Legal Feasibility Study: Prosecuting Fossil Fuel Extraction as International Crimes

Introduction

Earthrise Accord (EA) is a climate justice initiative dedicated to holding fossil fuel extractors accountable under international criminal law. Its mission is grounded in the recognition that decades of reckless fossil fuel extraction, deliberate misinformation, and resulting pollution constitute severe harms—arguably acts of ECOCIDE—against humanity and the planet.

Similar to the groundbreaking lawsuit in California—People of the State of California v. Big Oil—EA plans to prosecute fossil fuel companies and petro states for deliberately concealing and misrepresenting crucial evidence about human-caused climate change—facts these companies have knowingly obscured since at least the 1970s. The California lawsuit highlights how fossil fuel companies systematically deceived the public and policymakers by funding and promoting climate denialism, despite clear internal evidence that their activities were directly contributing to global warming and climate instability.

This promotion for Cal vs. Big Oil shows Governor Gavin Newsom surveying post-wildfire wreckage.

In addition to holding these companies accountable for their lies about climate change, EA intends to prosecute fossil fuel corporations and petro states for their intentional misinformation campaigns targeting nuclear energy. This equally damaging form of deception involved deliberately spreading false narratives about nuclear power, actively undermining its credibility and adoption as a safe, clean, and efficient sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. The misinformation was disseminated through direct industry-funded campaigns and indirectly via deceptive front groups posing as environmental organizations, notably including Friends of the Earth.

Shockingly, this strategy even influenced respected environmental institutions such as The Sierra Club, which for decades opposed nuclear energy and lent credibility to fossil-fueled myths, significantly impacting public opinion and policy decisions. Greenpeace, too, remains suspect in this regard, particularly because of its longstanding anti-nuclear stance and its refusal to disclose its sources of funding—raising serious concerns about whether fossil fuel interests may have covertly shaped its public advocacy. (For much more on this topic, see Michael Shellenberger's work at Environmental Progress.)

When liberals and environmentalists further these myths, they are, knowingly or not, buying into a fossil-fuel-created mythology designed to sabotage the very technologies that could have prevented the crisis we now face.

Earthrise Accord seeks accountability for these dual, coordinated misinformation campaigns—one obscuring the truth of climate change predominantly influencing right-wing political ideologies and another generating and reinforcing anti-nuclear myths largely influencing left-wing perspectives.

These calculated actions have polarized public discourse, preventing consensus on climate solutions, and significantly slowed the global transition to low-carbon energy sources, particularly nuclear power. EA will pursue comprehensive legal actions at both international and domestic levels, holding fossil fuel companies and petro states fully accountable for their multifaceted deception, and the substantial environmental and social damages caused by their ecocidal activities.

Building on this commitment, Earthrise Accord will also seek full accountability for ecocidal acts already committed—crimes that have devastated ecosystems and Indigenous communities across the globe. In the Niger Delta, decades of unchecked oil extraction have poisoned water supplies, destroyed livelihoods, and left entire regions ecologically ruined. In Indonesia, palm oil and fossil fuel interests have razed rainforests and displaced countless communities. In Australia and Canada, extractive industries have inflicted lasting harm on Indigenous lands and cultures, often with government complicity. These are not unfortunate side effects of development—they are deliberate, profit-driven assaults on the planet and its most vulnerable peoples.

Earthrise Accord will support international legal efforts, including actions before the International Criminal Court, to reclassify such acts as crimes against nature and humanity. Reparations must not be symbolic; they must involve the redirection of fossil fuel wealth into localized, clean, and resilient energy systems, with nuclear playing a central role. Justice demands not just the cessation of harm but the repair of what has already been broken.

When liberals and environmentalists further these myths, they are, knowingly or not, buying into a fossil-fuel-created mythology—carefully engineered by the oil and gas industry—to sabotage the very technologies that could have prevented the climate crisis we now face. Chief among these technologies is nuclear energy, which, had it not been demonized through decades of misinformation, could have served as the clean, scalable alternative to fossil fuels that the world desperately needed. The tragic irony is that those who claim to fight for environmental justice have, in many cases, helped perpetuate the fossil economy's stranglehold on global energy policy by rejecting nuclear power outright.

Earthrise Accord seeks accountability for these dual, coordinated misinformation campaigns—one that systematically obscured the realities of anthropogenic climate change, largely influencing right-wing political ideologies and policy platforms, and another that generated and reinforced anti-nuclear myths, disproportionately shaping left-wing and progressive discourse. These parallel disinformation efforts, both serving the financial and geopolitical interests of fossil fuel conglomerates, have polarized public understanding, crippled the formation of broad climate coalitions, and delayed the adoption of effective, low-carbon energy systems—especially nuclear, which remains the safest and most powerful tool for large-scale decarbonization.

These calculated actions have not only distorted democratic deliberation but have materially worsened the planetary emergency. In response, Earthrise Accord will pursue comprehensive legal actions on both domestic and international fronts to hold fossil fuel companies, their executives, and complicit petro-states fully accountable for their systematic deception and the far-reaching ecocidal consequences of their actions. These include, but are not limited to, climate-related displacement, biodiversity collapse, toxic pollution, and the destruction of Indigenous and frontline communities’ ways of life. Accountability cannot remain rhetorical—it must become juridical and reparative.

Building on this foundational commitment to truth and justice, Earthrise Accord will also advocate for robust accountability regarding ecocidal acts already committed—acts which have left behind environmental catastrophe and generational trauma. In the Niger Delta, decades of oil extraction—conducted with impunity and often in collusion with state actors—have poisoned water sources, destroyed arable land, and rendered entire regions biologically impoverished. In Indonesia, a deadly confluence of palm oil expansion and fossil extraction has turned once-thriving rainforests into scarred wastelands, displacing Indigenous communities and accelerating atmospheric carbon release. In Australia and Canada, fossil fuel and mining corporations, often operating under the protective wing of settler-colonial governance, have ravaged sacred Indigenous territories, leaving behind toxic legacies that persist for centuries.

Earthrise Accord will support international legal efforts—particularly through the International Criminal Court (ICC) and emerging ecocide tribunals—to reclassify such acts as crimes against nature and humanity. These are not merely violations of environmental protocols; they are systemic assaults on the conditions of life itself. Justice, in this context, demands far more than fines or symbolic acknowledgment. It requires Clean Energy Reparations: the redirection of fossil-fueled wealth, assets, and infrastructure into the deployment of clean, resilient, and socially just energy systems—most crucially, nuclear power—in the very regions most ravaged by extraction. Clean Energy Reparations means returning power—literal and political—to those who have borne the brunt of environmental degradation, while denying future extractors the legal and financial cover to continue.

By pursuing this vision, Earthrise Accord hopes to do more than litigate the past. It seeks to establish a new legal, ethical, and planetary paradigm in which further extraction—especially in already-devastated regions like the Niger Delta, the Amazon, and the Canadian tar sands—is not only delegitimized but codified as an act of ecocide, a prosecutable crime against nature-humanity. We must shift from tolerating fossil-fueled development to criminalizing it—and from rhetorical commitments to justice to the enactment of justice itself, in law, in energy, and in lived experience.

Earthrise at Dusk

EA’s manifesto—Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Accord Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future—invokes the iconic Earthrise photo taken by Apollo 8 astronaut William Anders in 1968, a powerful image underscoring Earth's fragility as a solitary, shared vessel in space. It argues passionately that those who have "ignited environmental catastrophes" solely for profit must be held accountable to face justice for their actions.

Earthrise, captured by Apollo 8 astronaut William “Bill” Anders on December 24, 1968, revealed our small, blue-green planet rising above the lunar horizon—a “fragile, blue Earth, rising above the stark, bleak lunar surface,” as Anders later described it, underscoring the vulnerability of our shared home (Anders, quoted in Smithsonian Magazine, December 2018).

This feasibility study explores the legal viability of prosecuting fossil fuel extraction as an international crime at the International Criminal Court (ICC), emphasizing both the emerging framework of ecocide and the established framework of crimes against humanity. Furthermore, the study investigates not only fossil fuel companies' deliberate deception regarding human-induced climate change—something these companies have knowingly obscured since at least the 1970s—but also extends the scope of fossil fuel-driven ecocide crimes to include deliberate misinformation campaigns against nuclear fission. These falsehoods significantly exacerbated climate change by stunting nuclear power's global adoption, despite clear evidence from countries like France where nuclear energy has successfully replaced fossil fuels as the primary baseload energy source, resulting in vastly lower carbon emissions.

The study critically examines the potential and limitations inherent in utilizing the ICC as a tool to deter ongoing and future fossil fuel exploitation. It compares the effectiveness and strategic implications of international prosecution with domestic litigation efforts, such as California's landmark lawsuits against major oil companies. Additionally, the report provides a detailed analysis of EA’s strategic rationale for basing operations in France, a nation exemplary for its widespread adoption of nuclear energy, as well as its decision to engage influential global powers, particularly China, given its dual role as the world’s largest emitter and a leading producer of renewable and clean energy technologies.

Finally, the study underscores the urgency of the current climate crisis, vividly illustrated by consistently stalled international climate negotiations, to advocate for a robust and adversarial legal approach to climate accountability. The pressing need for justice and systemic change demands immediate, aggressive legal action to hold those accountable who have profited from ecological destruction at the expense of global environmental security and human survival.

