Ralph Regenvanu (left), Vanuatu’s special envoy on climate change and the environment; Arnold Kiel Loughman (center), attorney general of Vanuatu; and Ilan Kiloe (right), legal advisor to the Melanesian Spearhead Group attend the advisory opinion sessions at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands on December 2, 2024. (Photo: Selman Aksunger/Anadolu via Getty Images)
“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.
Experienced climbers scale a rock face near the historic Dumbarton castle in Glasgow, releasing a banner that reads “Climate on a Cliff Edge.” One activist, dressed as a globe, symbolically looms near the edge, while another plays the bagpipes on the shores below. | Photo courtesy of Extinction Rebellion and Mark Richards
A protester holds a sign with a Shell logo during a demonstration on March 11, 2023 in The Hague, Netherlands. (Photo: Michel Porro/Getty Images)
“This setback will only help us grow stronger,” said the Dutch climate group that originally brought the case. “Large polluters are powerful. But united, we as people have the power to change them.”
Climate campaigners didn’t sugarcoat their reactions to a Dutch court decision on Tuesday that overturned a landmark 2021 ruling ordering the oil behemoth Shell to cut its planet-warming emissions nearly in half by the end of this decade.
“We are shocked by today’s judgment,” said Donald Pols, director of Milieudefensie, the Netherlands-based environmental group that originally filed suit against Shell in 2018.
“It is a setback for us, for the climate movement, and for millions of people around the world who worry about their future,” Pols said of Tuesday’s ruling by the Hague Court of Appeal. “But if there’s one thing to know about us, it’s that we don’t give up. This setback will only help us grow stronger. Large polluters are powerful. But united, we as people have the power to change them.”
The original 2021 ruling, as CNBC noted, marked “the first time in history that a company was found to have been legally obliged to align its policies with the Paris Agreement” and “sparked a wave of lawsuits against other fossil fuel companies.”
Despite acknowledging that Shell has “an obligation toward citizens to reduce CO2 emissions,” the appeals court on Tuesday scrapped a legal mandate compelling the company to slash its emissions by 45% by 2030 compared with 2019 levels, saying it was “unable to establish that the social standard of care entails an obligation for Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45%, or some other percentage.”
“It is primarily up to the government to ensure the protection of human rights,” the court added.
Laurie van der Burg of Oil Change Internationalsaid in response that “while we mourn today’s setback, the ruling establishes a responsibility for Big Oil and Gas to act that future litigation can build on.”
“The court ruled protection against climate change is a human right, and corporations have a responsibility to reduce their emissions,” she added. “As far as we know, this is the first case where a court has acknowledged that new investments in oil and gas are incompatible with international climate goals.”
“Today’s ruling underscores the importance of world leaders now negotiating at the U.N. Climate Summit in Baku taking responsibility.”
Shell, which is responsible for just over 2% of global CO2 emissions, said in a statement that it was “pleased” with the court’s ruling and claimed to be “making good progress in our strategy to deliver more value with less emissions.”
But research by the human rights organization Global Witness has found that Shell has consistently overstated the scale of its investments in green energy—including by characterizing fossil fuels as “renewable.”
“Even as Shell claims to be reducing its oil production, it is planning to grow its gas business by more than 20% over the next few years, leading to significant additional emissions,” Global Witness wrote in a complaint to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last year.
Andy Palmen, the director of Greenpeace Netherlands, said Tuesday that while campaigners working toward a just phaseout of fossil fuel emissions are “disappointed that Shell is being allowed to continue polluting,” they “will not give up the fight.”
“This only motivates us more to take action against major polluters,” said Palmen. “It really gives hope that the court finds that Shell must respect human rights and has a duty to reduce its CO2 emissions.”
“Today’s ruling underscores the importance of world leaders now negotiating at the U.N. Climate Summit in Baku taking responsibility,” Palmen added, referring to the COP29 gathering that kicked off on Monday in Azerbaijan’s capital city. “The summit in Dubai last year marked the end of coal, oil, and gas, now governments must come up with concrete plans to move away from fossil fuels.”
The Dutch appeals court’s ruling came in the wake of new research showing that oil and gas production surged to an all-time high in 2023—the hottest year on record.
“The oil and gas industry is not transitioning,” the environmental group Urgewald and dozens of other NGOs found. “In fact, 95% of the upstream companies on [the Global Oil and Gas Exit List] are still exploring or developing new oil and gas resources. This includes the oil and gas producers TotalEnergies, Shell, BP, Eni, Equinor, OXY, OMV, and Ecopetrol, which all claim to be targeting net zero emissions by 2050.”
Nils Bartsch, head of oil and gas research at Urgewald, said Tuesday that the 2023 oil and gas production record is “deeply concerning.”
“If we do not end fossil fuel expansion and move towards a managed decline of oil and gas production,” said Bartsch, “the 1.5°C goal will be out of reach.”
With average global temperatures set to see another record high this year, the chances of holding warming to no more than 1.5C continue to dwindle.
Keeping warming below 1.5C by the end of the century – in line with the long-term goal of the Paris Agreement – now likely involves “overshooting” 1.5C and then bringing temperatures back down later by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.
(What this means for “net-negative” emissions is covered in a previous guest post.)
This raises a number of unknowns in terms of what overshoot means for the impacts of climate change on the planet, people and ecosystems.
For example, even if global temperatures can be brought back down again by the end of the century, will the impacts of climate change also reduce? Will coral reefs be able to recover or will glaciers reform? What will it mean for the world’s coastlines, food production and endangered species?
For the past three years, we have been working on a Horizon Europe-funded project called PROVIDE to dive deeper into what overshoot really looks like for countries, regions and cities.
This data is available on the Climate Risk Dashboard – a tool to help people see how climate change will affect them and how it depends on the actions taken today.
Until carbon emissions are reduced to net-zero, the world will not stop warming. Delay will result in ever more intense climate impacts – and increase the risk of crossing irreversible thresholds.
Urban heat stress under overshoot
One of the clearest and most acute impacts of climate change is on extreme heatwaves. Our findings suggest that, were global average temperatures to decline, extreme heat events in most locations will also decrease, on average.
But achieving a new balance in local climates would be a slow process, influenced by ongoing climate system adjustments for decades – if not centuries – to come.
Reversing climate change would most probably take several decades, even if overshoot is limited to a few tenths of a degree. This implies that the climate risks that generations alive today will be exposed to are largely determined by collective actions today.
We can illustrate these differences for the risks of extreme heat stress for the Indian city of Chennai, one of 140 cities for which we modelled urban heat stress risks at 100-metre spatial resolution.
The chart below shows the projected annual number of days of extreme heat stress in Chennai – defined as days where wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) goes over 31C. (WBGT is a metric that combines air temperature, humidity and exposure to direct sunlight.)
This level of heat stress approaches the limits of human survivability (without adaptation) – for example, physical outdoor labour is almost impossible under these conditions.
Under current 2020 climate policies, leading to a best estimate of about 3C of warming in 2100, extreme heat days increase pretty much unchecked. By the end of the century, around half of the days (180) per year would experience extreme heat stress conditions (or even higher).
In contrast, in a 1.5C low-overshoot scenario (the IPCC Shifting Pathway), the number of extreme heat stress days would peak mid-century at around 120 days , before declining again to around 110 days by 2100 as global average temperature decreases from just above 1.5C to around 1.3C. This is a modest decline in extreme heat risk, yet a profound difference from a 3C world.
Projected days a year with extreme heat stress in Chennai from 2020 to 2100 under the climate policies of 2020 (blue) and 1.5C low-overshoot scenario called “IPCC Shifting Pathway” (green). Source: PROVIDE Dashboard
Irreversible consequences from overshoot
There are many other impacts of climate change that will be irreversible – for centuries to millennia – at peak temperatures, let alone if society is able to bring warming back down.
Yet, a lot of these losses can still be avoided by stringent mitigation. For example, our multi-scenario framework allows us to explore glacier futures showing unavoidable, or “locked-in”, risks even under the lowest emission scenario we have explored, and compare them with the avoidable risks through stringent mitigation.
Below, we provide an example for glacier volume projections for Peru, where glaciers serve as an essential freshwater resource during the extremely dry season of June to September. Due to past warming, glacier loss will continue over the coming decades. Under a current policy scenario (blue dots), 50% of the glacier volume might be lost as early as 2050.
Yet this does not need to happen. In fact, stringent mitigation pathways (green dots) are still possible that give a four-in-five chance of preserving 50% of today’s glacier ice in Peru, avoiding the worst and helping to maintain some of their vital uses.
Chart illustrating risks of losing 50% of 2020 glacier volume for Peru today and in 2030, 2050 and 2100, under the climate policies of 2020 (blue) and 1.5C low-overshoot scenario called “IPCC Shifting Pathway” (green). Shading highlights the avoidable risk. Source: PROVIDE Dashboard.
Overshoot risks for the biosphere
Climate change represents a major threat to biodiversity globally. We modelled species at risk from local extinction for about 135,000 terrestrial fungi, plants, invertebrates and vertebrates based on the Wallace Initiative.
Under the assumption that the 1950-2000 reference climate was suitable for the species at question, we model the proportion of species for which the local climate becomes unsuitable under ongoing climate change.
In the chart below, we illustrate the risks to species in one of the countries with the world’s richest terrestrial biodiversity, Brazil. Under the current policy scenario (blue dots), the likelihood of 50% of species being at risk of local extinction rises to 74% by 2100. Yet, our analysis shows that this likelihood can still be avoided almost entirely by stringent mitigation (green dots).
Chart showing the likelihood of 50% of Brazilian species being at risk of local extinction today and in 2030, 2050 and 2100, under the climate policies of 2020 (blue) and 1.5C low-overshoot scenario called “IPCC Shifting Pathway” (green). Shading highlights the avoidable risk. Source: PROVIDE Dashboard.
It is important to highlight that species loss does depend on a range of factors – of which climate suitability is only one. Yet there is a range of other human-caused stressors to biodiversity loss and a complex interdependencies of species and food webs in particular in the most biodiverse ecosystems implies the risk of knock-on effects and ecosystem tipping points.
We also note that our results do not necessarily imply global species extinction and do not allow us to quantify if and how species survival under different overshoot trajectories would emerge.
Overshoot will stress adaptation planning
Overshoot outcomes matter for climate risk assessments. Yet, in contrast with the prominence of overshoot pathways in the climate mitigation literature, their implications for adaptation planning have not been widely explored.
Overshoot would increase the threat of climate change that society needs to adapt to – and make that adaptation more difficult. Some options may become unavailable due to limits of adaptation.
Also, timescales matter. Reversing an overshoot will take decades. Even assuming reversibility of climate hazards in the future as temperatures come down, this might only matter for adaptation decisions that involve a planning horizon of 50 years or more.
This is illustrated in the chart below, from our recent Nature study. This shows a stylised trajectory of warming (top chart) with overshoot (red bars) and how it compares to planning horizons for some example adaptation options (green bars), the lifetime of those measures (blue bars) and the intergenerational equity they involve (bottom chart).
The possibility of reversing long-term impacts in the future does not reduce the urgent need to act now on closing the wide gap in current adaptation efforts.
Figure showing: a) stylised temporal evolution of a reversible climate impact driver under a peak and decline scenario. Dashed lines indicate a low and high overshoot outcome with median timescales of global temperature reversibility typically in line with those from the IPCC AR6 database; and b) stylised illustration of adaptation-relevant timescales starting in 2030, including different planning horizons for adaptation planning (green bars) and lifetimes of individual adaptation measures (blue), and the effect of applying discounting (reflecting societal preferences towards intergenerational equity) to future damages and adaptation benefits. Source: Schleussner et al. (2024)
Limit peak warming and aim for long-term decline
While our results clearly underscore the importance of limiting peak warming to as low as possible, there are also very good arguments for aiming for a long-term global temperature decline, irrespective of the peak warming level.
For a wide range of time-lagged climate impacts, such as ice sheet, peatland and permafrost loss, as well as large-scale irreversible tipping points, achieving temperature decline well below 1.5C is key to limiting long-term risks from global warming.
Overshoot is clearly not an alternative way to achieve a similar climate outcome. Effectively limiting climate risks requires restricting peak warming as low and as close to 1.5C as possible – and then aim for long-term decline to reduce the climate impact legacy of human-caused emissions.
Parts of Sanibel Causeway and its bridge are washed away after Hurricane Ian passed through in Sanibel, Florida on Sept. 29, 2022. Joe Raedle / Getty Images
According to a new report by the International Chamber of Commerce and consultancy firm Oxera, extreme weather events over the past 10 years have cost a total of $2 trillion globally. The countries that have faced the biggest losses include the U.S., China and India.
The report tracked nearly 4,000 extreme weather events from 2014 through 2023. In total, the results found that these events affected more than 1.6 billion people and cost around $2 trillion in economic losses.
Over just the past two years, losses linked to extreme weather cost the world $451 billion. According to the report, that is about 19% more than the losses from the previous 8 years analyzed in the study.
“The data from the past decade shows definitively that climate change is not a future problem: major productivity losses from extreme weather events are being felt in the here and now by the real economy,” John W.H. Denton AO, secretary-general of the International Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement.
The report also warned about the increase in frequency of these extreme weather events, noting that there has been an 83% increase in climate disasters when comparing 1980–1999 to 2000–2019.
If you care about saving Earth from catastrophe, you might be feeling a little down about the re-election of Donald Trump as United States president. Undeniably, his return to the White House is a real setback for climate action.
But beyond Trump and his circle, there remains deep concern about climate change, especially among younger people. Support for climate policy remains high in the US and around the world. And studies based on data from 60,000 people in more than 60 countries suggest individuals’ concern about climate change is widely underestimated.
So now is a good time to remember that efforts to tackle the climate crisis – both in Australia and globally – are much bigger than one man. Here are ten reasons to remain hopeful.
Beyond Trump and his circle, there remains deep concern about climate change around the world. HAYOUNG JEON/EPA
1. The global clean energy transition can’t be halted
4. The federal government is not everything in the US
When Trump was last in power, he withdrew the US from some climate commitments, such as the Paris Agreement. But many state and local governments powered ahead with climate policy, and that will happen this time around, too. For example, California – the world’s fifth largest economy – plans to eliminate its greenhouse gas footprint by 2045. Even Texas, a Republican heartland, is leading a shift toward wind and solar power.
5. The US climate movement will be more energised than ever
During Trump’s first presidency, the US climate movement developed policy proposals for a “Green New Deal”. Many of these proposals were later implemented by the Biden administration. Initial reactions to Trump’s re-election suggest we can expect similar policy advocacy this time around.
Efforts to tackle the climate crisis are much bigger than one man in the White House. Kevin Wolf/AP
6. Global climate cooperation is bigger than Trump
If Trump makes good on his promise to leave the Paris Agreement (again), he will only be leaving the room where the world’s future is being shaped. The US has walked away from global climate agreements before – for example, refusing to join the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. But other nations rallied for global action, and will do so again.
7. The rules-based global order will remain
When a nation walks away from rules that have been agreed after decades of negotiation, responsible countries must work together to bolster global cooperation. This applies to trade and security – and climate is no different.
As our Foreign Minister Penny Wong recently explained, Australia, as a middle power on the world stage, wants:
a world where disputes are resolved by engagement, negotiation and by reference to rules [and] norms […] We don’t want a world in which disputes are resolved by power alone.
8. Australian diplomacy matters
Australia is seeking to co-host the United Nations climate talks with Pacific island countries in 2026, and is emerging as the favourite. Hosting the conference, known as COP31, would be a chance for Australia to help broker a new era of international climate action, even if the US opts out under Trump.
Hosting the talks would also help cement Australia’s place in the Pacific and assist our Pacific neighbours to deal with the climate threat.
Co-hosting COP31 would help assist our Pacific neighbours to deal with the climate threat. Mick Tsikas/AAP
9. Australia’s clean energy shift is accelerating
About 40% of Australia’s main national electricity grid is poweredby renewables and this is set to rise to 80% by 2030. Some states are surging ahead – for example, South Australia is aiming for 100% renewables by 2027.
Australians love clean energy at home, too. One in three households have rooftop solar installed, making us a world-leader in the technology’s uptake. Trump’s occupation of the Oval Office cannot stop this momentum.
10. Trump cannot change the science of climate change
The science is clear – burning coal, oil and gas fuels climate change and increases the risk of disasters that are harming communities right now. In Australia, we need look no further than the Black Summer bushfires in 2019-20 and unprecedented Lismore floods in 2022.
The devastating floods in Spain remind us that climate change has arrived. ANA ESCOBAR/EPA
On gloomy days – like, say, the election of a climate denier to the White House – it might feel humanity won’t rise to Earth’s biggest existential challenge. But there are many reasons for hope. The vast majority of us support policies to tackle climate change, and in many cases, the momentum is virtually unstoppable.
Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney and Ben Newell, Professor of Cognitive Psychology and Director of the UNSW Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney
