Articles Menu
Landmark Climate Ruling Raises the Bar for BC: 34 Groups Urge Action to Meet Climate Obligations
20/08/25
Link:
Aug. 20, 2025
Landmark Climate Ruling Raises the Bar for BC: 34 Groups Urge Action to Meet Climate Obligations
Open letter says the province must align its climate plan with international law, meet its targets, and phase out fossil fuel production
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
August 20, 2025
xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) & səl̓ilwətaʔɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Territories / VANCOUVER, BC — Thirty-four non-governmental organizations from across British Columbia have issued an open letter to Premier David Eby and the BC government, urging stronger climate action in light of a recent advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that clarifies governments’ legal obligations to address climate change.
The letter emphasizes that the ICJ opinion establishes that climate action is not a political choice, but a legal duty grounded in international and Canadian law. The court found that governments must reduce greenhouse gas emissions “as rapidly as possible” in accordance with their highest possible ambition, and that these duties extend to all stages of fossil fuel production, not just emissions from burning those fuels.
“This opinion from the world’s top court makes it crystal clear: governments – including here in British Columbia – have a legal obligation to act with urgency on climate change,” said lead author Andrew Gage, Staff Lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law. “It’s no longer enough to have targets on paper. International law requires due diligence in actually meeting them, and that means effectively regulating and reducing fossil fuel production as well as use.”
Notably, the ICJ opinion rejects the view that governments can ignore the climate impacts of fossil fuels exported to other jurisdictions, a position the letter says directly challenges BC’s current approach. The Province has recently approved new LNG projects, expanded highways and missed interim climate targets, raising questions about whether it is meeting its due diligence obligations.
In September, the BC government will need to consider the ICJ’s ruling when it decides whether to approve the Ksi Lisims LNG project, which is expected to result in almost 36 million tonnes of annual CO2 emissions in B.C and abroad from production and use of the natural gas, equivalent to more than half of BC’s current reported annual greenhouse gas emissions.
“The BC government has important decisions to make about how we steward our natural resources, including oil and gas, in this era of global warming,” said Shelley Luce, Campaigns Director at Sierra Club BC. “The ICJ ruling is a strong reminder of our obligation to protect the lives and rights of people now and in the future. Burning LNG increases climate pollution and as a major global climate polluter, BC is increasingly vulnerable to compensation claims from low-polluting countries around the world. It’s time we take responsibility for our actions on climate and scale back fossil fuels to focus on clean energy at home and abroad.”
The groups are calling on the BC government to:
- Strengthen BC’s 2030 climate targets in the CleanBC review to reflect the Province’s highest possible ambition and align with limiting global temperature increases to less than 1.5°C.
- Adopt and enforce measures capable of meeting those targets, with effective monitoring and accountability.
- End approvals for fossil fuel expansion and other projects that undermine BC’s climate goals.
- Ensure all climate policy upholds human rights, advances climate justice, and respects Indigenous rights and sovereignty.
“BC has a chance right now – with the CleanBC review underway – to bring its climate plan in line with its legal obligations and to protect present and future generations,” the letter concludes.
The letter is endorsed by 34 organizations representing communities, scientists, youth, healthcare professionals, educators and environmental advocates from across British Columbia.
-30-
Additional background
- Open letter – Implications of International Court of Justice decision for BC
- Backgrounder: LNG expansion in BC threatens to undermine global efforts to fight climate change
- Downloadable charts and graphs from the backgrounder
Media contacts:
Andrew Gage | Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental Law
604-601-2506, agage@wcel.org
Shelley Luce | Campaigns Director, Sierra Club BC
604-774-5730, shelley@sierraclub.bc.ca
The letter:
August 20, 2025
Premier David Eby,
Office of the Premier
PO BOX 9041 STN Prov. Govt.
Victoria, BC V8W 9E1
Sent via email: Premier@gov.bc.ca
Dear Premier Eby:
Re: Implications of International Court of Justice Opinion for BC
We, the undersigned organizations, refer you to the recent ground-breaking opinion of the International
Court of Justice on the obligations of states in respect of climate change (ICJ).1 We look forward to a
response indicating how you will be implementing the guidance of the ICJ in a timely manner.
