World’s top court hands environmental activists powerful new tool: what does it mean for the PC government’s pitiful climate change efforts?

It’s a rare and long-awaited victory for environmentalists. 

The world’s highest court has declared climate change both a threat to human rights and an existential crisis, ruling that countries are legally obligated to meet their climate commitments or risk violating international law.

In its landmark July 23 ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a 133-page advisory opinion at the Peace Palace in The Hague, stating that countries have a duty to prevent harm to the climate. The court warned that failure to fulfill this obligation could lead to legal consequences, including financial compensation and other forms of restitution.

“Failure of a state to take an appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions, including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses, or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies, may constitute an internationally wrongful act, which is attributable to that state,” ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa said, reading out the court’s decision.

“The adverse effect of climate change may significantly impair the effective enjoyment of such human rights as the right to health, the right to an adequate standard of living, which encompasses access to food, water, and housing,”  ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa said, noting that climate change has more of an impact on women, children and Indigenous people.

(International Court of Justice)

"Today, the tables have turned. The world's highest court provided us with a powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of the climate crisis — and to deliver justice for the harm their emissions have already caused," former UN human rights chief Mary Robinson said.

"This is even better than we could have expected...We have the ICJ explicitly saying that fossil fuel production, subsidies, all of this, could be breaches of international law. I thought that was so beyond what was possible. I’m still in ecstasy with everything that just happened," Greenpeace International legal counsel Danilo Garrido told The Pointer. “This will open the door for new cases, and hopefully bring justice to those, who despite having contributed the least to climate change, are already suffering its most severe consequences. The message of the Court is clear: the production, consumption and granting of licenses and subsidies for fossil fuels could be breaches of international law. Polluters must stop emitting and must pay for the harms they have caused.”

The ICJ took six years to come to this decision, and it all began with young people demanding climate justice.

In 2019, Cynthia Houniuhi, a law student from the Solomon Islands, helped turn a classroom idea into a global movement that would ultimately lead to the largest climate case ever brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Shaped by her own experiences growing up in a remote island community already suffering the visible impacts of climate change, like homes swallowed by rising seas, Houniuhi became a driving force behind the youth-led campaign that asked the world’s top court to clarify the legal responsibilities of states to act on climate change, and to lay out the consequences when they fail to do so.

(University of South Pacific)

In 2019, a group of 27 law students at the University of the South Pacific and members of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC), frustrated by global inaction, convinced the government of Vanuatu to bring a case before the ICJ to clarify states’ legal obligations under international law in addressing climate change.

In March 2023, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution recognizing climate change as “an unprecedented challenge of civilizational proportions” and requesting an ICJ advisory opinion.

The court received a record 91 written submissions, over 100 oral statements, and 65 responses to follow-up questions.

The Global Footprint Network declared that Earth Overshoot Day fell on July 24 this year, marking the point at which humanity has used up all the ecological resources the planet can regenerate in a year, and is now consuming at a rate equivalent to 1.8 Earths. The ICJ ruling notes that states have a duty to cooperate in climate protection, warning that uncoordinated efforts “may not lead to a meaningful result.”

(David Suzuki Foundation/Global Footprint Network)

The world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters argued that their obligations were limited to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 2015 Paris Agreement.

In its submission, Canada defended its ongoing fossil fuel production by citing the flexibility within the Paris Agreement, stating that it “does not contain explicit commitments related to the restriction of fossil fuel production,” leaving each country to decide which measures to take to meet climate goals.

The ICJ decisively rejected this narrow view, affirming that a broader range of treaties also apply, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, the Montreal Protocol, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification.

The opinion clarifies that obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement are not just voluntary.

In Canada, young activists have already taken both federal and provincial governments to court, including the ongoing La Rose case against the federal government and the Mathur case against the Doug Ford government in Ontario for violating the rights of young people by failing to adequately address the threat of climate change. 

The ICJ ruling could strengthen their efforts.

“It's a historic decision that we believe reinforces what is really the gruelling consensus from judges around the world, that the climate crisis is a human rights crisis. Today's decision…has made it clear that governments have a responsibility to protect human rights in the face of growing climate threats,” Ecojustice lawyer Fraser Thomson, who is leading the Mathur case, said.

“The ICJ has affirmed what the science and communities and Indigenous people have been saying for years, that a safe and healthy climate is a precondition to all of our human rights.”

Launched in 2019, the same year Pacific Island students began the campaign that led to the ICJ opinion, Mathur and La Rose cases both argue that inaction on climate change by the government violates Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protect the rights to life, liberty, security of the person and equality.

The youth plaintiffs argue that climate change disproportionately harms young people. From worsening air quality to increased mental health burdens, they say they will suffer the most severe consequences of environmental degradation unless Canada and Ontario take urgent and meaningful action.

“When they delivered the opinion this morning, I was honestly taken aback. I was on the edge of my seat,” climate Activist Albert Lalonde, also one of the 15 plaintiffs in the La Rose case, told The Pointer on July 23.

“At first, it took a while to get a sense of where it was going, but I’ve been left with this strange feeling of, ‘This is actually great,’ and I'm not used to having great news.”

Quebec-based climate activist Albert Lalonde also worked with PISFCC and the NYWCJ through the Future Generations Tribunal to develop a people-led pleading strategy before the ICJ, which included testimony from 18 witnesses representing frontline, Indigenous, and Global South communities, those already bearing the brunt of climate change.

(Félix Legault-Dignard/David Suzuki Foundation)

“We woke up in a world without a real legal framework to address climate change. Now we have one. That’s a huge shift,” he said.

Lalonde notes that there has been debate over the “lex specialis rule”, where more specific laws override general ones, the court interpreted international law in a way that reflects complex planetary realities.

He described Canada’s response as “bizarre,” aligning with a new form of climate denialism, not denying climate change exists, but pretending that decarbonized pipelines are feasible.

“This opinion should have serious implications for Canadian policy. If we believe in science and the rule of law, then we must accept the obligations and thresholds the ICJ laid out as a bottom line.”

One of the most consequential shifts, he said, is legal: the ICJ found that state emissions, not just individual projects or pieces of legislation, can constitute internationally wrongful acts.

If a causal link can be established between a state’s emissions and harm in another country, the emitting state could be held internationally liable, whether through compensation, restitution, or by halting the activity causing harm.

“Usually, constitutional challenges focus on one law or decision. In La Rose, our argument is that Canada’s entire pattern of actions and emissions constitutes wrongful conduct, violating our Charter rights to life, liberty, and security…and now we have international legal backing for that framing,” Lalonde said.

“Enforcement remains a challenge, but establishing this norm is itself powerful,” which will be key as La Rose moves toward an eight-week trial beginning on October 26, 2026.

“The Ontario government continues to show limited ambition in nature conservation, protecting only 10.9 percent or 117,129 km2 of the province while pushing a development agenda that puts water, wildlife, climate and community health at risk. Despite agreeing to support Canada’s biodiversity commitments, it prioritizes industrial and commercial development over environmental protection. The provincial government remains silent on supporting Indigenous-led conservation initiatives in Ontario and instead continues to prioritize the advancement of industrial activities such as logging, mining, and highway development over conserving ecosystem health. As a result, endangered species habitats and significant wetlands are being sacrificed at an unprecedented rate. Despite some minor advances in land protection, including taking steps to regulate areas that were identified for protection two decades ago, Ontario’s grade remains at an F due to the provincial government’s support of detrimental environmental activities,” a recent report card published by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society highlights.

(ON THE PATH TO 2030/CPAWS)

ICJ advisory opinions may be nonbinding, but Thomson says Canadian courts have historically cited them as authoritative interpretations of international law. 

“Judges weighing climate cases here will likely pay close attention to this one,” he explained.

Because Canadian courts often interpret international law through the lens of the Charter, Thomson believes the ICJ’s interpretation could provide persuasive guidance, especially as climate litigation remains relatively new territory.

“The Supreme Court has previously cited ICJ rulings when interpreting the Charter. That could happen in the Mathur case this December, or in La Rose, or in any future case holding governments accountable for the climate crisis,” he said.

Greenpeace International’s legal counsel, Danilo Garrido, clarifies that "even though the opinion itself isn’t binding, the ICJ found that two core obligations, the duty to prevent significant environmental harm and the duty to cooperate, are customary international law. That means they apply to all states, whether or not they’re part of specific treaties. In practice, that makes this a huge legal win."

At a time when not only the younger generation, but also the world’s highest court is calling for stronger climate action, Doug Ford is taking the country’s most populous province in the wrong direction. 

In 2017, Ontario’s electricity grid was 96 percent emissions-free with four percent of the province’s electricity coming from fossil fuels, largely due to the successful phase-out of coal and major investments in renewable energy. 

By 2024, that number quadrupled to 16 percent, an IESO report highlighted.

The result? Emissions rose.

According to Canada’s national emissions inventory, Ontario emitted 157 megatonnes of carbon dioxide in 2022, a 5.7 percent increase from 2020.

The Ford government has set a target of reducing GHG emissions to 144 megatonnes by 2030, but its track record coupled with its latest energy strategy for Ontario, suggests they may fall short of this goal, potentially exposing the province and the country to significant environmental, legal and financial risks following the ICJ decision. 
 

Ontario’s latest energy plan suggests the province’s near-term emissions driven by electricity are going to rise to over 100 g COâ‚‚e/kWh (grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour) by 2027, doubling in just two years due to reliance on natural gas.

(Energy for Generations/Government of Ontario)

On June 12, the provincial government unveiled ‘Energy for Generations’, which it touts as “Ontario’s first-ever integrated energy plan”, a roadmap designed to meet future energy needs, support housing development, and power what it calls “the most competitive economy in the G7.”

“At the turn of the century, our great grandparents had the vision to build Ontario’s hydroelectric dams, later our grandparents started the build-out of Ontario’s nuclear fleet, and today, that responsibility falls on us to build for the future,” Minister of Energy and Mines Stephen Lecce said in a statement. 

A key part of the plan is the construction of four small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) at the Darlington Nuclear Station near Oshawa. 

As of 2024, only China and Russia have successfully built and commercially operated small modular reactors (SMRs), despite more than 80 designs in development across 19 countries. Experts warn that SMRs carry significant and often overlooked risks. Beyond their unproven track record, these reactors raise serious concerns around safety, radioactive waste, economic viability, security, and nuclear proliferation. The Canadian Environmental Law Association has flagged the potential for accidents in certain designs, such as high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, which could release radioactive materials if air or water breaches the reactor core. Despite being marketed as a safer and more flexible alternative to conventional nuclear plants, SMRs remain largely experimental, and many of the risks they pose are still poorly understood or unaddressed.

(UNECE)

The untested, first-of-their-kind BWRX-300 reactors, designed by American-based GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, will depend on enriched uranium imports from the United States and require a new transmission line stretching from the Pickering or Darlington nuclear plants to supply power to much of Southern Ontario, and are expected to take seven to ten years to build. 

And it won’t come cheap.

Power from the new nuclear reactors could cost up to eight times more than onshore wind energy, nearly six times more than solar, and up to 2.7 times more than offshore wind on the Great Lakes.

(Ontario Clean Air Alliance/Energy Futures)

The PC government claims the SMR project will cost $20.9 billion, but a new report from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance estimates a far more likely price tag of at least $27 billion.

“We are going in the wrong direction,” Ontario Clean Air Alliance chair Jack Gibbons told The Pointer.

Toronto resident David Smith shared with The Pointer his written submission to the IESO, calling for a shift toward decentralized, community-based energy systems like solar panels, geothermal, microgrids and storage.

“Why not Ontario, when wind and solar are well understood, lower cost, cleaner, faster to install, healthier for the population, and what will ultimately be used to replace gas?,” Smith wrote, flagging issues with conflict of interest, particularly with Enbridge running the province’s energy efficiency programs while profiting from gas use.

Fossil gas is expected to generate a quarter of Ontario’s electricity by 2030, up from just four percent in 2017 under former premier Kathleen Wynne, marking a dramatic shift under Ford’s government that reverses progress made under previous premiers to phase out dirty energy.

Gibbons notes that instead of importing more high-cost nuclear power, the province should be building a third line to southern Ontario, including downtown Toronto, from a Lake Ontario offshore wind farm.

But offshore wind isn’t even on the table.

“Unfortunately, the Doug Ford government is hostile to renewables, especially offshore wind power, and it's very pro-nuclear power and gas power. And therefore, it doesn't want to develop Lake Ontario wind power, which we need to do to move Ontario to a renewable energy future,” he noted.

Ontario hasn’t contracted a single kilowatt-hour of new wind or solar power in the past seven years, even as solar energy use has surged across much of the world.

(Ontario Clean Air Alliance)

“Offshore wind generation has not been considered as part of the IESO’s regional planning process due to the province’s moratorium on off-shore wind that has been in place since 2011,” the province’s electricity system operator, Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), confirmed in a statement shared with The Pointer. 

Gibbons warns nuclear energy comes with significant challenges: it’s slow to deploy, extremely expensive and will drive up electricity bills. In contrast, investing in energy efficiency and renewables would lower costs. 

Nuclear also produces toxic radioactive waste that remains hazardous for up to a million years, placing a long-term burden on future generations. 

“We don’t think it makes any sense,” he says, “but the Ford government is pursuing it because of the very powerful nuclear lobby in Ontario, and that’s the real problem.”

A 2021 report by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) states that international climate goals may not be met without nuclear in the mix. 

But like Smith, environmental advocates in Ontario warn of serious drawbacks, both technological and economic.

Environmental Defence programs director Keith Brooks told The Pointer the Ford government’s pride in building the first small modular reactors (SMRs) in the G7 should raise red flags. 

“There are no operating SMRs anywhere in the world right now. That means major risk; projects may not be completed on time, they might underperform, and they’re likely to cost far more than expected,” Brooks noted.

“Ontario is doubling, tripling, even quadrupling down on nuclear,” he said, despite a long history of projects coming in over budget and behind schedule. “We don’t share the government’s enthusiasm. Ontario’s last round of nuclear builds led to billions in stranded debt and the dissolution of Ontario Hydro.”

The government’s plan assumes that by 2050, 75 percent of Ontario’s electricity will come from nuclear, while the share of renewables like wind and solar is projected to shrink.

Tucked into Ford’s latest energy blueprint is a spotlight on Brampton’s Emerald Energy from Waste incinerator, where they are experimenting with a hydrogen electrolyzer powered by garbage to “assess how clean hydrogen produced on-site could be used for heavy-duty vehicles or to provide grid services.”

On paper, it sounds like a glimpse into a cleaner, tech-powered future, but it comes with important caveats.

First, the plan fails to mention that the company in question has plans to redevelop its incineration system in three phases, replacing the existing facility and building a new one on the same site to increase its capacity from 182,000 to up to 900,000 tonnes per year.

Second, hydrogen leaks easily and has a strong, often overlooked warming effect. Scientists, including those at the Environmental Defense Fund, warn that its near-term climate impact is much greater than previously understood, making leak prevention vital.

Currently, hydrogen is mainly used in fertilizer and oil refining. Government investments in hydrogen risk propping up fossil fuel–derived “blue” hydrogen, which relies on natural gas and flawed carbon capture, potentially locking in polluting infrastructure under the guise of clean energy.

Only green hydrogen, made from water using renewable energy, offers real climate benefits, and even then, it’s best suited for sectors with limited alternatives like steelmaking or long-haul flights. For cars and home heating, clean electricity is usually cheaper and better for the climate.

On July 22, the United Nations unveiled two new reports signalling that the global shift to renewable energy has crossed a “positive tipping point.” Solar and wind are now so affordable and scalable that they’re rapidly outpacing fossil fuels, and reshaping the global energy economy.

“The fossil fuel age is flailing and failing,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said during his speech unveiling the reports. 

“We are in the dawn of a new energy era. An era where cheap, clean, abundant energy powers a world rich in economic opportunity.”

The data backs him up. In 2024, 74 percent of the growth in global electricity generation came from solar, wind, and other renewables, according to the UN’s multi-agency report Seizing the Moment of Opportunity. Even more striking: 92.5 percent of all new electricity capacity added to the grid globally came from clean energy sources.

Under the Ford government, renewables are set to scale back from 35 percent to just 25 percent.

Such provincial decisions are often influenced by federal policy.

In December 2024, under former prime minister Justin Trudeau, the federal government weakened its own clean electricity regulations. Originally designed to achieve net-zero power grids by 2035, the final rules now allow fossil fuels to remain in electricity generation until as late as 2050. Former environment minister Steven Guilbeault framed the move as a necessary compromise to preserve grid reliability.

Although Canada accounts for just two percent of current global emissions, it ranks among the top ten countries most responsible for historical carbon emissions since 1750.

(Global Carbon Budget)

Canada’s overarching climate targets, enshrined in the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, include a 40–45 percent emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2030, and net-zero by 2050. 

Clean electricity is a cornerstone of that transition. 

But with fossil gas now allowed to persist for decades, the urgency of decarbonizing other sectors like transport, buildings, and heavy industry is undermined.

Parallel to this, the oil and gas sector stands as the country’s largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 31 percent of the national total. 

In 2022 alone, the industry emitted 217 megatonnes of carbon dioxide, with the oil sands sub-sector responsible for over a third of that, 12 percent of Canada’s total emissions. 

But the climate impact doesn’t stop at Canada’s borders.

The country exports most of its crude oil and nearly half of its fossil gas, and when these fuels are burned abroad, they release an estimated 939 megatonnes of carbon dioxide, 1.3 times more than Canada emits domestically.

Canada has one of the highest per capita carbon footprints in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia, and emits twice as much per person as China. In 2023, it produced 5.76 million barrels of oil daily, about six percent of global output, with most reserves located in Alberta’s oil sands.

(David Suzuki Foundation)

Despite the outsized global footprint, the industry is still pushing ahead with plans to expand both extraction and exports, raising urgent questions about the future of Canada’s climate leadership and its international responsibilities.

The ICJ ruling made it clear that countries must ensure their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) collectively meet the 1.5 degrees Celsius warming limit.

But the UNEP’s 15th annual “Emissions Gap” report warns  Canada is currently not on track to meet its NDCs under existing policies. 

Albert Lalonde notes Canada has been failing these obligations both historically and presently, pointing out that aiming for net zero by the IPCC’s global deadline is not leadership, “it’s the bare minimum.”

Email: [email protected]

At a time when vital public information is needed by everyone, The Pointer has taken down our paywall on all stories to ensure every resident of Brampton, Mississauga and Niagara has access to the facts. For those who are able, we encourage you to consider a subscription. This will help us report on important public interest issues the community needs to know about now more than ever. You can register for a 30-day free trial HERE. Thereafter, The Pointer will charge $10 a month and you can cancel any time right on the website. Thank you