View previous stories
	Stand up for science and the truth by WWF, LSE Grantham Research Institute, agencies   3 Oct. 2025   Banking on Climate Breakdown. The Banking industry’s net zero alliance shuts down. (Guardian News)   The global banking industry’s net zero target-setting group has announced it will shut down immediately, amid faltering climate commitments around the world.   The Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), which was rocked by a wave of departures after Donald Trump’s re-election, said its remaining members had “voted to transition from a member-based alliance and to establish its guidance as a framework”.   “As a result of this decision, NZBA will cease operations immediately,” a spokesperson said.   Jeanne Martin, co-director of corporate engagement at the responsible investment group ShareAction, described it as “bitterly disappointing”.   “Senior bankers need to be far more courageous in this decisive moment for all our futures and must use their influence to push up standards for accountability on climate if we are to stand any chance of making the clean energy transition happen.”   Lucie Pinson, the director of Reclaim Finance, said she “won’t mourn” the demise of the NZBA. “Its purpose was never to take real action, but to create the illusion of measures in order to ward off the risk of regulation. At least its demise brings clarity: the institutions genuinely committed to containing global warming will continue to act. But the massive reallocation of financial flows toward solutions cannot happen without intervention from policymakers and regulators. Their action is essential to limit climate change and the systemic risks it entails. For both, the priority remains ending the financing of fossil fuel expansion.”   On paper, the NZBA, which was convened by the UN Environment Programme finance initiative but led by banks, encouraged members to slash the carbon footprint of their investments and help drive the transition to net zero emissions by 2050.   The group counted nearly 150 members at its peak but began losing members late last year, when Donald Trump was re-elected on promises to deregulate the energy sector, dismantle environmental rules and “drill, baby, drill”.   Six major US banks – JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs – quit before Trump’s inauguration, in moves analysts said were an attempt to head off “anti-woke” attacks from rightwing US politicians.   They were followed by European and Japanese lenders. In July, HSBC became the first British bank to quit the alliance, followed weeks later by Barclays. HSBC had already delayed key parts of its climate goals by 20 years and watered down environmental targets.   http://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/03/banking-industry-net-zero-alliance-shuts-down-climate-nzba http://www.citizen.org/news/banking-agencies-withdraw-climate-risk-principles-leaving-banks-vulnerable-to-climate-risk-exposure/ http://news.mongabay.com/2025/10/nations-delay-vote-on-shipping-decarbonization-rules-after-fierce-us-resistance/ http://climateandhealthalliance.org/press-releases/cross-cutting-report-reveals-devastating-global-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels-thru-production-life-cycle-across-human-lifespan   http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/development-cannot-be-achieved-dying-planet-un-committee-issues-new-guidance http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/seven-of-nine-planetary-boundaries-now-breached-2013-ocean-acidification-joins-the-danger-zone http://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2025/09/national-academies-publish-new-report-reviewing-evidence-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-u-s-climate-health-and-welfare http://insideclimatenews.org/news/11102025/epas-comeback-a-sham-authoritarian-power-grab   Sep. 2025   Financial institutions must find the courage to continue delivering on net zero, by Aaron Vermeulen & Elisa Vacherand - WWF Global Finance Practice   As the impacts of climate breakdown intensify, disrupting value chains and economies, devastating communities, and undermining resilience, financial institutions appear to be hesitating. Instead of accelerating climate action, banks and asset managers are backing away from net zero commitments and related industry alliances are wobbling.   While the political and regulatory context in which finance operates has radically changed, the science of climate change has not. Financial institutions everywhere have a critical role to play in keeping global warming within 1.5°C as well as enhancing nature-based solutions to climate change. And in navigating today’s geopolitical and regulatory complexity, it’s vital they retain ambition and double down on financing the net-zero transition, even if they dare not speak its name.   Of course, the retreat from net zero is not happening in a vacuum. Questions about whether sustainable finance is compatible with fiduciary duty and competitiveness have been politicised. In response, some leading banks and investors are reining in ambition and exiting net zero alliances, forcing them to forego target-driven membership and restructure as commitment-free frameworks. Even where progress is real, institutions are hesitant to talk about it.   In January, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) announced a new focus on ‘addressing barriers to mobilising capital’, no longer requiring its members to set and deliver on science-based net zero targets. Since then, the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) has haemorrhaged members, while those remaining are now voting on becoming a framework; the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative (NZAM) is undergoing a full review; and the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance (NZAOA) has also been rattled. Even in the face of political pressure, these developments are unfortunate and risky for organisations created to help deliver the transition.   