List of contents: New efforts to Track and Improve Net Zero Emission Targets; Canada’s Supreme Court Deems Carbon Tax Law Constitutional; The EU Court of Justice dismisses People’s Climate Case on Appeal; Complaint Filed Against Chevron for Misleading Consumers on Climate Action

- Scientists: New efforts to Track and Improve Net Zero Emission Targets -
https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-021-00662-3/18965644

Last month we pointed to the new wave of net zero emission targets in the leadup to COP26 and their effect on keeping temperature targets within reach. In March, a new paper was published in Nature that criticizes many targets as too vague. The team of authors lead by Joeri Rogelj demands that action plans from countries and companies must be fair, rigorous and transparent. Too often, they argue, the scope, i.e. what kind of emissions are covered in the pledges, as well as the role of carbon dioxide removal to achieve the target, remain unspecified. The authors provide a checklist and 10 guidelines for rigorous and clear net zero plans.

What is more: a team of researchers from the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit and the new Oxford Net Zero research initiative provide an assessment of net zero targets in countries and companies around the world. According to the assessment, only 20% of the analysed pledges meet a set of basic robustness criteria. With a net zero target emerging in US politics and first indications that India might follow the trend, we expect to observe many more pledges prior to COP26 in Glasgow.

- Canada’s Supreme Court Deems Carbon Tax Law Constitutional -
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56526115

On March 25, in a split decision with six judges in favour, one partial dissent and two in disagreement, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal government's 2018 Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is constitutional. This decision legitimises the federal legislative implementation despite political resistance from provinces like Saskatchewan, Ontario and Alberta, which argued that the federal law amounted to overreach into provincial jurisdiction on issues concerning taxes and the environment. The conservative provincial governments further contended that carbon pricing will hurt consumers and energy producers. However, the national carbon tax legislation sets minimum pricing standards that provinces must meet, and retains autonomy and flexibility in the manner of implementation with the provincial governments. The current price sits at roughly 20 € per tonne of carbon dioxide released and will rise sharply to 116 € per tonne by 2030, which will later be returned through rebates. Chief Justice Richard Wagner asserted, on behalf of the majority, "climate change is real. It is caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities, it poses a grave threat to humanity's future", and “parliament has jurisdiction to enact this law as a matter of national concern." Justice Wagner also referred to the massive challenge climate change entails, which calls for a coordinated national approach. This pioneering legal dispute could propel replicas in other jurisdictions where resistance to the adoption of mitigation strategies is emerging.

- The EU Court of Justice dismisses People’s Climate Case on Appeal -
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=239294&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2282818

On March 25, the Sixth Chamber of the EU Court of Justice rendered its verdict on the Appeal in the case Carvalho and Others v Parliament and Council, thereby rejecting all the arguments of the appellants and dismissing the case in its entirety. This litigation, also called the People’s Climate Case, was first brought to the European General Court in May 2018 against the European Parliament and the European Council. Plaintiffs argued that the EU’s previous 2030 climate target of reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels was unlawful because it was insufficient to protect fundamental rights from the impacts of climate change. Therefore, what the plaintiffs were seeking was the annulment of the EU legislative package and an injunction for the damage that the applicants claimed to have suffered. In the first instance, the EU General Court rejected the claims, and the applicants appealed the decision. During the appeal, the EU Court of Justice upheld the reasoning of the General Court and thus rejected all four grounds brought by the appellants, namely that the General Court (i) erred in finding that the appellants were not individually concerned; (ii) failed to adapt the settled case-law on locus standi in order to guarantee the legal protection of fundamental rights; (iii) erred in finding that the association Sáminuorra did not have locus standi; and (iv) erred in rejecting their claim for damages. Appellants stated, “with this decision, the EU courts fail to join the tidal wave of national and supranational courts who play an important role to hold governments accountable for their climate inaction”.

- Complaint Filed Against Chevron for Misleading Consumers on Climate Action -
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-16/chevron-greenwashing-targeted-in-complaint-filed-with-u-s-ftc

Another avenue of climate change litigation targeting greenwashing in the private sector is being tested in the United States. On 16 March 2021, a group of NGOs, including Global Witness, Earthworks and Greenpeace USA, filed a complaint with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Chevron claiming its newest advertising campaign is misleading. The FTC, the federal agency tasked with investigating claims of deceptive advertising, has established advertising guidelines, called the “Green Guides”, designed to prevent misleading environmental claims. The complaint argues that Chevron’s new ads, airing in several media formats, misrepresent its business activities in direct violation of the FTC’s Green Guides. The complaint further alleges that Chevron’s representation implies that its business operations do not harm, and even help the environment, claim that the company produces “clean” energy and reduces emission intensity, while at the same time increasing its overall oil and gas extraction and production, spending less than 3% of its capital expenditures on renewables, despite recently dumping 600 gallons of oil in the San Francisco Bay. The complaint asks the FTC to require Chevron to remove the misleading ads, refrain from releasing misleading ads in the future, and face relevant penalties.

Kind Regards,

Anne, Juan, and Felix

Recommend this newsletter. If you were forwarded this email, subscribe here https://dev.lexxion.eu/en/newsletter/

Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH
Güntzelstr. 63
10717 Berlin
Deutschland

+49-(0)30-814506-0

https://dev.lexxion.eu

We sincerely apologize if you find this email an intrusion of your privacy or a source of inconvenience to you. If you would like to unsubscribe from the newsletter service, please click here:

Terms https://dev.lexxion.eu/en/terms-conditions/ | Privacy https://dev.lexxion.eu/en/data-protection/