In this article, we’ll explain the controversy regarding “drill baby, drill”, why it may not be so easy, and how Trump will impact the environment.

Why Trump’s “Drill Baby, Drill” Could Face Challenges

Upon Donald Trump’s re-election as the 47th president of the United States, many are concerned regarding reproductive freedom, rights for the LGBTQ+ community, and climate change – especially in light of Trump’s previous comments to “drill baby, drill” to stimulate the U.S. economy. 

Having always been skeptical of climate change and an advocate for boosting the economy of the United States, regardless of how it may impact the environment, Trump has an infamous motto to “drill baby, drill” – but it may not be as easy for Trump to increase gas and oil production as it he may think it be.

In this article, we’ll explain the controversy regarding “drill baby, drill”, why it may not be so easy, and how Trump will impact the environment regardless of “drill baby, drill”.

“Drill Baby, Drill” is a Republican, politico motto first coined in 2008 by Micheal Steele at the Republican National Convention as an effort to incite excitement regarding the idea to avoid dependency on foreign oil and reduce energy costs.


💡NPR has previously stated how it’s important to remember that “drill baby, drill” is more of a slogan than it is a fully-fleshed out business plan – especially as, unbeknownst to most, Republicans prior to Trump have used the phrase before.

Although many like the idea of “drill baby, drill” as it could make the United States more independent in terms of energy production, several critics are concerned how the vague outline of “drill baby, drill” could impact the environment.

Milwaukee, USA: Former US President Donald Trump promised more oil extraction in America at RNC 2024 on July 19. Donald Trump also pledged to reduce tax rates, and inflation, and more relief to US citizens. Watch the full video to know more and follow Mirror Now for the latest updates.
.
#donaldtrump #trump #oilextraction #inflation #usinflation #englishnews #latestnews #worldnews #usnews #mirrornow

SUBSCRIBE NOW | https://bit.ly/SubscribeToMirrorNow
For More Updates ► http://www.mirrornownews.com
Like us on Facebook ►   / mirrornow  
Follow us on Twitter ►   / mirrornow  
Follow us on Instagram ►   / mirrornow_in  

Subscribe to our other network channels:
Times Now Navbharat: https://bit.ly/SubscribeToTNNavbharat
Zoom: https://bit.ly/SubscribeToZoom
Times Now: https://bit.ly/SubscribeToTimesNow
ET Now: https://bit.ly/SubscribeToETNow
TN+: https://bit.ly/SubscribeToTNPlus

'Drill, Baby Drill…' Donald Trump On Oil Extraction In America at RNC 2024, | World News

Here are some of the reasons why the Republican party has continued to boast the notion of “drill baby, drill”:

Energy Independence – Republicans first and foremost value taking care of Americans, which means making resources and prices more accessible to the average U.S. citizen. As a result, Republicans place a strong emphasis on domestic gas and oil production and straying from any dependence on foreign energy sources.

Boost the Economy – As economic factors remain as one of the primary principles for Republicans, pursuing the notion to “drill baby, drill” could help to create new jobs and help generate new revenue for the U.S. government.

Decreased Dependence on Foreign Energy Sources – Mitigating the need to rely on other nations for energy sources could not only help to reduce utility costs for Americans as the energy will now be made, “in house” – but could help to keep the United States out of complicated foreign affairs that could possibly put their energy resources at risk. This has previously been shown with the European Union in the midst of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as energy bills in Europe have since skyrocketed.  

Lower Costs for the U.S. – Increasing national energy production would mean less money needed for importing energy into the country in addition to Americans having extra money in their pockets from reduced utility bills. This extra cash might incentivise them to stimulate the economy by purchasing unnecessary goods with their influx of income. 

Ultimate Disapproval of Environmental Regulations – ”Drill baby, drill” is the antithesis of implementing strong environmental regulations to curb carbon emissions and our current environmental impact. 

👉 Overall, “drill baby, drill” is a phrase used by Republicans, most infamously by Trump, to encourage excitement around the idea of increasing domestic oil and gas production in hopes of curbing inflation and boosting the economy.

Why are so many Americans in support of “drill baby, drill”?

A whopping 44% of Americans are in favor of increasing domestic oil production in hopes of reducing energy prices and decreasing dependence on foreign energy sources. 


💡 Since Trump’s re-election for president in 2024, it is more evident than before that a large majority of the country is more concerned about increasing prices, inflation, and keeping their businesses afloat as opposed to many of the issues discussed in Kamala Harris’s campaign – illustrating that many are interested in “drill baby, drill.”

“Let’s reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil, and promote oil-and-gas production at home. Let me make it very clear: Drill, baby, drill – and drill now.” – Micheal Steele, using “drill baby, drill” for the first time at the Republican National Convention in 2008.

Here are some of the reasons why Americans are in support of “drill baby, drill”:

Reduce Grocery Prices – One of the main areas of concern for the majority of Americans as of the most recent presidential election, many in support of “drill baby, drill” believe increasing oil production can help to curb inflation and reduce living costs for the average American.

Greater Independence for the U.S. – Patriotism is a key factor for many Americans, meaning that the United States takes pride in building and executing something on its own without additional help. Many supporters of “drill baby, drill” like the idea of the United States decreasing its dependency on foreign fossil fuels.   

Decrease National Debt – In light of the most recent debt ceiling, many Americans are concerned with the country’s current debt of over $36 trillion USD – and view “drill baby, drill” as a way to avoid continued negative cash flow for the country. 

👉 Ultimately, those in support of “drill baby, drill” are concerned about both their own and the country’s current financial obstacles – and view increased oil fracking and finite energy resource projects as a way to escape fiscal peril.

Why are so many Americans against “drill baby, drill”?

Up to 53% of Americans are against oil fracking and increasing domestic oil production, as it could cause continued harm to the planet – and prevent the United States from adhering to its previous international treaties, such as the Paris Agreement, vowing to prevent global temperatures from exceeding 1.5°C.


💡 The main reasons why over half of Americans, many of them Democrats, are against “drill baby, drill” is because it could harm our air quality surrounding ecosystems, increase global temperatures and spur more frequent and intense natural disasters – putting the country and the world in a vicious cycle where the effects of climate change never end.

“What is the rest of the world going to think when we tell them to pull their fair share… if we’re just going to start drilling because it’s more convenient for us to have that oil in the short term?” – Owen Bland, a sophomore in International Relations from Connecticut.

Don't believe Big Oil-funded politicians who say that more drilling will lower prices at the pump. Our addiction to oil and gas is driving up inflation, fueling wars, exacerbating the climate crisis, and spewing poison into our air and water. Moving to renewable energy is the only way to a safer, cleaner, and more equitable future.

Take action and demand President Biden to declare a climate emergency: https://bit.ly/3H9Mxir 

Follow us:
  / greenpeaceusa  
  / greenpeaceusa  
  / greenpeaceusa  
   / greenpeaceusa  

#greenpeace 
#biden 
#oil

Why “Drill, Baby, Drill” Won’t Lower Gas Prices

Here are some of the reasons why Americans are against “drill baby, drill”:

Increased Pollution – There is no doubt that increasing our production of domestic oil would also mean polluting our air and local water resources, which could create new issues for the country by compromising the health of Americans. 

Impact on Coastal Cities – While areas such as Florida, Louisiana, and the Carolinas are already suffering the devastating impacts of more severe hurricanes, coastal areas around the world could be impacted by “drill baby, drill” – such as Panama City Beach. This is because increasing drilling could harm the Eastern Gulf Coast by threatening local wildlife, tourism, and even Panama City’s training range for air force and military purposes. 

Skyrocketing Gas Prices – As a country where driving is more common than using public transportation, gas prices are important to Americans – but “drill baby, drill” could, contrary to what many supporters believe, ironically drive up the prices of gas across the country. 

👉 ”Drill baby, drill” could have irreversible consequences on our climate in a time period where taking proactive measures are more imperative than ever before – making “drill baby, drill” a living nightmare for environmental activists.

Why would “drill baby, drill” not be as simple as it sounds?

“Drill baby, drill” isn’t as easy as Trump has made it sound to be, as he would need the approval of producers to increase their production of crude oil and petroleum – in addition to getting companies on board with, “drill baby, drill” despite the poor market forecast. 

💡Two major components that may keep Trump from proceeding with, “drill baby, drill” include the decreased global demand for finite energy in addition Wall Street aren’t going projecting a global, low-value trade market for oil and gas.


Here’s a breakdown of why Trump won’t be able to, “drill baby, drill” as easily as he might think he’ll be able to:

As countries around the world, including the United States during Biden’s presidency, make an honest effort to transition to a clean energy economy and reduce their GHG emissions – the production of finite energy sources is becoming less valuable to other nations around the world.

Therefore, despite Trump’s desire to slash the development of energy efficiency infrastructure in place of new oil drilling projects, companies will be aware of the decrease in fiscal value of drilling, and in turn – not be willing to drill as much as Trump may want them to. 

When there is an increase in tariffs, demand goes up – especially when no longer importing cheaper goods from other countries such as China, Canada, or Mexico. If these potential American-made goods and services, such as domestically produced energy, become the most affordable and relevant option available – there will be a spike in demand, and a subsequent increase in price.

👉 Ultimately, American producers won’t want this to happen as their product or service will become inaccessible to many American consumers – meaning that Trump won’t be able to, “drill baby, drill”.

Even if there are companies willing to be on board for Trump’s, “drill baby, drill” movement – their current supply chain dynamics may not allow for a sudden increase in oil production. 

In the end, it’s important to remember that even if Trump is president – he can’t magically find all of the resources, various moving parts, and approvals necessary to “drill baby, drill” at the sudden speed he believes he can.

As companies around the world begin to shift their focus to energy efficiency and eco-friendly measures to coincide with new environmental regulations, it would be challenging for Trump to go against the grain of these new global recommendations and actions that have been rising to prominence since his last presidential term.

The table below will depict additional reasons why, “drill baby, drill” could be challenging for Trump:    

<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5">
    <tr>
        <th>Challenge</th>
        <th>Description</th>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Oil Price Volatility</td>
        <td>Crude oil prices remain volatile, complicating investment decisions for new drilling projects as they depend on stable price forecasts for profitability.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Environmental Opposition</td>
        <td>Environmental regulations and public protests against fossil fuel projects create legal and social barriers, delaying projects or increasing costs.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Global Market Dynamics</td>
        <td>Global competition, particularly from OPEC+ and their control over oil supply, influences U.S. production by affecting price competitiveness.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>High Production Costs</td>
        <td>Shale oil extraction, a key U.S. method, often has higher breakeven costs compared to conventional drilling, especially when oil prices are low.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>Investor Hesitation</td>
        <td>With rising global focus on ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) criteria, investors are increasingly cautious about financing fossil fuel projects.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
</table>


Will Trump still impact the environment if he can’t, “drill baby, drill” ?

Even if Trump won’t be able to, “drill baby, drill” – he will still create a colossal, irreversible impact on the environment – as his presidency could result in over 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) by 2030.

Trump’s efforts to reduce any of the environmental protocols created by the Biden administration, in addition to withdrawing from the Paris Agreement – means that the U.S. will run rampant in terms of GHG emissions.

Here are some of the ways a second Trump-term will have an effect on climate change:

Reversing the clean energy incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will no longer encourage energy efficiency in households and businesses alike

Trump’s decision to reverse the Affordable Care Act will impact millions of Americans and their current healthcare plans 

Misinformation regarding climate change may spread under Trump’s presidency and prevent Americans from re-thinking how their day to day actions will impact the environment 

Overall, whether Trump is able to “drill baby, drill” or not – he will be able to reverse several of Biden’s policies previously implemented to prevent climate change from becoming a national emergency.

As Trump will indeed be successful in passing some new oil and drilling projects, which will contribute to global warming – it’s more important than ever before for businesses and households in the U.S. and beyond to take control of their actions to fight against climate change.

If reading this article on Trump’s motto regarding, “drill baby, drill” has made you interested in reducing your carbon emissions to further fight against climate change – Greenly can help you!

It can be overwhelming to figure out how to effectively reduce emissions in your business, but don’t worry – Greenly is here to help. Click here to schedule a demo to see how Greenly can help you find ways to effectively reduce emissions across your company.

Greenly can help you make an environmental change for the better, starting with a carbon footprint assessment to know how much carbon emissions your company produces.

Why is there a growing backlash against climate change policies? And what can be done to change the tide of public opinion?

Is there a growing resistance to climate change policies?

Climate change, the defining crisis of our century, presents an existential threat to our planet – as seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are paramount to ensure safety for future generations to come.

 However, we are witnessing an alarming, growing resistance to climate change policies – particularly in some of the world’s most developed and environmentally conscious nations. 

This article delves into this worrying phenomenon, exploring how countries once at the forefront of green initiatives are now witnessing a shift in public opinion. 

👉 Why is there a growing backlash against climate change policies? And what can be done to change the tide of public opinion?

Is there a growing resistance to climate change policies around the world?

There’s a concerning trend taking hold around the world: a growing tide of resistance to reduce emissions or implement climate change policies. 

Backlash to climate change policies in the U.K. & the European Union

Just earlier this year, the UK’s prime minister, Rishi Sunak, backtracked on a number of key environmental policies; in Germany plans to introduce green home-heating regulations were thrown out, and green policies were a central point of debate during the recent Dutch elections which saw the unexpected rise of the far-right Freedom Party (PVV) - the party’s platform includes plans to exit the Paris Climate Agreement and dismantle green legislation. 

Backlash to climate change policies in the U.S.

And it’s not just Europe that is experiencing a backlash against climate change policies. The environment is set to become a hot topic in the upcoming presidential election in the US too. Donald Trump has firmly positioned himself as pro-business, stating that it’s not possible to back American workers and environmental policies at the same time. He’s warned his supporters that Joe Biden and the so-called “environmental lunatics” will destroy the automobile industry with overreaching climate change policies, such as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. There’s the sense that there’s a real culture war brewing around the topic of environmentalism. 

Of course, this is highly concerning for the fight against climate change. How will the world cut carbon emissions and limit global warming to a rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius if some of the largest economies and most powerful countries are reneging on their climate commitments and green policies? 

Yet, it’s important to acknowledge that there are real issues at play here, and genuine concerns underpin this growing sentiment. If we’re to ensure that governments remain committed to climate action, and maintain support from the public, we need to understand where this resistance to climate change policies is coming from. 

👉 To learn more about why climate change is such a growing issue, and why it's important to reduce methane emissions, our use of fossil fuels, and implement energy efficiency – head over to our blog. 

What are the economic and social factors fuelling resistance?

The main economic and social reasons for a resistance to climate change policies is because decarbonising the economy is disruptive. 

💡 Transitioning to net zero means making sacrifices. Green policies can incur expensive up-front costs. These are all true - in the short term, it’s likely that the net-zero transition will bring about some level of discomfort. 

This is part of the reason for the growing backlash against climate change policies. Ordinary citizens are being asked to absorb additional costs and implement changes to their already over-stretched lives.

For some - particularly the elderly - there’s also the realisation that these measures won’t bring any benefit in their lifetimes. 

Making the situation even worse is the ongoing cost of living crisis. Recent geopolitical events such as the war in Ukraine, and the conflict taking place in Gaza are adding strain to economies. Inflation is high in many countries and the price of basic necessities is rising. It’s no wonder that citizens, who are being asked to spend more on electric cars or to fund green policies with their taxpayer money, are more reluctant to do so.

This is why it’s not necessarily the case that citizens are actively turning against climate change policies; it’s that they’re simply concerned about the financial burden or lifestyle adjustments involved.

 👉 This apprehension, however, makes them vulnerable to the manipulation of populist politicians who are able to prey on these concerns and fuel the backlash against climate change policies even further.

The current challenging economic situation is the backdrop but it’s not the whole picture. Populism has been on the rise for a while now and has been fuelling resistance to climate change policies. 

💡 In a number of rich democracies, we’re witnessing a worrying trend: there’s growing polarisation amongst citizens on a number of topics including climate change, and this gap seems to be growing. 

Do politicians recognise the divide global warming has created?

Populist politicians are seizing the opportunity that this divide has created. They’re taking genuine problems - such as the cost of living crisis as outlined in the previous section - and playing on these concerns by stoking the fire, claiming that the left “elite” are responsible for green policies and don’t care about the everyday citizen - who often rely on their car and are more concerned about being able to afford food and heating than some lofty environmental ideals. 

Another concerning aspect of the rise of populism is their indifference to experts. Recent polls show that 87% of Biden supporters believe that climate change is caused by human action, whereas only 21% of Trump supporters agreed. It’s very hard to convince someone when they refuse to listen to experts and distrust scientific evidence. 

Another trait of the populist movement is a distrust of international institutions and disdain for globalism. Climate change is a global issue that needs to be dealt with not only at a national level but at a global level too. 

Concerted international action is a big part of the puzzle, whether this is in the form of international climate commitments and targets, the cross-border sharing of green technology and environmental research, or international funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation.

This is because when countries become more insular, there is less scope for international cooperation on issues such as climate change. 

👉 To read more about how populism gains from transition issues, take a look at our article on the topic. 

Growing backlash in the world’s green economies

We’ve touched on how the growing resistance to climate change is felt most in some of the world's wealthiest and “greenest” countries. Countries like the UK, Germany, Sweden, the US, etc. Such nations have historically led environmental initiatives, but we’re starting to witness a swing in voter opinion, particularly among the older and more right-wing segments of society. 

How will Trump's presidency impact the climate crisis?

As Trump is set to return to the White House in 2025, it is probable that global emissions will be on the rise – as the Trump administration has made clear their value on power plants to help rebuild the country's economic growth, and cutting back on any efforts to develop a net-zero emissions economy or the use of clean energy technologies.

Unlike Biden, who supported a bipartisan infrastructure law in his Inflation Reduction Act, Trump does not see any value to the United States making an effort to reduce GHG emissions – as Trump will likely scale back on the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program and withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement once again.

With a leader for one of the most powerful nations in the world making his disregard for climate regulations well known, Trump may have the power to influence more people to take pride in their resistance to climate policies.

This means that global cooperation is likely to reduce amidst Trump's return to office, as developing countries often look to stronger nations such as the United States as a role model – and if the U.S. isn't making an effort to combat climate change, why should they?

👉 Ultimately, Trump returning to office will have catastrophic effects on heat trapping greenhouse gases, ozone depleting substances, and overall carbon dioxide emissions – and other countries may follow suit as the United States will now demonstrate a lack of willing to comply with global efforts to fight against climate change.

Resistance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries

Conversely, developing countries like China and India - countries that are often viewed as major polluters - are now starting to make big strides when it comes to green technology and renewables. China for example is investing heavily in wind and solar power, recognising the importance of decarbonisation. India has also set ambitious climate targets and is aiming to triple its renewable energy production before the end of this decade. 

However, this trend sadly isn’t replicated across all developing countries. Brazil, for instance, experienced a troubling few years under the rule of Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro stripped back environmental protections, weakened green policies, and oversaw a 150% increase in deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. Thankfully, Bolsonaro’s tenure came to an end when he was replaced by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in January 2023. Lula offers renewed hope for the country's climate change policies and for the Amazon rainforest - the so-called lungs of the Earth. 

What these examples show us is how vulnerable climate change progress is to political currents. A country’s environmental priorities and climate change policies can change drastically in a matter of only a few years. 

However, we’re not completely at the mercy of changing political tides, global pressure and the electoral choices of citizens have the potential to safeguard and advance climate initiatives. These dynamics demonstrate that while political currents can challenge climate progress, informed and engaged citizenry, coupled with international collaboration, can play a pivotal role in sustaining and protecting climate change policies against shifting political winds.

👉 Find out more about the challenges of the net zero transition in China and India on our blog. 

The table below will explain some of the additional reasons why some countries may struggle with resistance to climate change policies:

<table border="1">
  <tr>
    <th>Country</th>
    <th>Reasons for Backlash</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>United States</td>
    <td>Political polarisation, economic dependency on fossil fuels in some regions, and resistance from industry lobbyists.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>China</td>
    <td>Heavy reliance on coal for energy, balancing industrial growth with environmental goals, and public concerns over costs.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>India</td>
    <td>Economic development priorities, dependency on coal, and social inequality complicating equitable policy implementation.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Canada</td>
    <td>Conflict between oil-rich provinces and federal policies, and economic reliance on resource extraction industries.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Brazil</td>
    <td>Deforestation concerns, agricultural sector resistance, and conflicting priorities between economic growth and conservation.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Australia</td>
    <td>Strong coal and mining industries, political resistance, and public skepticism about renewable energy costs.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>United Kingdom</td>
    <td>Public opposition to high costs of transitioning, economic impacts of net-zero policies, and political divisions.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>France</td>
    <td>Public protests like the Yellow Vest movement over fuel taxes, and balancing rural and urban policy impacts.</td>
  </tr>
</table>


Strategies to overcome resistance to climate change policies

If governments and climate advocates want to effectively address the growing backlash to climate change policies the good news is that there are a number of effective strategies available. 

💡 Perhaps the most important one is public education, aimed at raising awareness of the urgency of climate change and the impacts of global warming and dispelling misconceptions. 

Here are some of the ways we can help citizens to reduce emissions and avoid exceeding a global 1.5 °C temperature increase without breaking the bank:

One common public perception for example is that going green requires significant upfront costs and that average citizens will see their bills go up - but this isn’t actually always the case. Oftentimes there are government grants and funding available to assist with the transition, or the purchase of electric vehicles may be subsidised. Another consideration is that although the upfront cost of implementing green technology might be slightly higher, the long-term savings often significantly outweigh these extra costs. If more people were aware of these factors it’s possible that they would be less opposed to climate change policies based on financial concerns, which is why public communication is so crucial. 

Leading on from the point above, governments should also look to facilitate the net zero transition for their citizens and ease the upfront cost burden by offering subsidies for renewable energy adoption, tax breaks, and financial assistance for transitioning to greener technologies. In a time of increasing financial pressure, governments need to make the transition easier for households that are already struggling. Governments should look to introduce incentives for green choices as opposed to simply imposing bans and introducing penalties. 

Government assistance & strategic planning

Gradual implementation of policies is also important, as is planning ahead. The UK Government’s recent U-turn on a number of green policies actually angered businesses around the country - they were frustrated by the lack of forward planning and confusion that the turnaround had introduced. Long-term targets and oversight of climate change policies make the transition much less painful for both businesses and consumers. It also allows concerns to be raised and for any issues to be ironed out ahead of time. 

Another imperative for governments is that they ensure their climate change policies are deliverable with tangible benefits to both society and individuals. It’s important for members of the public to see that net-zero policies are effective. One way to achieve this is to be selective in the areas that are targeted - a good strategy for example is to target the highest emission areas. Another way to highlight the benefits of the net-zero transition is to focus on what it will deliver for the economy in terms of green jobs and other economic opportunities. 

What’s clear is that these strategies require a balance between firm commitment to environmental goals and sensitivity to the needs and concerns of citizens in a rapidly changing world. Politicians seizing upon the fears of citizens and politicising the environment for their own gain are especially problematic and something that needs to be kept in check by keeping a close eye on the temperature of public opinion and addressing their concerns head on. It’s also important to hold politicians to climate commitments through international pressure and legally binding environmental targets. 

The growing resistance to climate change policies across the globe, particularly in nations that were once environmental trailblazers, reveals the complex interplay of economics, politics, and social dynamics in shaping public opinion and policy. However, this trend is not insurmountable. Through targeted public education, financial incentives, and well-planned policy implementation, there is a path forward. It requires a delicate balance of addressing immediate public concerns while maintaining a steadfast commitment to long-term environmental goals. The challenge lies not just in policy formulation but also in winning the hearts and minds of citizens, ensuring that climate action remains a shared global priority, resilient to the volatility of political change.

At Greenly we can help you to assess your company’s carbon footprint, and then give you the tools you need to cut down on emissions. Why not request a free demo with one of our experts - no obligation or commitment required. 

If reading this article has inspired you to consider your company’s own carbon footprint, Greenly can help. Learn more about Greenly’s carbon management platform here. 

In this article, we’ll explore the reason behind the rise in climate lawsuits and what this means for the future of climate justice.

Why climate lawsuits are on the rise

The impacts of climate change are becoming both undeniable and unavoidable. Extreme weather events - from scorching heat waves to catastrophic floods - are occurring with increased frequency and intensity, laying bare the vulnerabilities of our societies and ecosystems. 

As the devastating effects of climate change become more severe, so too does the urgency for meaningful action. Yet, across the globe, governmental and corporate responses remain frustratingly inadequate, prompting a rise in what's known as climate lawsuits. These legal actions demand accountability and change from those who have the power to make a difference but are failing to do so.

👉 In this article, we’ll explore the reason behind the rise in climate lawsuits, shedding light on why affected communities are increasingly turning to the courts to safeguard their futures and ensure that their rights to a stable climate and healthy environment are upheld. 

The world is witnessing unprecedented shifts in its climate systems, leading to extreme weather events. In recent years, we have seen how rising global temperatures exacerbate natural disasters - intensifying hurricanes, prolonging droughts, and sparking wildfires. These climate crises not only disrupt ecosystems but also threaten human lives and livelihoods, particularly in communities that are least equipped to cope.

As the planet continues to warm, the effects of climate change are pushing populations to their limits. The most vulnerable among us - often living in fragile environments or those that are lacking in resources - are often the hardest hit. These ongoing climate crises highlight that the time for action to combat climate change is now. Yet, despite a clear scientific consensus on this urgency and growing public demand for climate policies, the response from many global leaders and corporations remains underwhelming.

This gap between what is needed and actual policy response has led to an increased sense of urgency among affected communities and activists. No longer willing or able to wait for change, these groups are leveraging the legal system as a tool for enforcing accountability. Climate lawsuits are becoming a new and important tool in the fight against climate change, with the potential to compel governments and corporations to honor their environmental commitments and protect the rights of their citizens to a safe and stable climate.

Climate lawsuits are legal challenges brought by individuals, groups, or organisations against governments or corporations over failures to take adequate action on climate change. These lawsuits are rooted in the belief that these entities have a duty to protect the environment and by extension, the public, from the adverse effects of climate change. They leverage existing environmental laws, public trust doctrines, and, increasingly, human rights frameworks to argue their cases.

Climate lawsuits seek to hold entities accountable for contributing to global warming through emissions of greenhouse gases, failure to enforce environmental regulations, or misleading the public about the impacts of climate change. Plaintiffs in these cases range from activist groups and local communities to entire cities and states. Defendants are typically fossil fuel companies, large polluters, and governmental bodies. The legal claims often revolve around negligence or violations of constitutional or human rights, arguing that inadequate climate action infringes on the rights to health, a clean environment, and, in some cases, life itself.

👉 Climate lawsuits can be a crucial tool for initiating change, compelling governments and corporations to prioritise and accelerate their climate actions in line with scientific recommendations and international agreements. 

earthrise explores how individuals and communities are using the law to mitigate the effects of the climate and nature crises.

In Huaraz, in the Peruvian Andes, we meet farmer and mountain guide Saul Luciano Lliuya whose home is at risk of flooding due to glacial melt.

Together with the environmental justice NGO, Germanwatch, Saul is taking one of the Global North’s largest polluters to court, claiming it holds some responsibility for the threat to his home. If successful, a precedent would be set which could open the way for similar cases.

One legal precedent already having a global impact is the move to grant nature legal rights. Initiated by Ecuador in its 2008 constitution, nature’s legal personhood has been recognised in Europe for the first time.

We learn how residents campaigned for the Mar Menor in Spain to be granted rights in order to protect it from being destroyed by human activity.

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe 
- Follow us on Twitter:  

 / ajearthrise  
- Find us on Facebook:  

 / ajearthrise  
- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/program/ear...

@AljazeeraEnglish
#Aljazeeraenglish #Documentary #earthrise #ClimateChange

Planetary Justice: Climate litigation and nature’s rights | earthrise

Climate lawsuits are built on a mix of environmental law, human rights claims, and in some jurisdictions, specific climate change legislation. These legal actions seek not only to mitigate the effects of climate change but also to hold responsible parties accountable for their roles in contributing to global warming. Here we explore the legal grounds that underpin these lawsuits.

Many climate lawsuits hinge on traditional environmental law principles, such as the duty to prevent harm to the environment and the public. In several cases, these principles are interpreted through the lens of negligence, where plaintiffs argue that governments or corporations have failed to act with reasonable care to prevent environmental harm. The lawsuits often challenge the adequacy of national climate policies or corporate practices against the backdrop of environmental statutes and international agreements like the Paris Agreement.

One foundational aspect of climate lawsuits is the ‘public trust doctrine’, which states that certain natural resources should be preserved for public use, and the government has a duty to protect these resources for the public's benefit. In the context of climate litigation, this doctrine is invoked to argue that the atmosphere is a public trust resource. Plaintiffs claim that the government has an obligation to protect the atmosphere from excessive CO2 emissions, which are a primary contributor to global warming and climate change.

A rapidly growing area of climate litigation involves human rights claims. Plaintiffs argue that failure to address climate change violates their fundamental human rights, such as the right to life, health, and a private and family life. These arguments have gained traction as international bodies and national courts increasingly recognise the right to a healthy environment as fundamental. The recent landmark ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which recognised environmental protection as integral to human rights, exemplifies this trend and provides a robust framework for future cases.

Asghar Leghari vs. Federation of Pakistan (2015) - The plaintiff, Asghar Leghari, a farmer, brought the case against the Pakistani government, citing its inaction and negligence in implementing climate change measures outlined in the country’s National Climate Change Policy of 2012 and its Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy. The court recognised the Pakistan government's failure to achieve the objectives and mandated the creation of a Climate Change Commission. This commission was tasked with ensuring that Pakistan adhered to its climate goals, marking a significant step towards judicial activism in environmental governance.


Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others (2018) - In this influential case, Colombian youth sued various government bodies for failing to curb deforestation in the Amazon, asserting that this neglect threatened their rights to a healthy environment and other fundamental human rights. Initially, a lower court ruled against the youth plaintiffs, but upon their appeal, the Supreme Court of Colombia reversed the decision. This landmark ruling recognised the Colombian Amazon as a ‘subject of rights’, similar to a person, which entitled it to protection, conservation, maintenance, and restoration. The Court also ordered the government to formulate and implement action plans to address deforestation in the Amazon.


Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands (2019) - Initiated by the Urgenda Foundation alongside 900 co-plaintiffs, this landmark case against the Dutch government aimed to enforce stricter climate action to prevent dangerous climate change. The Dutch Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings that the government had a legal duty to protect its citizens from climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions more aggressively. This ruling set a significant global precedent, inspiring a wave of similar lawsuits worldwide and affirming the role of judicial systems in enforcing national climate policies.


Neubauer v Germany (2021) - Initiated by climate activists and several other plaintiffs, the case targeted the Federal Climate Change Act of Germany. The plaintiffs argued that the government's measures under the act were insufficient to meet its constitutional obligations to protect future generations from the impacts of climate change. The German Constitutional Court agreed, ruling that while the act set climate targets for up to 2030, it left too much of the burden for reducing emissions to post-2030, which unfairly burdened younger generations. The court mandated the government to create clearer, more ambitious paths for emission reductions post-2030. 

Climate lawsuits are increasingly shaping how environmental governance is implemented. They compel governments and businesses to consider the long-term environmental and health impacts of their policies and operations. This growing body of jurisprudence not only underscores the urgency of robust climate action but also reinforces the link between environmental sustainability and human rights.

The European Court of Human Rights' landmark ruling

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recently issued a groundbreaking judgment affirming that inadequate government action on climate change can violate human rights - the first time that an international court has done so. This decision marks a significant shift in how legal systems view the intersection of environmental policy and human rights, setting a precedent for future climate lawsuits across Europe and potentially influencing other courts around the world.

The ECHR's ruling centered on a case brought by a group of senior women in Switzerland, who argued that their government's insufficient climate policies exposed them to increased health risks during heatwaves, thus violating their rights to family life and privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights. While Swiss courts rejected the claim the ECHR sided with the plaintiff, stating that governments have a legal obligation to adopt and pursue more aggressive climate policies to protect their citizens from the life-threatening impacts of climate change.

The ruling in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland is groundbreaking as it explicitly links climate action to the protection of fundamental human rights, reinforcing the notion that governments have a duty not only to mitigate the environmental impacts of climate change but also to shield their citizens from its harmful effects.

The ECHR's decision provides a clear legal framework that can be leveraged by activists and communities across other EU countries:

Setting legal precedent - The ruling sets a precedent that climate inaction can and does infringe on human rights, offering a new avenue for climate litigation. It empowers individuals and groups to hold their governments accountable for climate negligence through the judicial system.

Influence beyond Europe - While the decision is binding only within EU member states, its influence is likely to extend globally. Similar courts around the world may look to this decision when considering their own climate litigation cases, potentially leading to a more unified global approach to climate justice and human rights.

Empowering vulnerable communities - The judgment underscores the particular vulnerability of certain demographic groups - such as the elderly, children, and low-income communities - to the effects of climate change. It opens the door for these groups to seek legal redress, potentially leading to more tailored climate policies that address specific vulnerabilities.

While the ECHR's decision is a significant victory for climate justice, it also highlights several challenges and considerations for future cases. 

Burden of proof - Plaintiffs in climate lawsuits must still demonstrate a direct link between governmental climate policies (or the lack thereof) and the specific harms suffered, which can be a high evidentiary hurdle to overcome.

Legal complexity - The legal arguments in climate cases are often complex, involving scientific data and predictions about future conditions. This complexity can pose challenges both for the courts in understanding the issues and for plaintiffs in presenting their cases effectively.

Government compliance - Even with favorable court rulings, ensuring government compliance with orders to enhance climate action remains a challenge. Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms must be robust to ensure that legal victories translate into real-world policy changes.

The ECHR's ruling is a watershed moment in the legal fight against climate change. It not only expands the legal tools available for addressing climate inaction but also reinforces the critical role of the courts in safeguarding human rights in the face of global environmental challenges. As this area of law continues to evolve, it will shape the landscape of climate policy and human rights protection for years to come.

A group of older Swiss women have won the first ever climate case victory in the European Court of Human Rights.
 
The women, mostly in their 70s, said that their age and gender made them particularly vulnerable to the effects of heatwaves linked to climate change.
 
The court said Switzerland's efforts to meet its emission reduction targets had been woefully inadequate.
 
It is the first time the powerful court has ruled on global warming.
 
Read more on the BBC News website: https://bbc.in/4atpoGp

Subscribe here: http://bit.ly/1rbfUog

For more news, analysis and features visit: www.bbc.com/news 

#Switzerland #HumanRights #BBCNews
Transcript
Follow along using the transcript.

European court rules human rights violated by climate inaction in landmark case | BBC News

Climate lawsuits have become a significant force in shaping public policy and corporate behavior toward sustainability. These legal challenges leverage the judicial system to enforce environmental protection and influence change at governmental and corporate levels.

Influencing public policy and corporate behavior

Climate lawsuits often target entities that fail to adhere to environmental regulations or contribute significantly to pollution. Landmark cases like the lawsuit against Royal Dutch Shell in the Netherlands, which resulted in a court ordering Shell to cut its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels, illustrate the direct impact of legal action. This case set a precedent and has encouraged other groups to pursue similar lawsuits, potentially leading to more stringent regulatory measures on corporate emissions globally.

In addition to enforcing immediate changes, these lawsuits help to shape public policy by highlighting areas where current legislation may be lacking. They also put pressure on governments to tighten environmental regulations and enforce existing laws more rigorously to avoid future litigation.

Climate lawsuits are playing an increasingly prominent role in the global fight against climate change. By holding governments and corporations accountable, these legal battles not only foster immediate changes in policies and practices but also inspire a broader shift toward sustainability.

As these lawsuits gain visibility, they serve as a powerful tool for environmental advocacy groups to influence public opinion and policy. They highlight the urgency of the climate crisis and the need for action, pushing for more robust environmental policies and practices. 

The table below will compare and contrast these climate lawsuits:

<table border="1">
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>Case Name</th>
      <th>Year</th>
      <th>Key Issue</th>
      <th>Outcome</th>
      <th>Impact</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Asghar Leghari vs. Federation of Pakistan</td>
      <td>2015</td>
      <td>The Pakistani government's failure to implement its National Climate Change Policy and Framework.</td>
      <td>The court mandated the formation of a Climate Change Commission to ensure adherence to climate goals.</td>
      <td>Set a precedent for judicial activism in environmental governance within Pakistan.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others</td>
      <td>2018</td>
      <td>Government negligence in preventing Amazon deforestation, threatening youth rights to a healthy environment.</td>
      <td>Supreme Court recognised the Amazon as a ‘subject of rights’ and ordered government action plans to combat deforestation.</td>
      <td>Pioneered the concept of granting rights to natural entities and emphasised protecting ecosystems.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands</td>
      <td>2019</td>
      <td>The Dutch government’s insufficient efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.</td>
      <td>Supreme Court ruled the government had a legal duty to protect citizens by aggressively reducing emissions.</td>
      <td>Set a global precedent for judicial enforcement of climate action and inspired similar lawsuits worldwide.</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Neubauer v Germany</td>
      <td>2021</td>
      <td>German Climate Change Act’s inadequate measures to protect future generations.</td>
      <td>Constitutional Court mandated the government to establish clearer, more ambitious climate targets post-2030.</td>
      <td>Highlighted intergenerational equity and emphasised constitutional obligations in climate policies.</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>


Why might climate lawsuits increase after Trump’s return to presidency? 

It is more than likely that there could be a spike in climate lawsuits as Trump is currently set to rollback on several environmental policies previously implemented by the Biden administration. 

Here are some of the reasons why climate lawsuits may be on the rise in 2025 when Trump returns to office:

Reduced Business Protection under the IRA – Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 helped businesses kick-start their climate journeys while also provided tax breaks to businesses that made use of energy efficient equipment. Once Trump returns to the office, these incentives will be removed – and businesses will become vulnerable to the effects of finite energy usage once more (such as with oil leaks), which could result in an increase in climate lawsuits.

Lack of Regulatory Standards – Once Trump is president again, states will experience a wide discrepancy in climate policies – which could result in stakeholder and other federal agencies to avoid addressing climate risks and ultimately trigger new climate lawsuits.  

Potential Damage via New Fossil Fuel Projects – Trump has made clear on his intentions to accelerate the development of new fossil fuel projects, and in turn – this could result in excess emissions and environmental damage, which could impact businesses and homeowners regardless of the current insurance coverage.

Dismantled Partnerships – As Trump is likely to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement once more, it is probable that business partnerships could fall apart, and as a result – some companies may proceed with climate lawsuits against another as they will no longer hold up their end of the deal to ensure global climate cooperation. 

Decreased Climate Accountability – Since the United States will retreat from several efforts to protect water and air quality, it is likely that a wave of climate lawsuits could ensure as a result of business and local organisations alike making an effort to protect public health and surrounding ecosystems. 

In the same way that eating poorly or refusing to take care of your teeth could cause cardiovascular issues later on, failing to protect the environment could cause even worse natural disasters and negative repercussions as a result of failing to remain mindful of how our activities can negatively impact the environmental.

👉As Trump returns to office, there will be a less proactive approach to climate change – and a return to a reactive approach could result in a rise in climate lawsuits. 

Overall, Trump’s decision to withdraw from international environmental policies in addition to the emission reduction efforts created by the Biden administration could cause a wide variety of issues which could indirectly impact other people’s properties and business – which could mean climate lawsuits will become more common than they already are

After starting her career at Greenly in 2022, she started a joined PhD between the startup and CentraleSupélec to improve company sustainabilty performance ratings.

Marine Kohler

Marine has an engineering degree from the French school of CentraleSupélec and a masters in Industrial Management from DTU. After starting her career at Greenly in 2022, she started a joined PhD between the startup and CentraleSupélec to improve company sustainabilty performance ratings.

Kara joined the team at Greenly in 2023 as SEO copywriter for the UK market.

Kara Anderson - Greenly

Kara Anderson holds an undergraduate law degree and a master’s degree in international law from the University of Glasgow and the University of Aberdeen, specialising in human rights and EU law, where she developed strong research and writing skills. After working at Ernst & Young as part of their audit graduate scheme and gaining experience in analytics, she transitioned to advertising, working with major global brands like American Express and Dove.
In 2023, Kara joined Greenly as a writer, focusing on sustainability and climate-related topics for the UK market. Her work spans a wide range of environmental issues, including climate science, sustainable development, and climate policy. Collaborating with climate scientists, Kara has produced data-driven investigations into key climate challenges. With a passion for international politics, sustainable development, and climate change science, she continues to build her expertise in the field and is currently pursuing further training in journalism.

Copywriter specialising in environmental thematics

Ines Gendre is a copywriter specialising in environmental issues. She joined Greenly's team in 2022.

Ines Gendre

Ines Gendre holds a master’s degree in marketing and began her career in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) industry. After retraining, she joined Greenly in 2022 as a copywriter specializing in environmental issues. Ines brings her expertise to companies and individuals seeking to understand the challenges of climate change, the green transition, and their impact on society and the economy. Trained in key tools for developing climate strategies - such as Carbon Assessments, Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), and carbon offsetting - she will begin studying political science at Oxford University in England in January 2025.

After seeking opportunities to put her various creative passions to good use, she joined Greenly in mid 2022 as SEO copywriter for the U.S. blog to provide her American perspective on the climate change issues we face today.

Stephanie Safdie - Greenly

Stephanie completed a bachelor's degree in English & Multimedia in 2020 at the University of Maryland College Park. She previously worked as a social media content video creator and freelance copywriter. After seeking opportunities to put her various creative passions to good use, she joined Greenly in mid 2022 as SEO copywriter for the U.S. blog to provide her American perspective on the climate change issues we face today. 

Quentin Bourhis, Climate Expert at Greenly

Ben Field, Climate Action Strategist at Patch

Alexis Normand

Alexis is a 37 year-old graduate of HEC and Sciences-Po. After his studies, he spent 2 years working in public policy consulting. He then spent 6 years at Withings, a leading company in connected objects. While there, he continued the companies operations in Boston, USA, and created the company’s health department. After the company was bought by Nokia, he joined the startup Embleema by working through Techstars, one of the best startup incubators in the United States, where he developed a taste for entrepreneurship. His return to France was an opportunity to put all his experience at the service of the environment, during a crucial moment in the climate crisis.

Arnaud Delubac

Arnaud, 26 years old, trained as a designer and in digital communication at INSEEC before joining the Master Entrepreunariat at ESSEC-CentraleSupélec. Passionate about social media since his teenage years, he has created some of the biggest Twitter communities in France before joining the digital communication team of the Prime Minister’s office in Matignon. It was at the Secretaries of State for Digital, Mounir Mahjoubi and Cédric O, where Arnaud directly managed the team, that he developed a strong conviction for the need to use technology to bring awareness to the greatest causes of our time.

Matthieu Vegreville

Matthieu is a 28 year-old graduate engineer from Ecole Polytechnique and Télecom Paris, with a background in data science at Withings. While there, he worked on watch activity detection algorithms, and developed a health study activity so that connected objects could be used to better monitor certain pathologies. He has long been involved in data science projects with his brother, who has the same training. Faced with the urgency of the climate crisis, he decided to put his know-how at the service of the environment. 

What is an ecosystem ?

More articles

Why Trump’s “Drill Baby, Drill” Could Face Challenges

Is there a growing resistance to climate change policies?

Why climate lawsuits are on the rise

Join more than 800 companies committed to climate change