For financial institutions, shying away from climate action exposes their clients’ capital and risks their own credibility. The climate crisis and related risks, whether physical or transitional, aren’t going away any time soon.   And the claim that taking climate action goes against fiduciary duty is debatable. In July, the International Court of Justice ruled that states have binding obligations to prevent climate harm, strengthening the case that financial institutions too must treat climate risk as core to fiduciary responsibility.   Financial institutions must hold the line. Even if political realities limit communication around net zero, they must maintain ambition, and continue to strengthen client engagement and transition planning and investment. There are plenty of frameworks and approaches at hand to help them assess and mitigate climate- and nature related risks, including the CDP-WWF Temperature Scoring Methodology and the Science-Based Targets Initiative.   Net zero alliances under attack must adapt but not fold, and continue to promote best practice and enable their members to set science-based targets in ways that meet their fiduciary duties and net zero objectives, and that scale investment in the business opportunities of transition.   And central banks, financial regulators and supervisors can no longer sit on the fence. They need to make it explicit that climate change and nature loss are material financial risks, and treat them accordingly. Stress testing, disclosure, and capital requirements must reflect reality.   Securing a net zero, nature-positive global economy also demands that governments, regulators and policymakers bolster rather than hinder the ability of financial institutions to deliver transition. Complementing voluntary action with enabling policy works. In Europe, the EU Taxonomy has already shaped €800 billion in climate mitigation investments, and in Asia and leading emerging markets, net-zero policies have tripled across G20 countries since 2020.   The business case is clear. Renewables, for example, are cheaper than fossil fuels. Since 2023, nearly all new solar photovoltaics and onshore wind projects have undercut new coal and gas, and three-quarters were even cheaper than existing fossil plants.   With crude oil prices expected to remain low for the next few years, Antonio Guterres was right when he declared in July that ‘the fossil fuel age is flailing and failing. We are in the dawn of a new energy era.’ The world is already investing nearly twice as much in clean energy as in fossil fuels, and existing clean tech has the potential to displace 75% of today’s fossil fuel demand. Investors who continue to cling to oil and gas are in denial.   There are some signs that the message is hitting home. With pressure mounting on pension funds to take more account of climate risks, Dutch pension fund PFZW is the latest to act, recently withdrawing from BlackRock, Legal & General and AQR Capital Management to match a shift in its investment strategy toward greater sustainability.   Financial institutions already have models for interest rate swings, credit cycles, and geopolitical shock. Climate change is a systemic risk that encompasses all of these and more. Engaging with it is good risk management. Ignoring it is negligent.   The financial sector stands at a crossroads. It can bow to political pressure, dismantle the fragile progress of recent years, and pretend that fossil fuels are still a safe bet. Or it can double down, align with science, and make finance part of the solution.   Political headwinds do not change commercial realities. Major financial institutions know that aligning strategies with a net zero and nature positive agenda will unlock huge opportunities and contribute to a future in which people and nature thrive. This is a time for courage rather than retreat.   http://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/finance/?14763466/Financial-institutions-must-continue-delivering-net-zero http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1165475 http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/turk-hails-landmark-icj-ruling-affirming-states-human-rights-obligations http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/institute-responds-to-international-court-of-justice-advisory-opinion/ http://www.ciel.org/news/icj-climate-opinion-ends-fossil-fuel-impunity/ http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/pace-of-warming-has-doubled-since-1980s http://www.savethechildren.net/news/climate-change-icj-ruling-landmark-win-children http://www.rightsoffuturegenerations.org/the-principles   Aug. 2025   As the climate crisis worsens, it is concerning to see powerful governments censor scientific data, by Pallavi Sethi - Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment   At a time when the global climate crisis is escalating, some governments are choosing to distort and conceal the evidence of its impacts.   In the seven months since taking office, the Trump administration has been steadily erasing the evidence of climate science. This is no longer just a matter of denying science or delaying action, it is about controlling who gets to create, share, and access knowledge.   It is an epistemic assault, one that we have seen happen before. In Canada, nearly a decade ago, Stephen Harper’s government silenced climate scientists and destroyed data. In 2012, the Venezuelan government removed environmental statistics from public view.   And in Brazil in 2020, the Bolsonaro administration tried to discredit data related to deforestation and fired the officer behind it. These cases point to a disturbing pattern of governments trying to conceal facts, a phenomenon becoming increasingly blatant in the US.   