The ICJ Opinion is the latest in a series of court decisions around the world that have ruled that
governments have a legal obligation – not merely a political option – to act rapidly and urgently to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a warming world.2 Further, the ICJ has special status as the
highest global court. We, the undersigned organizations, trust that BC will live up to its obligations as
defined by the ICJ.3
The stakes have never been higher. The Court of Justice confirmed:
The consequences of climate change are severe and far-reaching; they affect both natural
ecosystems and human populations. Rising temperatures are causing the melting of ice sheets
and glaciers, leading to sea level rise and threatening coastal communities with unprecedented
flooding. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves, are becoming
more frequent and intense, devastating agriculture, displacing populations and exacerbating water
shortages. … These consequences underscore the urgent and existential threat posed by climate
change.4
1 ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. (July 23, 2025) (“the ICJ Opinion”), available at
2 For example, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and International Law (21 May
2024); InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 (29 May 2025); Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and
others v. Switzerland. European Court of Justice. Judgement in Application No. 53600/20 (9 April 2024).
3 Technically the ICJ Opinion as an advisory opinion does not make rulings on BC’s obligations and in any case the ICJ’s orders are
directly binding on national governments, not subnational governments. However, as discussed further below, the ICJ’s Opinion is
likely to be used by BC’s courts to define the Province’s obligations under human rights law and the common law, as well as an aid
to interpretation in understanding BC’s laws.
4 The ICJ Opinion, note 1, para. 73.
2 of 7
Implications for BC of the ICJ Opinion
We will discuss the following implications for BC of the ICJ Opinion:
1. Setting BC’s climate targets;
2. BC’s due diligence obligations;
3. BC’s obligations in relation to fossil fuels; and
4. Role of the Opinion in BC law.
1. Setting BC’s Climate Targets
The ICJ Opinion is clear that the setting of climate targets is not merely a political target. Climate change
represents an ongoing infringement of human rights, customary international law and the rights of other
nations, and as such every country has a duty to work together to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
as rapidly as possible. Individually, this means that each government must establish climate targets
(known as NDCs in the Paris Climate Agreement) that represent “its highest possible ambition.”5
Collectively, nations have a legal obligation to work to keep global temperature increases to below 1.5
degrees Celsius, but the precise speed of reductions depends on each jurisdiction’s “historical
contributions to cumulative GHG emissions, and the level of development and national circumstances of
the party in question.”6
By this standard, BC’s targets are ambitious only in the sense that decades of weak action (and in some
cases counter-productive action) have made them difficult to achieve. A review of global emissions trends7
shows that Canada and BC, unlike other countries in the G7, significantly increased emissions after the
signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. Since setting its first
climate targets in 2007, BC has failed to meet any target and its emissions have returned to 2007 levels. BC
needs to do more, not less, to meet the requirements of international law and to work towards a safe
atmosphere.
2. BC’s due diligence obligations
The ICJ Opinion also states that once climate targets are set, compliance with international law involves
assessing:
whether the party exercised due diligence in its efforts and in deploying appropriate means to take
domestic mitigation measures, including in relation to activities carried out by private actors.8
5 Ibid., para. 246.
6 Ibid., para. 247.
7 BC Climate Emergency Campaign, 2024 Climate Action Progress Report, p. 6, available at
8 The ICJ Opinion, para. 252; see also para. 135.
3 of 7
The court notes that this due diligence effort is stringent due to the fact that each additional increment of
greenhouse gases avoided reduces the impacts of climate change.9 The components of a system which
might meet this due diligence requirement include:
[S]uch appropriate rules and measures include, but are not limited to, regulatory mitigation
mechanisms that are designed to achieve the deep, rapid, and sustained reductions of GHG
emissions that are necessary for the prevention of significant harm to the climate system.
Adaptation measures reduce the risk of significant harm occurring and are therefore also relevant
for assessing whether a State is fulfilling its customary obligations with due diligence. These rules
and measures must regulate the conduct of public and private operators within the States’
jurisdiction or control and be accompanied by effective enforcement and monitoring mechanisms
to ensure their implementation.10
While BC has put in place some measures intended to move the province toward its climate targets, we
will miss our 2025 target and are not on track to achieve the 2030 target, or, we would submit, subsequent
targets. Many of the commitments made in the Roadmap to 2030 are delayed, and some abandoned, while
the Province has expanded highways, authorized LNG projects and taken on other work that move us away
from achieving the province’s climate targets.
Overall, we question whether BC is exercising due diligence in achieving its climate targets.
3. BC’s obligations in relation to fossil fuels
BC has viewed its climate obligations as being limited to regulating end-use, known as tail-pipe or smoke-
stack, emissions only. It consequently has made no effort to rein in the production of fossil fuels in the
province, and, in fact, has expanded oil and gas development and infrastructure, most dramatically
through the approval of LNG projects.
On paper, the Province does acknowledge that LNG and other facilities may generate their own smoke-
stack emissions,11 but it takes no responsibility for the climate impacts of the oil, gas and coal extracted in
BC, but shipped to other provinces or countries. The ICJ Opinion expressly rejects this approach, holding
that:
Failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions —
including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel
exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies — may constitute an internationally
wrongful act which is attributable to that State. [Emphasis added]12
9 Ibid. para. 254.
10 Ibid., para. 282. See also paras. 136 and 253.
11 The province has insisted that these emissions will “fit within” the climate plan. The reality is that emissions from LNG are a
major factor in BC failing to meet its 2025 target and potentially its 2030 target, and that the sectoral emissions target for the oil
and gas sector is weaker than for other industrial sectors so as not to constrain expansion.
12 The ICJ Opinion, note 1, para. 427.
4 of 7
In other words, each government has obligations to address the climate impacts of fossil fuels at all stages
– not merely at the point of combustion.
This has far-reaching implications for BC energy policy. BC must, in our view, begin to plan for the phase
out of the sale of its oil, gas and coal reserves for combustive purposes.13 The Province must stop
approving, and subsidizing, oil, gas and coal projects, and must ensure that the costs of producing fossil
fuels in BC reflect the full social and economic costs of burning those products.
4. Role of the Opinion in BC law
The above discussion concerns a ruling of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of nations,
and not sub-national governments such as provinces. Moreover, it is an advisory opinion, in that it does not
contain any specific ruling on whether Canada, let alone BC, is out of compliance with international law.
However, BC must still pay attention to the ICJ Opinion, which has legal implications for the province. BC
courts are likely to look to the ICJ Opinion in evaluating BC’s obligations under federal and provincial
human rights law and under the common law, as well as in other contexts.
The ICJ Opinion is quite clear that the obligations it discusses are not the result of international climate
treaties alone, but a host of international agreements and rules.
The judges examine in detail the impact of climate change on human rights, noting that:
[T]he adverse effects of climate change, including, inter alia, the impact on the health and
livelihoods of individuals through events such as sea level rise, drought, desertification and natural
disasters, may significantly impair the enjoyment of certain human rights.14
The court then goes on to rule that climate change will harm many of the human rights that are binding on
BC under domestic law, such as the rights to life15 and equality16 guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, as well as the rights of Indigenous peoples under the Constitution Act, 1982.17 Young
Canadians have brought litigation against the federal government and the government of Ontario regarding
inaction on climate change claiming violations of these rights.18 These cases are pending before the
courts, and the ICJ Opinion is likely to be referenced by the courts in future decisions in those cases.
13 Washington State, Quebec and other jurisdictions have joined the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, pledging to phase out oil and
gas production: www.beyondoilandgas.org. We noted that the use of oil for plastics, and especially disposable, single use
plastics, creates its own problems, but there may be oil products that could be part of a sustainable, climate-safe economy.
14 The ICJ Opinion, para. 376.
15 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7: the Right to Life, Liberty and Security of the Person. See the ICJ Opinion, paras.
377-381.
16 Charter, s. 15, Equality Rights, and also s. 8 of the BC Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210. See the ICJ Opinion, paras.
382-384.
17 Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35. See the ICJ Opinion, paras. 382, 384.
18 La Rose v. Canada, 2023 FCA 241; Mathur v. Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762 .
5 of 7
The ICJ Opinion also concludes that there is a human right, under international law, to a clean, healthy and
sustainable environment, since:
a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human
rights, such as the right to life, the right to health and the right to an adequate standard of living,
including access to water, food and housing.19
The ICJ Opinion is not technically binding on BC courts or tribunals as they interpret our human rights laws,
but typically international law plays a major role in interpreting and understanding human rights.20
In addition, the ICJ Opinion concluded that the obligations to reduce greenhouse gases and fight climate
change are part of customary international law, the accepted set of standards by which states are
expected to treat one another: “[T]he customary duty to prevent significant harm to the environment also
applies with respect to the climate system and other parts of the environment.”21
Unlike other types of international law that need to be implemented into Canadian law through legislation,
customary international law automatically forms part of the Canadian Common Law. As the Supreme
Court of Canada has put it:
[C]ustomary international law is also the law of Canada. In the words of Professor Rosalyn Higgins,
former President of the International Court of Justice: “In short, there is not ‘international law’ and
the common law. International law is part of that which comprises the common law on any given
subject.” … The fact that customary international law is part of our common law means that it must
be treated with the same respect as any other law.22
In other words, while the ICJ Opinion is an advisory opinion, the court’s pronouncements on the
obligations of governments under customary international law are likely to be accepted by the Canadian
courts as part of the Canadian common law.
Consequently, BC should abide by the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion and begin
implementing the measures discussed above.
Conclusion
The International Court of Justice, along with a growing number of courts around the world, has ruled that
governments have a legal obligation – not merely a political option – to act rapidly and urgently to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a warming world, so as to avoid the worst impacts of climate
change.
19 ICJ Opinion, para. 393.
20 Quebec (Attorney General) v. 9147-0732 Québec inc., 2020 SCC 32 (CanLII), [2020] 3 SCR 426, para. 31; Pushpanathan v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 SCR 982, para. 51.
21 ICJ Opinion, para. 134.
22 Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, 2020 SCC 5, para. 95.
6 of 7
We expect the BC government to live up to its obligations to do more to fight climate change under
international and Canadian law. If you have any doubts as to the legal implications of the ICJ Opinion for
BC’s climate policy, we urge you to exercise your power to refer those questions to the BC Court of Appeal
for an answer.
We recognize that BC is currently conducting a review of the CleanBC climate plan, and many of us have
provided comments to the Review Panel. However, the ICJ Opinion was released after the deadline for
comments by non-profit organizations, and this letter finalized after its final deadline. In any event, the
Opinion has broader implications for BC’s approach to climate change. Consequently, we are addressing
this letter to you, but will also provide a copy to the Review Panel.
The historic ICJ decision gives your government a rare opportunity to reset climate policy commensurate
with the goal of doing our part to protect the lives and safety of present and future generations, at home in
BC and globally.
Sincerely,
Alberni Valley Transition Town Society
BC Hydro Ratepayers Association
BCTF Divest Now
Be the Change Mission
Building Resilience in Mission (BRIM)
Canadian Association of Nurses for the
Environment (CANE)
Canadian Association of Physicians for the
Environment (CAPE)
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Climate Emergency Unit
Climate Justice Victoria
Cowichan Climate Hub
David Suzuki Foundation
Dogwood
First Things First Okanagan
Force of Nature Alliance
Georgia Strait Alliance
My Sea to Sky
One Cowichan Community Education Society
Say No To LNG
Shake Up The Establishment
Shift Action
Sierra Club BC
South Fraser Unitarian Congregation
Stand.earth
Sunshine Coast Conservation Association
Teachers for Future Turtle Island
Vancouver Ecosocialists
Watershed Sentinel
West Coast Climate Action Network (WE-CAN)
West Coast Environmental Law
West Kootenay Climate Hub
White Rock South Surrey Climate Corps
Wildsight
Zero Waste BC
7 of 7
cc.
The Honourable Adrian Dix
Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions
Sent via email: EMLI.minister@gov.bc.ca
The Honourable Tamara Davidson
Minister of Environment and Parks
Sent via email: ENV.Minister@gov.bc.ca
The Honourable Niki Sharma
Attorney General
Sent via email: AG.Minister@gov.bc.ca
CleanBC Review Panel
Sent via email: CleanBCReview@gov.bc.ca
