Remove Greenhouse Remove Paris Agreement Remove Politics Remove Rainforest
article thumbnail

Brazil Advances in Climate Change Litigation

Legal Planet

The Amazon rainforest on the Urubu River. Climate litigation is gaining momentum in Brazil as a tool to protect the Amazon rainforest from illegal deforestation. The Brazilian court became the world’s first to give this status to the Paris Agreement, setting an important precedent for Brazil and the world.

article thumbnail

A new climate litigation claim in Brazil raises the pressure for increased climate action and protection of the Amazon rainforest

Law Columbia

It contributes to increasing pressure against President Bolsonaro for widespread environmental damage across the country, resulting from a significant lack of climate action and the pervasive destruction of the Amazon rainforest. To align itself with the Paris Agreement, Brazil should actually increase its ambition.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

What is COP26 and why does it matter? The complete guide

A Greener Life

Under the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), every country on Earth is treaty-bound to “avoid dangerous climate change”, and find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally in an equitable way. Why do we need a Cop – don’t we already have the Paris agreement? Why is 1.5C so important?

article thumbnail

Banking Against Science: Financial Institutions Continue to Fund Climate Destruction

Union of Concerned Scientists

degrees centigrade “involve rapid and deep and in most cases immediate GHG (greenhouse gas) emission reductions in all sectors.” They prop up fossil fuel industry infrastructure as the industry itself buys political influence to blunt and block any unified strategy for a fossil phase-down.

article thumbnail

February 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

Law Columbia

The majority said it “reluctantly” concluded that “the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large” and “[t]hat the other branches may have abdicated their responsibility to remediate the problem does not confer on Article III courts, no matter how well-intentioned, the ability to step into their shoes.”

2020 40