Even as climate disasters become more frequent and extreme, such as the recent Texas floods that claimed 135 lives, the Trump administration is gutting the very systems needed to understand and respond to the crisis.   Proposed budget cuts to federal agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), are undermining their ability to monitor climate risks, develop solutions and protect communities.   However, there is a growing movement where scientists and grassroot organisations have come together to protect crucial climate data.   The Trump administration is aggressively rolling back climate action, including erasing scientific data, slashing research funding, and removing terms like “climate change” from federal websites.   In the proposed fiscal budget for 2026, the administration plans to cut NOAA’s budget by 27 per cent, which would end its Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). This could impact the country’s ability to accurately predict extreme weather.   In the latest blow, the administration has proposed to repeal the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, the legal basis for nearly all federal climate regulations. The scientific finding, under the Clean Air Act, based on extensive evidence, concluded that greenhouse gases threaten public health and safety.   The repeal would strip the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases from new vehicles, power plants, and other sources of pollution. If the rollback is carried out, it will be one of the most damaging environmental actions by a US government.   Another concerning target of the Trump administration has been the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the longest-running station for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide. The facility, which was launched in 1956, produced the Keeling Curve (a daily record of global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration), and brought global attention to the rapid increase in greenhouse gas levels.   Now, President Trump wants to shut this laboratory despite expert warnings that this move would impact the understanding of “how climate is changing, at what pace, and where.”   Beyond gutting regulations, the administration is also erasing scientific evidence.   It has removed the online website that hosted the National Climate Assessment (NCA) reports, published every four years, and dismissed hundreds of staff working on the next edition. Without the NCA reports, cities could struggle to prepare for climate disasters.   These actions represent a deliberate effort not just to discredit climate evidence but to suppress it entirely. It is also a rejection of evidence-based governance where both the scientific findings and the institutions responsible for producing them are systematically undermined.   Institutional censorship not only undermines scientific integrity but also erodes public trust in democratic institutions. This type of censorship can also affect international cooperation and slow progress, especially since the US is the second largest carbon emitter.   The suppression of climate data by the US government has global implications. The international scientific community depends on the US for critical data which helps in responding to climate disasters.   Agencies such as NOAA, EPA and NASA have long been providers of free and publicly accessible information to experts all over the world. Since agencies like NOAA monitor vast areas, including entire oceans, researchers in the Global South, for instance, rely heavily on them to monitor and respond to environmental challenges.   The Centre for Sustainable Development at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in India uses NOAA’s climate datasets to track weather and ocean conditions in the Indian Ocean. The Institute uses this information to advise government agencies on how to best prepare and recover from natural disasters. Similarly, scientists at Singapore’s Earth Observatory rely on NOAA data to model and predict rising sea levels, which is critical for strengthening Singapore’s coastal resilience.   Disruptions to such data also risk deepening existing scientific and geopolitical inequalities. Many scientific institutions in wealthier nations may have the ability to develop robust data sources. However, many in the Global South lack the technical infrastructure and financial resources to do the same.   Therefore, limiting access to US climate datasets can especially impact the ability of vulnerable nations to address climate change effectively. In addition, when a powerful country like the US withdraws from climate leadership, it risks sending a dangerous message to other nations that climate inaction is acceptable. This can embolden governments to scale back on their own efforts and undermine collective progress.   Despite efforts to suppress climate data, scientists and grassroots organisations are working together to protect this vital information. For instance, the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative archives data that affects the communities most at risk from Trump’s proposed policies. The Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science in Germany, the European Space Agency, and the National Centre for Scientific Research in France have archived data from US agencies like NOAA and EPA.   As the climate crisis worsens, it is concerning to see powerful governments censor scientific data. But the growing resistance from scientists, civil society and academic institutions proves that knowledge cannot be easily erased. It is also an important reminder that governments cannot be the sole custodians of scientific knowledge. Instead, we should view science as a shared and transnational public resource that we must protect and defend.   