recognize the jurisdiction of this international court and the state of aging has historical claim to this region. so engaging size. it is manila that is acting on wilfully by refusing to to a wave is granted worship at his needs on the street since 1999. and it says that it is manila that is disturbing the started score by not only repairing that ship, but also reinforcing it's katrina you 0 the kind of take you through. some of the headlines now. lead is from 8 south american nations. are discussing how the safe saw, the future of the amazon rainforest engender includes a dressing, deforestation in ego mining and capital funding. these as co leaders have refused to allow a joint navigation from echo awesome the african union. i'm the you and went to the country ministry down engagements for molly. i'm vicky no 5 so are in the ship to

meet with june to lead this child strikes with has more from senegal capital dot com, just coolly. just saying that the reason why they refused entry by this delegation, including representatives from the african union, the u. n. and eco us today was because what they describe of security concerns in a statement they released to the news agency agents falls press the statement, read the current context of public anger revolt following sanctions imposed by the echo us does not permit the welcoming of this delegation in the required conditions of serenity and security, the coast is just the latest we bustled by, the chaise, coolly, the seemingly to entertain any kind of potential peaceful negotiation to try and find a way out of this crisis. the south african police society rubber bullets and tear gas in the town of style in boston. as striking many bus taxi drivers ignore the court order, stopping the protest face i eluted the taking advantage of the strike initial

results from a referendum in the central african republic suggest 95 percent backing for a new constitution. but the opposition says only 10 percent of the population turns out to vote. the changes remove the to time limits for the president heavy rain and land slides across southeast in bangladesh of killed at least 7 people. 4 of them were hanging in the refugee camp. thousands of bangladesh, these have been false from that homes rescue teams of trying to reach many people who are still trapped on flood voices. china is following ministry is urging the philippines to remove a ground of worship from the dispute is shown in the south china sea. a resupply boat was heading to the reef when china is coast gone, stopped it using a will to count and on saturday. is the stream next, so stay with us as zeros here it's

a report on the people often ignored but who must be hurt. how many other channels can you say? we'll take this time and put extensive followed into reporting from under reported areas. of course we cover major global events, but our passion lies in making sure that you're hearing the stories from people in places like how this finds, the young man has regions and so many others. we go to them, we make the effort. we tear straight the hello and welcome to the stream. i'm not sure i'd 17 today climate action through the courts as fossil fuel giants fail to deliver on climate pledges. environmental is are turning to litigation. what can a new crop of climate lawsuits for some big oil to change its ways? we'll look at what's driving the latest wave of lawsuits aimed at holding polluters

accountable for the climate emergency. and as always, you are more than welcome to be a part of today's conversation. share your thoughts right here in our live you to chat. joining us from washington dc is nikki rice, director of the climate and energy program at the center for international environmental law. in mexico city, astrid point this an independent consultant on climate change and human rights and in the us state of maryland delta murder, lead scientist for the science hub for climate litigation at the union of concerned scientists. well, ladies welcome to the stream. we're all very concerned whether scientists or not. and then that's why i want to start nicky by kind of asking you this seems like a global phenomenon that's accelerating this litigation. why is that? and why should people be concerned and paying attention? and that's absolutely right. it really is a global phenomenon and what climate litigation encompasses

a really wide and rapidly growing number of cases that are being brought around the world in different countries, under different legal regimes, in different types of courts and tribunal. and those are cases against states and governments seeking, excuse me, governments like the company is speaking to hold them accountable for their contributions to the climate crisis for their emissions. but also seeking to compel them to act urgently to address the crisis and the hall climate distracted activity . and it's really important to understand the speak celebrating trends as is responding. i think to 3 key developments. one is just the rapidly developing and severe climate impacts that we're witnessing around the world that are affecting and growing number of people across the planet and, and a growing number of people being harmed means a growing number of victims or potential claimants. second, scientific advances have made it more possible to connect those arms to their causes chief among them, fossil fuels. and 3rd, there's

