At issue: Whether the modification of the period to submit the programs for control and prevention of methane emissions in the hydrocarbon sector is unconstitutional.
At issue: Whether the SoS’s adoption of the Net Zero Strategy did not discharge his duties under the Climate Change Act 2008, and whether the adoption of the Heat and Buildings Strategy has meant that the SoS has breached the Equality Act 2010 (FoE’s Claim). Whether the SoS’s adoption of the Net Zero Strategy did not discharge his duties under the Climate Change Act 2008, and whether these duties had been interpreted compatibly with human rights obligations (ClientEarth’s and the Good Law Project’s claims).
At issue: Whether a Commission regulation fixing emission values for real driving emissions tests for new light vehicles prevents local governments from imposing restrictions on the circulation of passenger vehicles in relation to their pollutant emissions.
At issue: Whether the amendment of Mexico’s Electric Industry Law violates the constitutional right to a healthy environment by giving preference to electricity generated by coal and fuel oil-fired power plants over renewables.
At issue: Whether the amendment of Mexico’s Electric Industry Law violates the constitutional right to a healthy environment by giving preference to electricity generated by coal and fuel oil-fired power plants over renewables.
At issue: Whether Brazil is violating fundamental rights and the national legal climate framework by decreasing mitigation targets in the country’s NDC.
At issue: Whether the Australian government owes a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders to take reasonable steps to protect Torres Strait Islanders, their traditional way of life and the marine environment in and around the Torres Strait Islands from climate change impacts. Further, whether the Australian government has breached the alleged duty by failing to implement measures to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.