The US, which has announced plans to withdraw from the global climate treaty – the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – is more historically responsible for climate change than any other country or group.
Carbon Brief analysis shows that the US has emitted a total of 542bn tonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO2) since 1850, by burning fossil fuels, cutting down trees and other activities.
This is the largest contribution to the Earth’s warming climate by far, as shown in the figure below, with China’s 336GtCO2 significantly behind in second and Russia in third at 185GtCO2.
The US is responsible for more than a fifth of the 2,651GtCO2 that humans have pumped into the atmosphere between 1850 and 2025 as a result of fossil fuels, cement and land-use change.
China is responsible for another 13%, with the 27 nations of the EU making up another 12%.
In total, these cumulative emissions have used up more than 95% of the carbon budget for limiting global warming to 1.5C and are the predominant reason the Earth is already nearly 1.5C hotter than in pre-industrial times.
The US share of global warming is even more disproportionate when considering that its population of around 350 million people makes up just 4% of the global total.
On the basis of current populations, the US’s per-capita cumulative historical emissions are around 7 times higher than those for China, more than double the EU’s and 25 times those for India.
The US’s historical emissions of 542GtCO2 are larger than the combined total of the 133 countries with the lowest cumulative contributions, a list that includes Saudi Arabia, Spain and Nigeria. Collectively, these 133 countries have a population of more than 3 billion people.
See Carbon Brief’s previous detailed analysis of historical responsibility for climate change for more details on the data sources and methodology, as well as consumption-based emissions.
Additionally, in 2023, Carbon Brief published an article that looked at the “radical” impact of reassigning responsibility for historical emissions to colonial rulers in the past.
This approach has a very limited impact on the US, which became independent before the vast majority of its historical emissions had taken place.
Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
Palestine Action joke that appeared in the UK satirical publication ‘Private Eye’.
Sharing a Private Eye cartoon led to the arrest of a retired head teacher under the Terrorism Act
Full legal review set for September
High Court cites ‘recipe for chaos’ if legality of order isn’t reviewed as soon as possible
Dilemma sharpens for Met Chief ahead of mass protest on 9 August
“Recipe for chaos”
Today, 30 July, the High Court granted permission to Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, to bring a full judicial review against the order of the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, proscribing the group as a ‘terrorist organisation’.
The ruling comes as a blow to Cooper, whose lawyers argued vigorously that the application should be refused, on the basis that the Terrorism Act contains a statutory process to apply for de-proscription.
Such a process can take years, however, whereas the judicial review is now due to be heard in September.
Mr Justice Martin Chamberlain rejected the Home Secretary’s position stating that:
“[T]he proscription order is likely to give rise to a substantial interference with rights guaranteed by the common law and by Articles 10 and 11 ECHR …
If the legality of the proscription order can properly be raised by way of defence to criminal proceedings, that would open up the spectre of different and possibly conflicting decisions on that issue in Magistrates Courts across England & Wales or before different judges or juries in the Crown Court. That would be a recipe for chaos. To avoid it there is a strong public interest in allowing the order to be determined authoritatively as soon as possible.”
He granted Huda Ammori leave to bring a full judicial review on the basis that it is arguable that:
1. The order is a disproportionate interference with Articles 10 and 11 of European Convention on Human Rights [the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly]; and that
2. The Home Secretary should have consulted PA before making it and, by failing to do so, acted in breach of natural justice and/or contrary to Article 6 ECHR [the right to a fair hearing].
Dilemma for Met Commissioner ahead of mass protest on 9 August
It sharpens the dilemma for Sir Mark Rowley, the Met Commissioner, ahead of what is expected to be a mass protest of more than 500 people planned for 9 August [1A]. It would already be a huge and costly operation for the Met to arrest so many people for holding cardboard signs, people who are motivated by horror at the genocide in Gaza and a desire to uphold democratic freedoms. The prospect of the order being ruled unlawful opens up the further possibility that all those arrested and detained will later be awarded compensation payments for unlawful arrest.
As some of his colleagues have shown around the country, police have discretion as to whether to conduct arrests or not. Police in Totnes, Derry and Kendall for example have chosen to leave peaceful protestors be. On 9 August, Sir Mark will face a stark choice – to risk his own reputation with an absurd and costly operation to arrest 500 peaceful protestors for terrorism offences, or to undermine the Home Secretary’s position by applying common sense and allowing peaceful protestors to exercise their democratic rights.
A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries, the groups organising the protests, said:
“Yvette Cooper has no-one to blame for this crisis but herself. She was warned by her advisers that the ban would be “novel and unprecedented”, which is Whitehall mandarin-speak for ‘mad’.
If it wasn’t the police or the intelligence agencies pushing for the ban, who was it?
One of the grounds for the High Court’s ruling today was the Home Secretary’s failure to consult appropriately. While she consulted with the Israeli government and Elbit Systems on the merits of the order (and no prizes for guessing their position) she failed to consult with those adversely affected, such as Palestine Action and civil liberties organisations.
If you only consult with those who stand to benefit from your proposal, those who are committing and supporting genocide, but not those who will be adversely affected, not those who are acting to prevent genocide, your bias is already exposed.
We are confident the High Court will soon strike down this absurd and repugnant order, made at the bidding of the perpetrators of genocide.”
Chorus of criticism, mockery and defiance
The ruling comes amid a crisis of credibility for the order, which has been lambasted by lawyers, politicians and the UN alike, and openly mocked and defied across the country, on the streets, in print and online, already resulting in over 200 arrests for Terrorism Act offences.
In the House of Lords last week, former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Lord Hain asked: “How have we got to the point where peacefully holding up a placard about the carnage in Gaza is equated with terrorism by Al Qaeda on 9/11 or Islamic State on countless occasions. And shouldn’t the police be concentrating on real terrorism and real crime, not targeting peaceful protesters?” [1]
Derry City and Strabane District Council ignored legal advice to pass a motion calling for the immediate overturning of the proscription, with Councillors openly wearing “We Are All Palestine Action” shirts.[1B].
Speaking to Al Jazeera, the former chief political commentator of The Daily Telegraph, Peter Oborne, warned that Yvette Cooper’s controversial ban of Palestine Action could lead to her resignation: “If the general populace comes to the conclusion that this is a stunt by the Starmer government … this legislation won’t take, people will regard it as ridiculous … you’ll end up having thousands of people coming out in support of Palestine Action, thousands of people declared terrorists. The law will suddenly look an ass, this government will lose a great deal of political credibility and in due course the Home Secretary might have to resign.” [2]
Tayab Ali, a leading lawyer at Bindmans, said:
“I would be extraordinarily surprised if the British Courts don’t strike [the ban] down. This is such an overreach.” [3]
After Private Eye satirised the ban with a cartoon, a retired head-teacher was arrested for displaying a copy of the cartoon, despite it being available in newsagents across the UK [4]. The comedian, Rosie Holt, has mocked “The new face of terrorism. It’s old, it’s wrinkly, it’s elderly and it’s dangerous.” [5]
On Friday, the UN Human Rights Chief, Volker Türk issued a press release stating:
“[The ban] appears to constitute an impermissible restriction on rights [to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association] that is at odds with the UK’s obligations under international human rights law.” [5A]
Previously, five UN Special Rapporteurs had written to the UK Government counselling against the use of Terrorism Act powers against Palestine Action [5B]. Amnesty International has spoken out against the ban, saying:
“Government embarrassment at security breaches is no proper basis for excessive and disproportionate interferences with human rights. It is precisely this kind of unlawful government action that critics of the UK’s terrorism laws warned would come one day.” [5C]
Shortly before the proscription, more than 23 organisations, led by the European Association of Lawyers for Democracy & World Human Rights, criticised the use of Terrorism Act powers against the Filton 18, members of Palestine Action, in a paper headed, “United Kingdom: The “Filton 18” case is a warning sign of democracy and rule of law decline” [5D], citing evidence political interference in the legal process by the Israeli government:
“Judicial independence and impartiality is a fundamental aspect of the right to a fair trial and the protection of human rights, and a prerequisite to the rule of law …
Documents obtained on 29 April 2025 through a Freedom of Information request have revealed that the UK government has shared contact details of counter-terrorism police and prosecuting authorities with the Israeli embassy in September 2024, during the investigation into the Filton 18 action and shortly after the Attorney General’s Office met with the Israeli ambassador to the UK. The documents disclosed were almost entirely redacted. However, documents disclosed in August 2023 evidence that the Israeli authorities have previously attempted to pressure the UK government to intervene in judicial proceedings relating to UK protests.
These communications, and the lack of transparency concerning their contents and whether these relate to the proceedings against Palestine Action members, raise serious questions around the independence and impartiality of prosecuting authorities in the Filton 18 case. These concerns are strengthened by the UN experts’ opinion that the use of anti-terrorism laws against the Filton 18 lacked a credible basis and may have pursued an ulterior purpose.”
On Saturday, police in Shenstone arrested a man in a wheel-chair, for wearing a T-shirt in support of Palestine Action. [6]
Home Office insinuations against Palestine Action contradicted by their own evidence
As part of the legal process, the Home Office was required to disclose the evidence available to the Home Secretary in support of proscription. It emerged that Home Office insinuations that Palestine Action is violent and funded by Iran were directly contradicted by the assessments provided to her.
The government’s Proscription Review Group (PRG) advised in March 2025 that a ban on Palestine Action would be “novel and unprecedented”, because “there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed… mainly due to its use or threat of action involving serious damage to property”. [7]
The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) assessment noted: “PA media channels highly likely will only share footage, or encourage, instances of property damage. PA branded media will highly unlikely explicitly advocate for violence against persons”. [7]
On 23 June, the day of Cooper’s statement to parliament, the Times published a report saying “Iran could be funding Palestine Action, Home Office officials claimed”. This went on to be widely reported. Yet the JTAC assessment of Palestine Action’s sources of funding makes no mention of Iran, stating that Palestine Action “is primarily funded by donations, which can be made directly through their website or via crowdfunding. Other forms of revenue include the sale of merchandise”. [7]
Writing for Declassified, John McEvoy, the historian, film-maker and reporter, said:
“The discrepancy between the Home Office press briefings and the official intelligence reports raises the prospect that a state-linked disinformation campaign was waged against Palestine Action in order to manufacture public consent for proscription.” [7]
Yvette Cooper defied warnings from advisers to push through the ban
Strikingly, the Home Secretary was warned by her own advisers that proscription risked substantiating claims of pro-Israeli bias. A Community Impact Assessment produced by the Ministry of Housing, RICU (Research, Information and Communications Unit), and NPCC (National Police Chiefs’ Council), stated:
“Other reports documented Israeli embassy officials purportedly attempting to get the attorney general’s office to intervene in court cases. In the context of such reports, proscription could provide fertile ground for actors attempting to substantiate a pattern of bias”. [7]
The report goes on to say that a ban “could be seen as the partial realisation of Lord Walney’s efforts, which dissenting actors could argue were coloured by pro-Israel bias”. [7]
In May last year, Lord Walney, published a report calling for Palestine Action and Just Stop Oil to be banned. Successive governments falsely presented Lord Walney to the public as an ‘independent’ adviser on political violence and disruption. [8]
Lord Walney in fact has close ties to the Israeli government and is a paid lobbyist for the arms industry. [9] On 14 February this year, following a Defend Our Juries campaign to sack him, his role was removed, although the Home Office stated, his work would “continue to inform our approach”. [10]
Original article by Ed Siddons , Billie Gay Jackson republished from TBIJ under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0.
DLA Piper’s demands from campaigners included £2,500 for a list of its own fees
The UK’s largest law firm sought £1.1m in legal fees from climate campaigners to cover the costs of preventing their protests, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal.
DLA Piper, a multibillion-pound law firm, tried to recoup eye-watering costs, including fees of £350 per hour for providing legal advice to its clients HS2 and National Highways Limited (NHL) – both publicly owned bodies. Other costs it tried to reclaim included £75,000 for a single hearing and £2,500 to prepare a document listing its own fees.
The firm brought injunctions – court orders prohibiting certain actions – against more than 200 campaigners, primarily from Just Stop Oil and Insulate Britain. Most obeyed the NHL injunction and did not take part in the prohibited protests, but still each faced bills of thousands of pounds.
In two of the cases, judges criticised the firm’s costs as “disproportionate” or “not … reasonable” and significantly reduced the amount it could claim, in one case by more than half.
Barristers told TBIJ that costs incurred by City law firms such as DLA Piper far exceed those incurred by in-house solicitors at public bodies or local authorities, ratcheting up the risk of large costs being foisted onto protestors.
DLA Piper has previously pledged to align its client work with “decisive action” on climate and committed to net zero by 2040.
The firm was hired by NHL and the HS2 rail project in 2021 to provide legal services that included securing injunctions against protesters.
Court files reviewed by TBIJ show that, on behalf of NHL and HS2, the firm sought costs from protesters totalling £1.1m. This figure, and the breakdowns below, include barristers’ fees – money paid to specialist external lawyers selected to argue the case in court.
One woman who broke the injunction told TBIJ that her income meant it would take her eight years to pay off the costs of around £5,000 that had been sought against her.
Another of those targeted was Louise Lancaster, who continued to protest and received a 42-day suspended sentence in 2022 alongside an order to pay £22,000 in costs. Last month, she was jailed for four years for coordinating protests on the M25.
The award of a portion of legal costs to the winning side is standard procedure in civil court cases.
But although the lengthy sentences handed down to a small group of protesters in July made headlines, the combination of criminal charges with civil injunction proceedings and potential costs orders was highlighted as a “grave concern” by the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders.
Adam Wagner, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, said: “You might have a protester who, for the same action, is convicted of a criminal offence, has an injunction taken out against them with the risk of contempt-of-court proceedings if they breach it, and faces huge costs. It’s like triple jeopardy.
“We don’t take that approach to social ills like gang violence or drug dealing – they are dealt with through the criminal courts [alone] … Nobody’s looking at the wider picture and thinking, ‘Could this actually have gone too far?’”
“The threat of costs in injunction proceedings is one of, if not the, biggest chilling effects on protests in Britain at the moment,” said Paul Powlesland, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers and founder of the environmental pressure group Lawyers For Nature.
The use of injunctions has soared in recent years with the rise of civil disobedience groups such as Just Stop Oil and Insulate Britain. Analysis by the BBC found that 1,200 locations across the UK are now subject to injunctions banning protests.
They have also increased in scope. Traditionally, injunctions prevented named individuals from undertaking a course of action, but new “persons unknown” injunctions mean anyone can be punished for breaking them.
Proceedings take place in civil courts, where costs can be huge and initial injunction proceedings do not qualify for legal aid. The majority of campaigners subject to the National Highways injunctions had no legal representation and feared the potential costs. The result is that wealthy people who want to bully peaceful protesters “can do so with impunity,” Powlesland said.
The largest single sum sought by DLA Piper was £727,573.84, which covered multiple claims on behalf of NHL against around 140 protesters who blocked the M25 and surrounding roads. That sum was eventually reduced by a judge to £580,000, and a later settlement offer sought about £3,000 from each campaigner to end the case.
DLA Piper also pursued a further £75,891.84 from protesters who disputed the renewal of the injunction.
Banners at the Bluebell Woods Protection Camp, an anti-HS2 protest site, in Staffordshire in 2021. An injunction later made protest illegal along the length of the HS2 railway line Martin Pope/Getty Images
In separate proceedings, at which NHL pursued 12 protesters for contempt of court after they broke the M25 injunctions, an offence that can mean jail time, DLA Piper listed £229,525.35 in costs, bringing the total to around £1m.
On behalf of Hs2, DLA Piper pursued £70,216 in costs against five defendants, all of whom broke injunctions.
Jodie Beck, policy and campaigns officer at Liberty, said: “Injunctions operate alongside an already expansive web of restrictions and criminal offences introduced in recent years, carrying hefty penalties for making your voice heard.
“When powerful companies and state-owned bodies use opaque legal processes and the threat of financial ruin with eye-watering costs being passed on, our fundamental right to protest is at risk.”
DLA Piper is not the only City law firm to have threatened protesters with costs orders. It is not known how much money it ultimately succeeded in recouping.
As well as its green pledges, the firm has boasted of its role as official provider of legal services to COP26 and highlighted its position as a founding member of the Legal Sustainability Alliance and the Net Zero Lawyers Alliance initiatives.
A DLA Piper spokesperson said: “The firm supports the right to protest lawfully and recognises the need to build a sustainable future. But any change must be brought around in compliance with the law, for the protection of the country and protestors.
The firm is one of the world’s largest legal advisers to the renewable energy industry and is recognised for advising on more renewable energy deals and projects than any other law firm.”
A NHL spokesperson said: “Protesting on motorways and major A-roads is extremely dangerous for both the protesters and motorists … These orders are intended to dissuade people from risking lives, not to prohibit lawful protest. As a government-owned company funded by public money, costs recovery is an important aspect of ensuring public funds are protected.”
A spokesperson for HS2 Ltd said: “We support the right to lawful protest. We have only taken legal action where there has been illegal direct action against HS2. Unlawful action against HS2 has cost taxpayers over £150m and put the lives of protestors, the public and our own workforce in great danger.
“Since the High Court granted a route wide injunction to protect the HS2 project from unlawful activity we have seen a significant decline in illegal activity.”
In June, DLA Piper was awarded a further contract worth more than £650,000 by NHL to provide legal services relating to injunctions against protestors.
Photo: Climate protesters block the M25 as part of a campaign intended to push the UK government to make significant legislative change to start lowering emissions. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
Reporters: Ed Siddons and Billie Gay Jackson Additional reporting: Simon Lock Deputy editors: Katie Mark and Chrissie Giles Enablers editor: Eleanor Rose Impact producer: Lucy Nash Editor: Franz Wild Production editor: Frankie Goodway Fact checker: Somesh Jha
Our Enablers project is funded by the Hollick Family Foundation, Sigrid Rausing Trust, the Joffe Trust, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project and TBIJ core funds. None of our funders has any influence over our editorial decisions or output.
Original article by Ed Siddons , Billie Gay Jackson republished from TBIJ under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0.