a wide body of evidence in the public domain about what those fossil fuel companies and producers knew about the contributions of their products to the climate crisis when they knew it literally decades ago, and their failure to act on it. and so when people are harmed, they turn to the course, particularly when leaders are, are dragging their feet. and when politics break down, the law can help break through. oh, that's a lovely way of putting it and certainly helps us understand what's actually going on here. i want to dig a little deeper and ask you astrid, if you take a look, i believe at this tweet. so i just let me close this out. green paste international thing. the wave of global climate litigation continues. governments who refuse to take meaningful action to protect future generations must be held to account. when you tried to identify astrid, what's happening here in terms of the increase in litigation, what do you attribute it to what, what started? and so i think complimenting to would make you mentioned is, out of frustration and the need for solutions,

as we know climate negotiations internationally started in more than 30 as 30 years ago. so they use united nations framework for climate change was signed in 92. and the 1st document that scientists call attention internationally about climate change was from the ninety's. and so since then we have been negotiating for decades as i said. and although we have seen important agreements, solutions are not really being delivered as we need. and so people and we all need solutions and that's one of the things that triggered this litigation at the same time. it's because missing information on the one side we're seeing science independent science. we have to as specific as specify that have showed the link between climate change and for to fuels and other activities such as the for station. but we're seeing governments going on different directions and so we need

governments and corporations to advance solutions. and because we're not seeing that, that's right. also triggered this litigation time and you know, a delta that's the perfect kind of segue to you. i mean, i know that you're as a scientist focusing on the data, and i'm wondering, you know, we have this video coming from sarah needs the co director of the climate litigation network in new zealand, who talks about a 2019 pivotal lawsuit by this dutch and environmental group for those who don't know your agenda, take a listen and i want to ask you about the science after this. the climate litigation is a really powerful tool to hold those most responsible for closing the climate crisis to account in the face of a relatively worsening climate crisis. the agenda climate case, again, the dutch government shows what climate litigation can achieve and it will 1st been high sold the court order, the government to slash its emissions in order to protect human rights leading to

an overall that's kind of policy and also inspiring the climate litigation movement . today we see fit the communities from o calling us at the will turn into the quotes to the mind to counter dirty, not just from governments, but also the big pollutants to protect their rights and those the future generation . so i'm curious, hearing that and knowing what you've been predicting, as you can see here in this article 3 predictions for the climate litigation in 2023. i'm wondering what those predictions are, and is this really based on new science? is it just in granular data, what's going on here to yeah, so i want to take a step back cuz so there's a couple of things that are going on here that are important to understand. so 1st of all, kind of with our agenda and those pieces, a lot of what's happening is just the understanding that there's scientific consensus on the causes and impacts of climate change that are being communicated now through the courts. because unfortunately,

there had been failures for governments and corporations to adequately address climate change over the last 30 years as folks are saying. but there are really important advances that are happening as well in science. and there's 2 areas in particular that i think are important to mention here. mm hm. so there's attribution science and then there's climate obstruction research, which play really important roles. and i think why we see this advance in climate litigation and also give us a lot of potential for where we see some of these core cases moving in the future as well. and where new cases might come from. and if i may, when you're talking about obstruction, for those who don't know, i mean, i think there was a new evidence if you will, that found that exxon accurately predicted global warming, dating back to the early 1970. so it's these kind of deflection and obstructive tactics that i think you know, people are trying to pinpoint and, and used to hold people accountable. i'm wondering though astrid, like, you know, in the netherlands. we talked about that case in the, in the video comment that you saw there. it's been sort of held as

a landmark case. what can we learn from that case, and what can you share with us about other cases maybe that are happening in the global south, which is maybe not always as focused on. all right, and thank you for that and a specific comment. so there again, the case is definitely a very important case because it was the 1st time as is what is it was mentioned that a state is of like to reduce their emissions. and even before the, again decays in columbia. the constitutional court that has the highest court on human rights in 2016 declared that the government of columbia had the obligation to protect by the most. that is a very kicker system in the end is specifically also because the, the important of this eco system for the protection of the, by your diversity fresh water and also climate. so we have seen already, decisions in terms of climate litigation even before again the, the other case that i would like to highlight also it's