http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/inside-trumps-campaign-to-censor-climate-science/ http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02868-1 http://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2025/09/national-academies-publish-new-report-reviewing-evidence-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-u-s-climate-health-and-welfare http://climateandhealthalliance.org/press-releases/cross-cutting-report-reveals-devastating-global-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels-thru-production-life-cycle-across-human-lifespan/ http://climate.law.columbia.edu/Silencing-Science-Tracker http://clxtoolkit.com/publications/report-loss-and-damage-litigation-against-carbon-majors/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/un-expert-says-strengthening-impact-assessments-essential-facing-planetary   Sep. 2025   Medical groups must stand up for science and the truth - former directors of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (NYT)   We have each had the honor and privilege of serving as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, either in a permanent or an acting capacity, dating back to 1977. Collectively, we spent more than 100 years working at the C.D.C., one of the world’s pre-eminent public health agencies. We served under multiple Republican and Democratic administrations — every president from Jimmy Carter to Donald Trump — alongside thousands of dedicated staff members who shared our commitment to saving lives and improving health.   What the health and human services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has done to the C.D.C. and to our nation’s public health system over the past several months — culminating in his decision to fire Dr. Susan Monarez as C.D.C. director days ago — is unlike anything we had ever seen at the agency and unlike anything our country had ever experienced.   Mr. Kennedy has fired thousands of federal health workers and severely weakened programs designed to protect Americans from cancer, heart attacks, strokes, lead poisoning, injury, violence and more. Amid the largest measles outbreak in the United States in a generation, he’s focused on unproven treatments while downplaying vaccines.   He canceled investments in promising medical research that will leave us ill prepared for future health emergencies. He replaced experts on federal health advisory committees with unqualified individuals who share his dangerous and unscientific views.   He announced the end of U.S. support for global vaccination programs that protect millions of children and keep Americans safe, citing flawed research and making inaccurate statements. And he championed federal legislation that will cause millions of people with health insurance through Medicaid to lose their coverage. Firing Dr. Monarez — which led to the resignations of top C.D.C. officials — adds considerable fuel to this raging fire.   We are worried about the wide-ranging impact that all these decisions will have on America's health security. Residents of rural communities and people with disabilities will have even more limited access to health care. Families with low incomes who rely most heavily on community health clinics and support from state and local health departments will have fewer resources available to them. Children risk losing access to lifesaving vaccines because of the cost. This is unacceptable, and it should alarm every American, regardless of political leanings.   The C.D.C. is an agency under Health and Human Services. During our C.D.C. tenures, we did not always agree with our leaders, but they never gave us reason to doubt that they would rely on data-driven insights for our protection or that they would support public health workers. We need only look to Operation Warp Speed during the first Trump administration — which produced highly effective and safe vaccines that saved millions of lives during the Covid-19 pandemic — as a shining example of what Health and Human Services can accomplish when health and science are at the forefront of its mission.   The current department leadership, however, operates under a very different set of rules. When Mr. Kennedy administered the oath of office to Dr. Monarez on July 31, he called her “a public health expert with unimpeachable scientific credentials.” But when she refused weeks later to rubber-stamp his dangerous and unfounded vaccine recommendations or heed his demand to fire senior C.D.C. staff members, he decided she was expendable.   These are not typical requests from a health secretary to a C.D.C. director. Not even close. None of us would have agreed to the secretary’s demands, and we applaud Dr. Monarez for standing up for the agency and the health of our communities.   When the C.D.C. was created in 1946, the average life expectancy in the United States was around 66 years. Today it is more than 78 years. While medical advances have helped, it is public health that has played the biggest role in improving both the length and the quality of life in our nation. The C.D.C. has led efforts to eradicate smallpox, increase access to lifesaving vaccinations and significantly reduce smoking rates.   The agency is also on the front lines in communities across the country, delivering crucial but often less visible wins — such as containing an outbreak of H.I.V. cases in Scott County, Ind., and protecting residents in East Palestine, Ohio, from toxic chemical exposure.   The C.D.C. is not perfect. What institution is? But over its history, regardless of which party has controlled the White House or Congress, the agency has not wavered from its mission. To those on the C.D.C. staff who continue to perform their jobs heroically in the face of the excruciating circumstances, we offer our sincere thanks and appreciation. Their ongoing dedication is a model for all of us. But it’s clear that the agency is hurting badly. The loss of Dr. Monarez and other top leaders will make it far more difficult for the C.D.C. to do what it has done for about 80 years: work around the clock to protect Americans from threats to their lives and health.   We have a message for the rest of the nation as well. This is a time to rally to protect the health of every American. Congress must exercise its oversight authority over Health and Human Services. State and local governments must fill funding gaps where they can. Philanthropy and the private sector must step up their community investments. Medical groups must continue to stand up for science and truth. Physicians must continue to support their patients with sound guidance and empathy. And each of us must do what public health does best: look out for one another.   The men and women who have joined the C.D.C. across generations have done so not for prestige or power but because they believe deeply in the call to service. They deserve a health and human services secretary who stands up for health, supports science and has their back. So, too, does our country.   * Dr. William Foege served as director of the C.D.C. from 1977 to 1983. Dr. William Roper served as director of the C.D.C. from 1990 to 1993. Dr. David Satcher served as director of the C.D.C. from 1993 to 1998. Dr. Jeffrey Koplan served as director of the C.D.C. from 1998 to 2002. Dr. Richard Besser served as acting director of the C.D.C. in 2009. Dr. Tom Frieden served as director of the C.D.C. from 2009 to 2017. Dr. Anne Schuchat served as acting director of the C.D.C. in 2017 and 2018. Dr. Rochelle Walensky served as director of the C.D.C. from 2021 to 2023. Dr. Mandy Cohen served as director of the C.D.C. from 2023 to 2025.   http://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/01/opinion/cdc-leaders-kennedy.html http://www.acponline.org/acp-newsroom/leading-medical-professional-societies-patient-sue-hhs-robert-f-kennedy-jr-for-unlawful-unilateral http://www.savehhs.org http://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/ama-press-releases/ama-statement-florida-ending-all-vaccine-mandates http://www.defendpublichealth.org/resource/talking-points-sounding-alarm-about-cdc-budget-cuts-fy2026 Visit the related web page
	Respect for the equal dignity and worth of every person by Amnesty International, agencies   United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres's remarks to the Amnesty International Global Assembly (25 July 2025 - Extract):   "Representatives of the Amnesty International Movement, it is an honour to join you today – and to be the first United Nations Secretary-General to address your Global Assembly. I see your invitation as a tribute to UN staff working around the world for human rights and for justice. And I see it as a reflection of our shared, fundamental conviction in the equal dignity and worth of every person – a founding principle of both our organisations.   Friends, one morning in the early ‘60s, a British lawyer opened his newspaper on his way to work. It reported that the dictatorship then ruling my country – Portugal – had imprisoned two students. Their crime: raising a toast to freedom. The barrister – Peter Benenson – was so outraged by their plight that he launched a global movement. And Amnesty International was founded.   Ever since, you have been at the forefront of the global struggle for human rights – fearless, principled and relentless:   Campaigning to free prisoners of conscience around the world. Contributing to the establishment of a number of international institutions and the conclusion of a number of treaties – including the Convention Against Torture. Defending the full spectrum of human rights – civil, political, social, economic and cultural. Winning landmark victories for justice -- and earning the Nobel Peace Prize along the way.   The work of Amnesty International reflects truths I lived under dictatorship: That morality demands the courage to stand against oppression. That solidarity and justice are both personal and global. And that the fight for freedom on one continent can reverberate across the globe..   Powerful forces are ranged against human rights – and against the international system built to protect and uphold them. We see attacks on the International Criminal Court. Attacks on the international human rights system and its representatives.   And flagrant violations of international law: From the horrors in Sudan and beyond… To Russia’s invasion in Ukraine where we need a just and lasting peace based on the UN Charter, international law and UN resolutions. And, of course, the relentless Israeli onslaught on Gaza. I commend Amnesty International for your strong voices.   From the beginning, I have repeatedly condemned the horrific 7 October terror attacks by Hamas. But nothing can justify the explosion of death and destruction since. The scale and scope is beyond anything we have seen in recent times.   I cannot explain the level of indifference and inaction we see by too many in the international community. The lack of compassion. The lack of truth. The lack of humanity.   Our own heroic staff continue to serve in unimaginable conditions. Many are so numb and depleted that they say they feel neither dead nor alive.   Children speaking of wanting to go to heaven, because at least, they say, there is food there. We hold video calls with our own humanitarians who are starving before our eyes.   This is not just a humanitarian crisis. It is a moral crisis that challenges the global conscience. We will continue to speak out. But words don’t feed hungry children.   The United Nations stands ready to make the most of any possible ceasefire to dramatically scale up humanitarian operations across the Gaza Strip.   Since May 27, the United Nations has recorded over 1,000 Palestinians killed trying to access food. Let me repeat: 1,000 people – killed not in combat, but in desperation – while the entire population starves. We need action. An immediate and permanent ceasefire. The immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. Immediate and unimpeded humanitarian access. At the same time, we need urgent, concrete and irreversible steps towards a two-State solution.   We are in a global battle for human dignity. For human rights. For justice. For the multilateral system itself.   Amnesty International is indispensable in that fight. So, my message to you today is this: the world needs you more than ever. We need your courage, your creativity, and your clarity. We need your movements – rooted in communities and rising from the ground up – making it clear that leaders cannot turn a blind eye to their obligations.   And, yes, we need what you’ve called “troublemaking”. The kind that challenges complacency and inaction. That exposes injustice. That drives lasting change.   Because as I scan the global landscape, I see too many leaders who view human rights as the problem. But we know human rights are the solution.   They are the foundation of peace. They are the engine of progress. And they are the path out of conflict and chaos to security and hope.   You know better than anyone: this work is never easy. And the struggle is always hardest when it matters most – when the urgency is greatest and the stakes are highest. But I want to assure you: you are not alone. In the face of crisis, we must stand together – and act together.   Let me turn to your focus for this year’s Global Assembly: confronting the rise of authoritarian practices – and advancing climate justice.   First – authoritarianism. Around the world, we are witnessing a surge in repressive tactics aiming at corroding respect for human rights. And these are contaminating some democracies. This is not a series of isolated events. It is a global contagion.   Political opposition crushed. Accountability dismantled. Equality and non-discrimination trampled. The rule of law cast aside.   On the other hand, civil society – the lifeblood of any free nation – is suffocated. We see activists and journalists silenced – even murdered. Minorities scapegoated. Women and girls stripped of their most basic rights – most brutally in Afghanistan. And all of this is amplified by digital technology.   We must right these wrongs. Countries must recognize and stand firm with human rights. We must push all countries to defend them – consistently, and universally, even – or especially – when inconvenient.   We must urge them to protect and strengthen the international human rights system. We must demand accountability for human rights violations – without fear or favour.   And insist that countries honour the commitments they made to protect civic space, and uphold human rights and gender equality.   We must also demand action to confront the flood of lies and hate polluting our digital spaces. Social media manipulation has become a powerful weapon in the authoritarian playbook. Many algorithms are boosting the worst of humanity – rewarding falsehoods, fuelling racism and misogyny, and deepening division..   The second focus of this Global Assembly is one of the defining struggles of our time: securing climate justice. The climate crisis is not just an environmental emergency. It is a human rights catastrophe.   We must confront and correct the deep injustices it has laid bare: The poor, the vulnerable and the marginalised -- suffering most from a crisis they did nothing to create. Environmental defenders -- arrested, threatened, and even killed for protecting communities and ecosystems.   Land and livelihoods – plundered in the race for minerals critical to clean energy. And climate finance – still wholly inadequate as fossil fuels are propped up by subsidies as others pay the price. All while their political enablers stall and sabotage action.   But we have seen what people power can achieve: From Amnesty’s role in promoting international recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. To legal victories that have led courts to clarify States’ obligations on climate.   Just two days ago, the International Court of Justice issued a historic advisory opinion. It made clear that States are obliged to protect the global climate system, that climate change is a human rights issue. And that the goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius must guide climate policies, in accordance with the Paris Agreement.   All of us must build on these hard-won gains – by insisting on legal accountability, and demanding climate justice. That means the biggest economies and emitters leading an urgent global reduction in emissions, and a just transition away from fossil fuels.   New national climate action plans – or NDCs – must align with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. They must respect human rights. And they must be shaped in partnership with those most affected – especially marginalized groups.   We need finance for developing countries to adapt to climate shocks, and recover from loss and damage. We must push governments to provide funds they have pledged and explore new sources of finance – including putting an effective price on carbon, and establishing solidarity levies on polluting sectors and industries."   http://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2025-07-25/secretary-generals-remarks-the-amnesty-international-global-assembly-delivered http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2025/06/why-are-the-sustainable-development-goals-way-off-track http://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/economic-social-and-cultural-rights/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories