity: the institutions genuinely committed to containing global warming will continue to act. But the massive reallocation of financial flows toward solutions cannot happen without intervention from policymakers and regulators. Their action is essential to limit climate change and the systemic risks it entails. For both, the priority remains ending the financing of fossil fuel expansion.”   On paper, the NZBA, which was convened by the UN Environment Programme finance initiative but led by banks, encouraged members to slash the carbon footprint of their investments and help drive the transition to net zero emissions by 2050.   The group counted nearly 150 members at its peak but began losing members late last year, when Donald Trump was re-elected on promises to deregulate the energy sector, dismantle environmental rules and “drill, baby, drill”.   Six major US banks – JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs – quit before Trump’s inauguration, in moves analysts said were an attempt to head off “anti-woke” attacks from rightwing US politicians.   They were followed by European and Japanese lenders. In July, HSBC became the first British bank to quit the alliance, followed weeks later by Barclays. HSBC had already delayed key parts of its climate goals by 20 years and watered down environmental targets.   http://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/03/banking-industry-net-zero-alliance-shuts-down-climate-nzba http://www.citizen.org/news/banking-agencies-withdraw-climate-risk-principles-leaving-banks-vulnerable-to-climate-risk-exposure/ http://news.mongabay.com/2025/10/nations-delay-vote-on-shipping-decarbonization-rules-after-fierce-us-resistance/ http://climateandhealthalliance.org/press-releases/cross-cutting-report-reveals-devastating-global-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels-thru-production-life-cycle-across-human-lifespan   http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/development-cannot-be-achieved-dying-planet-un-committee-issues-new-guidance http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/seven-of-nine-planetary-boundaries-now-breached-2013-ocean-acidification-joins-the-danger-zone http://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2025/09/national-academies-publish-new-report-reviewing-evidence-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-u-s-climate-health-and-welfare http://insideclimatenews.org/news/11102025/epas-comeback-a-sham-authoritarian-power-grab   Sep. 2025   Financial institutions must find the courage to continue delivering on net zero, by Aaron Vermeulen & Elisa Vacherand - WWF Global Finance Practice   As the impacts of climate breakdown intensify, disrupting value chains and economies, devastating communities, and undermining resilience, financial institutions appear to be hesitating. Instead of accelerating climate action, banks and asset managers are backing away from net zero commitments and related industry alliances are wobbling.   While the political and regulatory context in which finance operates has radically changed, the science of climate change has not. Financial institutions everywhere have a critical role to play in keeping global warming within 1.5°C as well as enhancing nature-based solutions to climate change. And in navigating today’s geopolitical and regulatory complexity, it’s vital they retain ambition and double down on financing the net-zero transition, even if they dare not speak its name.   Of course, the retreat from net zero is not happening in a vacuum. Questions about whether sustainable finance is compatible with fiduciary duty and competitiveness have been politicised. In response, some leading banks and investors are reining in ambition and exiting net zero alliances, forcing them to forego target-driven membership and restructure as commitment-free frameworks. Even where progress is real, institutions are hesitant to talk about it.   In January, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) announced a new focus on ‘addressing barriers to mobilising capital’, no longer requiring its members to set and deliver on science-based net zero targets. Since then, the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) has haemorrhaged members, while those remaining are now voting on becoming a framework; the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative (NZAM) is undergoing a full review; and the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance (NZAOA) has also been rattled. Even in the face of political pressure, these developments are unfortunate and risky for organisations created to help deliver the transition.   For financial institutions, shying away from climate action exposes their clients’ capital and risks their own credibility. The climate crisis and related risks, whether physical or transitional, aren’t going away any time soon.   And the claim that taking climate action goes against fiduciary duty is debatable. In July, the International Court of Justice ruled that states have binding obligations to prevent climate harm, strengthening the case that financial institutions too must treat climate risk as core to fiduciary responsibility.   Financial institutions must hold the line. Even if political realities limit communication around net zero, they must maintain ambition, and continue to strengthen client engagement and transition planning and investment. There are plenty of frameworks and approaches at hand to help them assess and mitigate climate- and nature related risks, including the CDP-WWF Temperature Scoring Methodology and the Science-Based Targets Initiative.   Net zero alliances under attack must adapt but not fold, and continue to promote best practice and enable their members to set science-based targets in ways that meet their fiduciary duties and net zero objectives, and that scale investment in the business opportunities of transition.   And central banks, financial regulators and supervisors can no longer sit on the fence. They need to make it explicit that climate change and nature loss are material financial risks, and treat them accordingly. Stress testing, disclosure, and capital requirements must reflect reality.   Securing a net zero, nature-positive global economy also demands that governments, regulators and policymakers bolster rather than hinder the ability of financial institutions to deliver transition. Complementing voluntary action with enabling policy works. In Europe, the EU Taxonomy has already shaped €800 billion in climate mitigation investments, and in Asia and leading emerging markets, net-zero policies have tripled across G20 countries since 2020.   The business case is clear. Renewables, for example, are cheaper than fossil fuels. Since 2023, nearly all new solar photovoltaics and onshore wind projects have undercut new coal and gas, and three-quarters were even cheaper than existing fossil plants.   With crude oil prices expected to remain low for the next few years, Antonio Guterres was right when he declared in July that ‘the fossil fuel age is flailing and failing. We are in the dawn of a new energy era.’ The world is already investing nearly twice as much in clean energy as in fossil fuels, and existing clean tech has the potential to displace 75% of today’s fossil fuel demand. Investors who continue to cling to oil and gas are in denial.   There are some signs that the message is hitting home. With pressure mounting on pension funds to take more account of climate risks, Dutch pension fund PFZW is the latest to act, recently withdrawing from BlackRock, Legal & General and AQR Capital Management to match a shift in its investment strategy toward greater sustainability.   Financial institutions already have models for interest rate swings, credit cycles, and geopolitical shock. Climate change is a systemic risk that encompasses all of these and more. Engaging with it is good risk management. Ignoring it is negligent.   The financial sector stands at a crossroads. It can bow to political pressure, dismantle the fragile progress of recent years, and pretend that fossil fuels are still a safe bet. Or it can double down, align with science, and make finance part of the solution.   Political headwinds do not change commercial realities. Major financial institutions know that aligning strategies with a net zero and nature positive agenda will unlock huge opportunities and contribute to a future in which people and nature thrive. This is a time for courage rather than retreat.   http://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/finance/?14763466/Financial-institutions-must-continue-delivering-net-zero http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1165475 http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/turk-hails-landmark-icj-ruling-affirming-states-human-rights-obligations http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/institute-responds-to-international-court-of-justice-advisory-opinion/ http://www.ciel.org/news/icj-climate-opinion-ends-fossil-fuel-impunity/ http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/pace-of-warming-has-doubled-since-1980s http://www.savethechildren.net/news/climate-change-icj-ruling-landmark-win-children http://www.rightsoffuturegenerations.org/the-principles   Aug. 2025   As the climate crisis worsens, it is concerning to see powerful governments censor scientific data, by Pallavi Sethi - Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment   At a time when the global climate crisis is escalating, some governments are choosing to distort and conceal the evidence of its impacts.   In the seven months since taking office, the Trump administration has been steadily erasing the evidence of climate science. This is no longer just a matter of denying science or delaying action, it is about controlling who gets to create, share, and access knowledge.   It is an epistemic assault, one that we have seen happen before. In Canada, nearly a decade ago, Stephen Harper’s government silenced climate scientists and destroyed data. In 2012, the Venezuelan government removed environmental statistics from public view.   And in Brazil in 2020, the Bolsonaro administration tried to discredit data related to deforestation and fired the officer behind it. These cases point to a disturbing pattern of governments trying to conceal facts, a phenomenon becoming increasingly blatant in the US.   Even as climate disasters become more frequent and extreme, such as the recent Texas floods that claimed 135 lives, the Trump administration is gutting the very systems needed to understand and respond to the crisis.   Proposed budget cuts to federal agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), are undermining their ability to monitor climate risks, develop solutions and protect communities.   However, there is a growing movement where scientists and grassroot organisations have come together to protect crucial climate data.   The Trump administration is aggressively rolling back climate action, including erasing scientific data, slashing research funding, and removing terms like “climate change” from federal websites.   In the proposed fiscal budget for 2026, the administration plans to cut NOAA’s budget by 27 per cent, which would end its Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). This could impact the country’s ability to accurately predict extreme weather.   In the latest blow, the administration has proposed to repeal the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, the legal basis for nearly all federal climate regulations. The scientific finding, under the Clean Air Act, based on extensive evidence, concluded that greenhouse gases threaten public health and safety.   The repeal would strip the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases from new vehicles, power plants, and other sources of pollution. If the rollback is carried out, it will be one of the most damaging environmental actions by a US government.   Another concerning target of the Trump administration has been the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the longest-running station for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide. The facility, which was launched in 1956, produced the Keeling Curve (a daily record of global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration), and brought global attention to the rapid increase in greenhouse gas levels.   Now, President Trump wants to shut this laboratory despite expert warnings that this move would impact the understanding of “how climate is changing, at what pace, and where.”   Beyond gutting regulations, the administration is also erasing scientific evidence.   It has removed the online website that hosted the National Climate Assessment (NCA) reports, published every four years, and dismissed hundreds of staff working on the next edition. Without the NCA reports, cities could struggle to prepare for climate disasters.   These actions represent a deliberate effort not just to discredit climate evidence but to suppress it entirely. It is also a rejection of evidence-based governance where both the scientific findings and the institutions responsible for producing them are systematically undermined.   Institutional censorship not only undermines scientific integrity but also erodes public trust in democratic institutions. This type of censorship can also affect international cooperation and slow progress, especially since the US is the second largest carbon emitter.   The suppression of climate data by the US government has global implications. The international scientific community depends on the US for critical data which helps in responding to climate disasters.   Agencies such as NOAA, EPA and NASA have long been providers of free and publicly accessible information to experts all over the world. Since agencies like NOAA monitor vast areas, including entire oceans, researchers in the Global South, for instance, rely heavily on them to monitor and respond to environmental challenges.   The Centre for Sustainable Development at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in India uses NOAA’s climate datasets to track weather and ocean conditions in the Indian Ocean. The Institute uses this information to advise government agencies on how to best prepare and recover from natural disasters. Similarly, scientists at Singapore’s Earth Observatory rely on NOAA data to model and predict rising sea levels, which is critical for strengthening Singapore’s coastal resilience.   Disruptions to such data also risk deepening existing scientific and geopolitical inequalities. Many scientific institutions in wealthier nations may have the ability to develop robust data sources. However, many in the Global South lack the technical infrastructure and financial resources to do the same.   Therefore, limiting access to US climate datasets can especially impact the ability of vulnerable nations to address climate change effectively. In addition, when a powerful country like the US withdraws from climate leadership, it risks sending a dangerous message to other nations that climate inaction is acceptable. This can embolden governments to scale back on their own efforts and undermine collective progress.   Despite efforts to suppress climate data, scientists and grassroots organisations are working together to protect this vital information. For instance, the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative archives data that affects the communities most at risk from Trump’s proposed policies. The Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science in Germany, the European Space Agency, and the National Centre for Scientific Research in France have archived data from US agencies like NOAA and EPA.   As the climate crisis worsens, it is concerning to see powerful governments censor scientific data. But the growing resistance from scientists, civil society and academic institutions proves that knowledge cannot be easily erased. It is also an important reminder that governments cannot be the sole custodians of scientific knowledge. Instead, we should view science as a shared and transnational public resource that we must protect and defend.   http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/inside-trumps-campaign-to-censor-climate-science/ http://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-threats/what-does-information-integrity-have-to-do-with-climate/ http://www.un.org/en/climatechange/information-integrity http://www.unesco.org/en/information-integrity-climate-change http://www.ciel.org/news/531-carbon-capture-and-storage-lobbyists-gained-access-to-cop30-climate-talks/ http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02868-1 http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-stories/2026-01-14-sustainability-scientists-and-environmentalists-must-defend-academic-freedom.html http://www.stockholmresilience.org/news--events/climate-misinformation.html http://www.nobelprize.org/events/nobel-prize-summit/2023   http://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2025/09/national-academies-publish-new-report-reviewing-evidence-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-u-s-climate-health-and-welfare http://blog.ucs.org/kate-cell/disinformation-undermines-our-right-to-science/ http://insideclimatenews.org/news/19122025/trumps-epa-focus-delay-rescind-dismantle/ http://www.ucs.org/resources/access-denied http://www.ucs.org/resources/dirty-air-dirty-deeds http://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/white-house-pushes-to-dismantle-leading-climate-and-weather-research-center http://news.ucar.edu/133054/ucar-statement-reports-nsf-ncar-could-be-dismantled http://researchworks.ucar.edu/hurricanes/ http://researchworks.ucar.edu/tornadoes-hail/ http://researchworks.ucar.edu/wildfires/   http://climateandhealthalliance.org/press-releases/cross-cutting-report-reveals-devastating-global-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels-thru-production-life-cycle-across-human-lifespan/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/11/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-rights-critical-ecosystems-at-risk/ http://climate.law.columbia.edu/Silencing-Science-Tracker http://clxtoolkit.com/publications/report-loss-and-damage-litigation-against-carbon-majors/ http://climateintegrity.org/news/view/new-report-big-oils-deceptive-climate-ads http://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/75/12/1016/8303627 http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/un-expert-says-strengthening-impact-assessments-essential-facing-planetary   July 2025   Climate Change is an Existential Threat to Humanity   The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued its advisory opinion on the obligations of States in respect of climate change, read out by the President of the Court, Judge Iwasawa Yuji, on Wednesday.   The UN’s principal judicial body ruled that States have an obligation to protect the environment from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and act with due diligence and cooperation to fulfill this obligation.   This includes the obligation under the Paris Agreement on climate change to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.   The Court further ruled that if States breach these obligations, they incur legal responsibility and may be required to cease the wrongful conduct, offer guarantees of non-repetition and make full reparation depending on the circumstances.   UN Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the historic decision. "This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice and for the power of young people to make a difference," he said. “The world must respond.”   The case was “unlike any that have previously come before the court,” President of the International Court of Justice Judge Yuji Iwasawa said while reading the court’s unanimous advisory opinion outlining the legal obligations of United Nations member states with regard to climate change.   This case was not simply a “legal problem” but “concerned an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet,” Iwasawa said.   “A complete solution to this daunting and self-inflicted problem requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge, whether law, science, economics or any other; above all, a lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom at the individual social and political levels to change our habits and current way of life to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come”.   "Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system … may constitute an internationally wrongful act," court president Yuji Iwasawa said. "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."   The court added that a "sufficient direct and certain causal nexus" had to be shown "between the wrongful act and the injury".   The Court used Member States’ commitments to both environmental and human rights treaties to justify this decision. UN Member States are parties to a variety of environmental treaties, including ozone layer treaties, the Biodiversity Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement and many more, which oblige them to protect the environment for people worldwide and for future generations.   The right to “a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights,” since Member States are parties to numerous human rights treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are required to guarantee the enjoyment of such rights by addressing climate change.   In September 2021, the Pacific Island State of Vanuatu announced that it would seek an advisory opinion from the Court on climate change. This initiative was inspired by the youth group Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, which underscored the need to act to address climate change, particularly in small island States.   After the country gaind the support of other UN Member States, the UN General Assembly, on 29 March 2023, adopted a resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ on two questions: (1) What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the environment? and (2) What are the legal consequences for States under these obligations when they cause harm to the environment?   The ICJ ruling was welcomed by Ralph Regenvanu, Minister of Climate Change Adaptation, Meteorology & Geo-Hazards, Energy, Environment and Disaster Management for the Republic of Vanuatu.   “Today’s ruling is a landmark opinion that confirms what we, vulnerable nations have been saying, and we’ve known for so long, that states do have legal obligations to act on climate change, and these obligations are guaranteed by international law. They’re guaranteed by human rights law, and they’re grounded in the duty to protect our environment, which we heard the court referred to so much,” Regenvanu said.   Mr Regenvanu hailed the court's decision as a "landmark milestone". "It's a very important course correction in this critically important time," he said. "Even as fossil fuel expansion continues under the US's influence, along with the loss of climate finance and technology transfer, and the lack of climate ambition following the US'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."   Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, legal counsel for Vanuatu’s ICJ case, said the opinion meant that the “era where fossil fuel producers can freely produce and can argue that their climate policies are a matter of discretion—they’re free to decide on the climate policies—that era is over. We have entered an era of accountability, in which states can be held to account for their current emissions if they’re excessive but also for what they have failed to do in the past.”   Vishal Prasad, the director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change and one of the students who initiated the case, said the advisory opinion would play a major role in holding polluters accountable.   "The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities," he said. "It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection, reparations, and a future."   ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa said the climate "must be protected for present and future generations" and the adverse effect of a warming planet "may significantly impair the enjoyment of certain human rights, including the right to life".   The detailed ICJ advisory opinion dealt with obligations of states under various climate conventions and treaties and humanitarian law. The court concluded that in terms of the climate agreements, state parties:   To the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have an obligation to adopt measures with a view to contributing to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change.   Have additional obligations to take the lead in combating climate change by limiting their greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing their greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs.   To the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, have a duty to cooperate with each other in order to achieve the underlying objective of the convention. To the Kyoto Protocol must comply with applicable provisions of the protocol.   To the Paris Agreement have an obligation to act with due diligence in taking measures in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities capable of making an adequate contribution to achieving the temperature goal set out in the agreement.   To the Paris Agreement have an obligation to prepare, communicate and maintain successive and progressive, nationally determined contributions, which, when taken together, are capable of achieving the temperature goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.   State parties to the Paris agreement have an obligation to pursue measures which are capable of achieving the objectives set out in their successive nationally determined contributions.   State parties to the Paris agreement have obligations of adaptation and cooperation, including through technology and financial transfers, which must be performed in good faith.   In addition, the court was of the opinion that customary international law sets forth obligations for states to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.   These obligations include the following:   States have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment by acting with due diligence and to use all means at their disposal to prevent activities carried out within their jurisdiction or control from causing significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.   States have a duty to cooperate with each other in good faith to prevent significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, which requires sustained and continuous forms of cooperation by states when taking measures to prevent such harm.   State parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the ozone layer and to the protocol and to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete ozone layer and its Kigali amendment, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa, have obligations under these treaties to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.   State parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea have an obligation to adopt measures to protect and preserve the marine environment, including from the adverse effects of climate change, and to cooperate in good faith.   However, the court did not end there; it was of the opinion that states have obligations under international human rights law and are required to take “measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment.”   The court said a clean, healthy and sustainable environment was a precondition for exercising many human rights, such as the right to life, the right to health, the right to an adequate standard of living, including access to water, food and housing.   * ICJ Summary: Obligation of States in respect of climate change (7pp): http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf   * ICJ complete advisory: Obligation of States in respect of climate change (140pp): http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf   http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1165475 http://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1t/k1tey5ro2w http://www.icj-cij.org/case/187/press-releases http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/turk-hails-landmark-icj-ruling-affirming-states-human-rights-obligations http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/institute-responds-to-international-court-of-justice-advisory-opinion/ http://www.ciel.org/news/icj-climate-opinion-ends-fossil-fuel-impunity/ http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?14459466/ICJ-advisory-opinion-climate-change http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/07/global-international-court-of-justices-landmark-opinion-bolsters-fight-for-climate-justice-and-accountability/ http://blog.ucs.org/delta-merner/five-reasons-why-the-icj-climate-advisory-opinion-matters/ http://www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press-releases/world-s-highest-court-confirms-countries-must-act-to-avert-climate-catastrophe-in-a-once-in-a-generation-legal-decision/   http://earth.org/landmark-moment-for-climate-justice-reactions-pour-in-after-icj-delivers-historic-opinion-on-states-climate-change-obligations/ http://www.dw.com/en/worlds-top-court-says-healthy-environment-is-a-human-right/a-73373617 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/23/healthy-environment-is-a-human-right-top-un-court-rules http://www.ipsnews.net/2025/07/climate-change-existential-threat-to-humanity-says-icj/ http://www.ciel.org/project-update/advancing-climate-justice-at-the-icj/   http://www.sei.org/about-sei/press-room/production-gap-report-2025-press-release-2 http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/johan-rockstrom-addresses-heads-of-state-during-united-nations-general-assembly-201cfailure-is-not-inevitable-it-is-a-choice201d http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/seven-of-nine-planetary-boundaries-now-breached-2013-ocean-acidification-joins-the-danger-zone http://www.planetaryhealthcheck.org/ http://news.exeter.ac.uk/research/new-reality-as-world-reaches-first-climate-tipping-point/ http://global-tipping-points.org/ http://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adv2906 http://forestdeclaration.org/resources/forest-declaration-assessment-2025/ http://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/forests/banks-make-26-billion-in-a-decade-of-financing-deforesting-companies/ http://www.ipbes.net/nexus/media-release http://livingplanet.panda.org/   http://climateandhealthalliance.org/press-releases/cross-cutting-report-reveals-devastating-global-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels-thru-production-life-cycle-across-human-lifespan http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/ec12gc27-general-comment-no-27-2025-economic-social http://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2025/call-inputs-fossil-fuel-based-economy-and-human-rights http://globalcommonsalliance.org/news/new-research-reveals-path-to-prosperity-for-planet-and-people-if-earths-critical-resources-are-better-shared/ http://earth4all.life/news/causing-environmental-damage-should-be-a-criminal-offence-say-72-of-people-in-g20-countries-surveyed/   http://www.carbonbrief.org/un-five-reasons-why-switching-to-renewables-is-smart-economics http://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2025/06/banking-climate-chaos-global-banks-backslide-climate-commitments-amid-surge-fossil http://fossilfueltreaty.org/news http://clubmadrid.org/taxing-polluter-profits-a-call-for-fair-climate-finance/ http://views-voices.oxfam.org.uk/2025/06/who-should-pay-for-climate-damage-polluters-tax http://taxjustice.net/reports/reclaiming-tax-sovereignty-to-transform-global-climate-finance/ http://climatenetwork.org/2025/06/25/tax-justice-the-missing-element-on-the-road-to-belem/ http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/international-cooperation-on-fossil-fuel-levies-could-raise-billions-for-climate-finance http://tinyurl.com/mtnrb4s8 http://tinyurl.com/4knuumjp http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/75582/global-survey-finds-8-out-of-10-people-support-taxing-oil-and-gas-corporations-to-pay-for-climate-damages/   http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/luciano-lliuya-v-rwe-a-major-step-forward-for-climate-justice/ http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/global-trends-in-climate-change-litigation-2025-snapshot/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/06/de-fossilising-economies-key-course-correction-climate-change-and-human http://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g25/070/22/pdf/g2507022.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/un-experts-hail-landmark-inter-american-court-opinion-states-extensive http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2025/07/15/the-right-to-a-healthy-environment-as-a-catalyst-for-urgent-and-ambitious-climate-action-at-the-iacthr/ http://climate.law.columbia.edu/   http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/pace-of-warming-has-doubled-since-1980s http://www.savethechildren.net/news/climate-change-icj-ruling-landmark-win-children http://www.rightsoffuturegenerations.org/the-principles http://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session57/advance-versions/A-HRC-57-30-AEV.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/crccgc26-general-comment-no-26-2023-childrens-rights http://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/resources/updates/human-rights-climate-change-and-the-role-of-geneva/ http://www.idea.int/stockholm-series-of-public-lectures-climate-change-democracy http://www.ohchr.org/en/meeting-summaries/2025/10/day-one-forum-human-rights-democracy-and-rule-law-climate-emergency-wake http://www.ohchr.org/en/meeting-summaries/2025/10/day-two-forum-human-rights-democracy-and-rule-law-human-rights-democracy Visit the related web page
	International humanitarian law is only as strong as leaders’ will to uphold it by Mirjana Spoljaric President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)   Aug. 2025   (Speech given by Mirjana Spoljaric, president of the ICRC, on 18 August 2025 in Bangkok, Thailand on International Humanitarian Law. Extract):   "The ICRC currently classifies approximately 130 armed conflicts. This is more than we recorded last year, and far more than in previous decades.   While the number of countries experiencing armed conflict remains relatively stable, the number of simultaneous or newly escalating conflicts within them is growing. Many are protracted and often last for generations.   Today’s wars are also marked by coalition warfare, the fragmentation of armed groups, and millions of civilians living under the control of non-state armed actors.   Above all, this decade is seeing an increase in wars between states, tectonic political shifts, blurring alliances, and rapid technological advancements, which together exacerbate the risk for more high-intensity conflicts with devastating humanitarian consequences.   As wars multiply and geopolitical divisions deepen, respect for international humanitarian law is in crisis, and with it, our shared humanity. Armed conflict is now the single greatest driver of humanitarian needs. Much of this suffering could have been prevented had the rules of war been better respected.   The ICRC works on frontlines across the world. We know war intimately, and bear witness every day to the scars it carves into people, families, and communities.   In Myanmar, the humanitarian situation remains dire after decades of fighting, compounded by a devastating earthquake in March of this year. Hostilities persist and, in some places, have intensified. Meanwhile, restrictions on the movement of people and goods continue to limit access to essential services for many communities such as those in Rakhine.   Nowhere in Gaza is safe anymore. What we see there surpasses any acceptable legal or moral standards. Civilians are being killed and injured in their homes, in hospital beds, and while searching for food and water. Children are dying because they do not have enough to eat. The entire territory has been reduced to rubble.   Warfare conducted indiscriminately as well as extreme restrictions on humanitarian aid have made conditions unliveable and devoid of human dignity. At the same time, hostages remain in captivity, despite the clear prohibition of hostage-taking under international humanitarian law.   Large-scale drone and missile attacks in the Russia-Ukraine international armed conflict are killing and injuring civilians far from the frontlines. Essential infrastructure is being destroyed. More than 146,000 cases of missing people – both military and civilian – have been reported to the ICRC as of the end of July.   In Sudan, civilians face an unrelenting nightmare of death, destruction, and displacement.   And after nearly four decades of war in Afghanistan, civilians continue to be haunted by mines, unexploded ordnances, and abandoned improvised explosive devices.   The situation in Syria illustrates one of the most heartbreaking and enduring consequences of prolonged conflict: the unresolved fate of the missing. The ICRC has registered over 36,000 missing people. This is likely just a fraction of the true number. If the ICRC had sustained access to all places of detention throughout the conflict, many of these cases might have been resolved or even prevented.   Still today, water supply and electricity are at risk of collapse. At the same time, the recent violence along the coast and southern Syria underscores how the country’s path to peace is fragile – and how quickly clashes can erupt.   The scale of human suffering – in Gaza, Myanmar, Ukraine, Sudan, Afghanistan, Syria and dozens of other countries across the world – must never be accepted as inevitable. These are not unfortunate side effects of war, but consequences of a profound failure to uphold international humanitarian law.   They are the results of political failure. When wars are fought with the mentality of “total victory” or “because we can” a dangerous permissiveness takes root – one where the law is bent to justify killing rather than prevent it. The Geneva Conventions were created specifically to prevent senseless suffering and death.   When hostilities are carried out indiscriminately and when violence is left unchecked, the consequences are catastrophic. Death and destruction become the norm, and not the exception.   In a highly interconnected world, unrestrained violence rarely remains confined to a single battlefield. It reverberates. When the world tolerates unbridled aggression in one conflict, it signals to the others – militaries, non-state armed groups, and their allies – that such behaviour is acceptable elsewhere.   As conflicts escalate, so too does the weaponization of information. Wars are fought today not only on the ground, but also in the digital arena, where harmful narratives and incendiary rhetoric are used to inflame tensions and justify violence.   Horrific events throughout history are rooted in a common element: dehumanisation. Stripping the humanity of others away creates an environment where torture, abuse, and killing is rationalised. There is no such thing as a human animal. No people or territory should ever be erased from the face of the Earth.   In a world increasingly shaped by algorithms, the speed with which harmful narratives can spread is unprecedented – with dangerous real-world consequences.   We witness how genocidal vocabulary eventually translates into gruesome realities on the ground. The vitriolic hatred embedded in such language strips away empathy, creating fertile ground for atrocities to take place. It renders brutality acceptable, or worse, seemingly inevitable.   We are living in a time when the world is not just at war – it is preparing for more war. Global military spending is at record highs. Across regions, states are investing in weaponry, modernising forces, and rearming with a sense of urgency.   As the president of an organisation responding to the horrific consequences of armed conflict, it is my first responsibility to encourage states to de-escalate and not lead the world towards limitless war.   It is also my duty to remind states that responsible conflict preparedness is not measured solely by firepower. It demands sustained respect for international humanitarian law.   We are witnessing a seismic shift in how wars are fought. As states compete in the 21st-century arms race, it is critical to ask: how does IHL apply to these evolving technologies, and what must states consider as they invest in new weapons systems?   Cheap and scalable, drones are becoming one of the defining weapons of today’s wars. Their widespread use is reshaping frontlines and revolutionising the battlefield. Drones are not prohibited under IHL. But like any weapon, they must be used in full compliance with the rules of war.   Low-resolution, analogue systems and operators’ lack of training – especially when it comes to low-cost first-person view drones – raise serious concerns about the ability to distinguish military from civilian targets. Distance does not absolve responsibility. Drone operators and their commanders remain legally accountable for the effects of their actions, just like any other combatant.   Without stronger regulation and accountability, the drone arms race will escalate. More actors will deploy more drones, with fewer safeguards and humanitarian consequences will multiply.   As drones edge towards greater autonomy, they intersect with another deeply concerning development: autonomous weapons systems.   These weapons can select targets and apply force without any human intervention after their activation, raising serious humanitarian, legal, ethical, and security concerns.   Life-and-death decisions must never be delegated to sensors and algorithms. Human control over the use of force is critical to preserving accountability in warfare. Machines with the power to take lives without human involvement should be banned under international law.   Autonomous weapons systems that function in a way that their effects are unpredictable should be prohibited. For example, allowing autonomous weapons controlled by machine-learning algorithms – where the software writes itself without human oversight – is an unacceptably dangerous proposition.   A new legally binding instrument is critical to establish clear prohibitions and restrictions. Without it, we risk condemning future generations to a world where machines decide who lives and who dies, and accountability is dangerously eroded.   We are also in an era where the battlefield is not only physical but digital. Cyber operations have already been used to disrupt electricity, water systems, hospitals, and other civilian infrastructure – often very far from the frontlines.   IHL applies to cyber operations just as it does to conventional means and methods of warfare. The principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution are just as binding in cyberspace as they are on land.   Civilian protections must be hardwired into digital warfare. That means belligerents must ensure human oversight, refrain from cyber-attacks against civilian infrastructure, and minimize foreseeable harm to civilians and civilian systems.   International humanitarian law also applies to any military activity in outer space related to armed conflict. Disabling or destroying satellites can have serious humanitarian consequences. Satellites that provide navigation, communications, and remote sensing have become indispensable to the functioning of civilian life.   Humanitarian organisations also depend on satellite services to reach people in need. Without these systems, providing life-saving assistance and helping communities recover becomes even more difficult for us.   Just as states must rigorously ensure that new weapons technologies comply with international humanitarian law, they must not neglect their responsibilities concerning conventional weapons.   Putting IHL into action and protecting civilians doesn’t only happen in active conflict zones. It also happens in the choices states make about the kinds of weapons they produce, stockpile, or prohibit.   Today, the global commitment to ban anti-personnel mines is starting to fracture, with several states that once championed disarmament now taking steps to withdraw from the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention. This is not just a legal retreat on paper; it risks endangering lives and reversing decades of hard-fought progress.   This month also marks 80 years since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – a catastrophe that to this day continues to inflict emotional and physical suffering on survivors.   Terrifyingly, the nuclear weapons in today’s arsenals are far stronger. The bombs dropped then would today be classified as a small nuclear weapon.   But there is no such thing as a small nuclear weapon. Any use of nuclear weapons would be a catastrophic event. It would inflict a level of suffering and destruction that no humanitarian response could address. It is extremely doubtful that nuclear weapons could ever be used in accordance with international humanitarian law.   And yet, we continue to see nuclear arsenals expand, and their use be threatened with casualness and frequency. However, the number of states parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons continues to grow, with 73 states now parties to the treaty and another 25 that have signed it.   What happens to societies – to the world – if we fall prey to the belief that might alone makes right? When we disregard the rule of law, and pursue victory at any cost?   IHL was not created to prevent war, but to prevent barbarity in war. That distinction is crucial. It recognizes the reality of armed conflict while insisting that even in war, humanity must endure – in how we treat the wounded, in how we protect civilians, and how we treat prisoners.   Protecting hospitals as sanctuaries for the injured is not weakness. Shielding civilians from hostilities is not weakness. Allowing lifesaving aid to reach those in need is not weakness. Treating detainees with dignity is not weakness. It is strength.   It takes strength to act with restraint in the chaos of war. To resist the pull of vengeance and to rise above retribution. To preserve our shared humanity when conflict threatens to erase it.   Parties to conflict that disregard international humanitarian law do so at the cost of legitimacy. The stain of brutality stays long after the guns fall silent. It complicates post-conflict recovery, economic rebuilding, and international cooperation – and lays fertile ground for future violence and security threats to take root.   It is possible, however, to protect civilians in war. When combatants respect the rules of war – when they spare civilians, protect critical infrastructure, and care for the wounded – they reduce the long-term costs of conflict. They make recovery possible. They preserve the social fabric necessary for peace".   http://www.icrc.org/en/statement/ihl-only-as-strong-as-leaders-will-uphold-it Visit the related web page
	View more stories