a decision from the entire american court on human rights in 2017. that concluded, it's an advisory opinion that basically decided water and clarified the obligations of states and in terms of the environment. and it was the 1st time worldwide where a court, these high rico denies the climate change actually exist. so that was important in terms of climate denial, but also that impact climate and altima, right? sorry, and that's also the decision even though it's not mandatory. it was used in the or again the case. and so i wanted to also mention these 2 cases. there also, we have seen cases from higher highest chords in brazil in mexico advancing the recognition of climate actions. so i'm curious, you know, we've talked now and outlined some of the things that are happening, some of the trends. what, what really stands out to me if i may kind of bring this up to you nikki, is like, if you look at this right here, cell directors, personally sued,

overflowed climate strategy. so this is happening this company, or i should say this. yeah, this organization, client earth say that the oil company is plans put the company at financial risk. now we have also a comment from the ceo of that law firm. and i would love to hear what you think about this trend. nicky, she's let's listen to what laura clark had to say about it. all recent lucy again, shells board of directors is exciting and significant because it's the us times the corporate directors had been held personally liable for failing to manage time at risk. so we argue that the direct cause of shell of failing to prepare the company for the next, the re transition. and in doing so, the risk of the long term commercial liability of the company. so we're bringing this case as shareholders, in the interest of the company. it shareholders on the permit.

maybe i can ask you to speculate maybe it's not fair but, but what's the defense here? i mean, how has the response been, and is there a defense strategy that's viable for these big oil companies as well? i think the principle defense strategy that we've seen is the oil companies trying to re position themselves as part of the solution rather than the critical source of the problem that they are. but before we come to that, i think that's exactly why we're seeing such an uptick in cases that are really probing greenwashing. and the way in which i'm using the stamp of, of net 0 and, and the label of cleaner green companies are trying to dress up business as usual as something that's compatible with, with the state of climate. but on the showcase in the, in the u. k. which i think is a really a critical harming or things to come in. it's a critical 1st attempt to personalize liability and to really send the signal to decision makers. those individuals who are making financial and economic decisions

are companies for banks, investors, for retirement funds, that they will be on the hook up for down clean climate risk and for failing to align business practices with what the science clearly shows is needed to prevent climate catastrophe. because as astrid said, there is a consensus now that climate change is clearly a human rights issue. it affects all human rights across the board. but it's not just about human rights in the environment. it also is one of the greatest threats to economic and financial stability. and so, you know, individual decision makers, if they failed to close this disconnect between what companies are doing, where they're putting their money in continuing oil and gas production. and what we know is needed to avoid climate catastrophe, and, and the costs that come with it are going to be facing increasing numbers of students like this one. i predict, we're going to see more investors and shareholders seeking recourse to your call out of financial folly of locking in dependence on oil and gas uh and prolonging

the software delta you are going to jump in. yeah, yeah. well, the jump in and so yeah, so just so we understand kind of the context, right, so shell, this year had record profits and i believe it was around 40000000000 and profit. so this year is also one of the hottest on records. and one of the costliest, as far as whether damages that we saw for him from any year. so we're looking at, you know, 40000000000 and profits from this company. but there was data that was released from an insurance broker at the end of january that categorized over $3313000000000.00 of economic loss that came from whether disasters in, in last year alone. so not all of this is climate change, but it's also only one year and then just to say kind of where some of the next steps of science is and how it can really help to inform these discussions. there was a study that was released the last day that looked specifically at economic damage from, from climate change. so they were looking at one event. so they looked at hurricane

sandy and they were isolating their records to just look at additional economic damage from sea level rise from climate change. so climate changes impacting hurricanes and a number of different ways. so just from sea level rise, and just from this one storm, there is approximately $8100000000.00 of additional damage that can be attributed through science, through this attribution work to climate change, and specifically to sea level rise from climate change. so i think these types of studies and as they grow and we see them more across the world, they really help to inform these discussions and ask that i know you wanted to jump and go ahead. yeah, and so as you can see, i mean these litigation brings a lot of aspects and the element that i wanted to add also is about in the qualities and justice. because as we have seen and both we can delta have mentioned, there is a huge inequality in terms of impact and responsibilities that we're not seeing

today. so science science has con, also measure that about 10 percent of the population globally is responsible for about 50 percent of carbon emissions. and historically also over set 20 percent of emissions since the 1800s when scientists have have data is linked to about 90 companies. so we're, we're talking about climate or emergency when we're talking about climate change. we're also talking about in a qualities. and that is one of the elements that i think it's very important in these ladies know, and it's certainly an important part of this conversation. i want to talk about that just to take a step back. you know, we're talking about the global south here. we gave several examples for our audience, but delta in the us content context, if i'm not mistaken, most of the cases when it comes to the fossil fuel industry, trying to hold them accountable are actually now about fraud, right? about deceiving the public as we've mentioned. and i just think that's interesting in the context of green washing,

which we've covered here at the stream. but it's also interesting in terms of how long they've known sort of about their consequences and how long they've been able to deflect. so am i right in understanding delta that, that in the us context a lot of these companies are no longer able to continue appealing their on their last round of appeals. i mean, what does that actually mean in terms of what's likely to happen in the us context here? yeah, so there's a nearly 3 dozen cases that are what you're mentioned in there. these fraud cases that are really based on this information and based on consumer fraud. the fact that the companies have known for more than 5 decades about the impacts of their products and have lied to consumers about that. and that those are intentional decisions to actively downplay and distort the mounting evidence of climate change from, from their products. mm hm. um, so that's kind of the, the basis of that the suits have been filed. it's been about a 5 year process for

a number of them, but we are seeing movements. so last year there are 2 of those cases that did start to move forward and then moved into discovery. and we're expecting a lot more of the cases to move in discovery this year, which is really exciting moment for the legal cases. and then also as scientists for the potential of new documentation that turns out that we can further understand what the industry knew and when most certainly in and i, you know, and again, i know there's a lot about the, the role of these fossil fuel companies and misleading the public in down, playing sorta and climate emergency, but also deflecting, you know, forcing us to be somewhat obsessed with our own carbon footprint as individuals in a way to flex away from these big corporations and their, their carbon footprints. right? and that's some of this is a subtle messaging that's there. with that said, i, you know, i want to share with you what's being discussed here on youtube. we have, for example, take magnet, asking interesting name. can you prove oil is causing climate change beyond

a reasonable doubt? ladies, can you? yes, yes. the most i like back but yeah, yeah. give it to the one sentence and sir that you know, the cause i know you can sit here and probably give us a sermon about all the different ways in which that's to yeah, so just to be really clear research source attribution one form of science climate source attribution allows us to identify the pollutants that cause climate change and allow us to go back to the source so we can understand the contribution of fossil fuels, deforestation, agriculture, industrial processes. all of that is possible to track through to see what is happening with the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. and then we can connect that to, to various events that was mentioned before. so we have studies that very clearly show that you know, emissions from just 90 of the largest carbon producers contributed over half of the

observed temperature rises are about half of the carbon dioxide that we see in the atmosphere. nearly half of the temperature rises. a 3rd of all sea level rise half of ocean is that if occasion. and again, we can directly connect these back to those companies nikki, is there anything you wanted to add? i mean, i know we talked about a couple landmark cases, but something to share for sure. i mean, just in response to that question, you know, don't take it from, from me as a lawyer, take it from the intergovernmental panel on climate change, the world's pre eminent climate authority that says quite clearly in its way, this reports that fossil fuels are unequivocal either the primary cause of global warming. if you look just at the past decade, i think it's something like plus or minus 86 percent of emissions. carbon dioxide emissions have come from the fossil fuel and industry sector. um, so that, that is on an undeniable and unequivocal at this point. what i do when i come back to is just to say that these cases that are going on across the united states are really significant. they do involve a consumer fraud and deception claims around the pivot that companies. fossil fuel

companies have made from the past denial of their contribution to climate change to a rebranding of themselves as part of the solution. and, and deceptive practices to call fossil gas clean or green, or to promote new tech. new fix is right, he's a magical solution, but somehow make it seem like we can continue using oil and gas in definitely in the future without the climate consequences. because we have this new technology, carbon capture in storage, which is certainly not new, but it's been used to pump more oil out of the ground for decades. or hydrogen, which is this, you know, supposedly magical fuel for the future. but it's actually 99 percent of hydrogen today is produced from fossil gas and fossil fuels. so these are actually ways of prolonging our reliance on oil and gas and for decades into the future. and then when we try to predict, you know, the next decade or the next few years in terms of climate litigation. you know, lots of these cases are driven by grassroots action. as we've said in, in,

in the global south. especially astrid. and then the example that i want to talk about is running, want to in, in the pacific islands, if i'm not mistaken. we mentioned netherlands where there's a duct chord that ruled the shell must cut its carbon emissions. we mentioned australia where a new coal, our project was rejected due to emissions and human rights concerns. so centering this debate, this small island, do you know what is the significance of, of, i don't want to if i'm not mistaken. it also involves the international court of justice, which could be critical here. astrid? yes. so one of the what the, that a new effort that you're mentioning is that one a while to as a state is leading with other pacific island states. and today, literally we're seeing european states also joining a request for the international court of justice in the hague to take this climate climate change question. and i analyze and conclude what are the states

obligations in regard to climate action. and this is very important. it will be done through an advisory opinion, where they, there's a international court of justice in the hate will be able to analyze, receive documentation and conclude what are the obligation of states. and it's very important the lead for, from one of our to and it's important also to say that it started with the youth from one to what vinyl. why to man the pacific islands and calling the attention and action of the states. and now it's a global movement, and now it stays uh through like the, the procedure is through a un general assembly to make that this request to the highest court internet. and it's certainly inspiring to see, you know, youth driven initiative gain that much attention and support on the global level of hundreds of countries or over a 100 countries indicating that they'd supported um, anything, anything to share with us about maybe limitations, some challenges moving forward. i'm curious, a delta i know i know from

a science perspective, you probably you probably seen how it's taking this long to get to this point. so any, any sort of challenges i've had, i guess one thing just to mention is there's an incredible need for new research in this area as well. we did a study last year that where we talked to litigate or is about the gaps that they see the needs that they have for future litigation moving forward. and we had done a fight over a 100 research questions that need to be answered. now to help inform these cases, so we really need the scientific community to, to step up to understand the importance of the role of science in this work to understand litigation, the role that it has in climate action right now. and there's a lot of resources for doing that. so i encourage if there are scientists and experts to reach out. and then i think especially in the context with the folks we're talking to today, it's critical that the scientific community and the legal community are really coming together and talking through these pieces so that there's strategic cases

that are able to move forward. most certainly and if i could go ahead very quickly were any other, i'm sure i wanted to just lift that, but i think it's the social move. it's are an essential part of the success of any strategy for climate justice and that it's never going to be one in the court room alone. and that was so exciting and encouraging about the accelerating piece of litigation in different jurisdictions across the world. is it, it is indeed supported by and being generated and an amplified by a massive climate justice movement and environmental justice moving around the world. and they're critical cases like the united states. those cases going through the courts in different states around the country are not just important here, but the, the laws that they are based on consumer protection laws are very similar to laws in other countries. so those presidents are going to be important elsewhere. but one of the key things we as advocates need to do is to ensure that the fight doesn't stop at the court because we need policy processes that can actually make sure justice and remedy. ringback need it out, not just to those who can have access to the court room door,

but to those who are most effective. no, sir. yeah. and addressing inequalities is key to my friend most capacity in this out most certainly, and that's why we're so happy to have you asked enjoying this conversation ladies, that's all the time we have for today's conversation, since, thanks for being with us. and for those of you watching you next, our news, the the, [000:00:00;00]

the spacing lilyanne of teams does the un fits the purpose was like many critics sites just pump solution doesn't get anywhere near enough done to the amount of money that is put into a hard hitting into abuse, do you think that to the lines of washington enough for money to go on its own and build its on thoughts providing on for centuries, people have been taken care of are so i have every confidence that future generations will do it as well via the story on told to how does era is this time for the west to re think the best option for the ukraine rush of war and what,

what those options look like. what is us strategy when it comes to iran for almost 200 years, americans have generally been stuck with 2 political choices, but cannot ever change the quizzical look us politics, the bottom line of latin america for most of my career, but no countries alike and its my job to shed light on how and why the the hello, i'm sammy's a them. this is a news live from dell coming up in the next 60 minutes and attempt to save them as news. rain, forest, brazil. house the summit for 8 nations. but there are differences and challenges also ahead new jazz koolaid has refused to allow that occasion of their neighbors

and the un to enter the country for tools fighting and looting in the south african