Earthrise Équité (EE) is a climate justice initiative aiming to hold fossil fuel extractors accountable under international criminal law. Its mission builds on the idea that decades of reckless extraction and pollution by the fossil fuel industry constitute egregious harms – even “ecocidal” acts – against humanity and the planet (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear) (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear). EE’s manifesto invokes the iconic Earthrise photo of 1968 to remind us that Earth is a fragile shared vessel, and argues that those who have “ignited environmental catastrophes” for profit should face justice (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear) (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). This study evaluates the legal viability of prosecuting fossil fuel extraction as an international crime at the International Criminal Court (ICC) – particularly under emerging ecocide and existing crimes against humanity frameworks. It also examines the potential and limits of using the ICC to deter future fossil fuel exploitation, compares international prosecution with domestic lawsuits (like California’s case against oil companies), and analyzes EE’s strategic choice to base in France and engage global powers like China. Finally, it underscores the urgency of the climate crisis – as seen in failing climate negotiations – to argue for a more adversarial legal approach to climate accountability.

Prosecuting Extraction as an International Crime: Ecocide and Crimes Against Humanity

Legal Frameworks: At present, the Rome Statute of the ICC recognizes four core crimes – genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression – but not environmental destruction in peacetime (World's Youth for Climate Justice). However, legal experts and activists are working to “push the boundaries” of these categories to cover severe climate and extraction-related harms (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). One approach is to interpret certain fossil fuel extraction impacts as crimes against humanity, defined as widespread or systematic attacks on civilian populations “knowingly” causing great suffering. ICC prosecutors have noted that “crimes against humanity involving the environment can thus be committed” – for example, if corporate or state actors knowingly poison water supplies or create life-threatening conditions for large populations (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future) ([PDF] Crimes Against the Environment, Ecocide, and the International ...). In fact, the ICC Office of the Prosecutor in 2016 announced it would give greater focus to crimes “committed by means of… environmental destruction [and] land grab” under existing statutes (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). This policy shift was seen as a recognition of the “impunity” polluters currently enjoy and a signal that the “age of impunity for environmental crimes” must end (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future) (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future).

Ecocide as a New Crime: Beyond creative use of existing law, a global campaign is underway to explicitly criminalize ecocide – the mass destruction of ecosystems – at the ICC. EE’s manifesto emphasizes that “knowingly destabilizing the climate and poisoning populations ought to be criminal too” if we accept that causing mass suffering is criminal (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future) (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). In recent years, momentum for an international crime of ecocide has grown. In 2020, France’s President Emmanuel Macron became the first G7 leader to endorse adding ecocide to the ICC’s mandate so that political and corporate leaders can be held accountable at The Hague for environmental destruction (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). France even amended its domestic law in 2021 to include an “ecocide” offense (albeit with modest penalties) and pledged to champion an ICC ecocide amendment (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). Following advocacy by vulnerable nations, the small island states of Vanuatu, Fiji, and Samoa formally proposed an amendment to the Rome Statute to add ecocide in September 2024 (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future) (World's Youth for Climate Justice). Their proposal builds on a 2021 expert definition of ecocide as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment” (World's Youth for Climate Justice). If adopted by a two-thirds vote of ICC member states, ecocide would join genocide and crimes against humanity as an atrocity crime, signaling that mass environmental destruction is “on the same level as genocide and war crimes” (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). EE is committed to supporting this effort, viewing it as key to “ending the era of consequence-free ecocide” (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future).

Extraction and Indigenous Rights: A crucial aspect of fossil extraction crimes is the disproportionate harm to Indigenous populations in resource-rich regions. EE highlights that Indigenous and frontline communities – who contributed least to climate change – have suffered the worst extraction impacts (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear) (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear). In Canada and Australia, large-scale mining and oil projects have often proceeded over Indigenous objections, causing not only environmental devastation but also the destruction of sacred sites and ways of life. For instance, Canada’s oil sands in Alberta have polluted First Nations’ lands and waters to such an extent that some advocates have denounced it as a form of “slow, systemic… industrial genocide” against Indigenous peoples (Dishonoring the Earth: Ecocide as Prosecutable Genocide Against Indigenous People) (Dishonoring the Earth: Ecocide as Prosecutable Genocide Against Indigenous People). The Indigenous communities downstream of tar sands operations face higher cancer rates and contamination of traditional foods, and Canada’s failure to protect them has been condemned as a violation of their rights (As the toll of the tar sands on Indigenous communities grows ...). Legal scholars argue that officials who knowingly permit these projects despite foreseeable destruction of Indigenous nations could, in theory, incur liability for atrocities – even genocide – given the intent to destroy a way of life (Dishonoring the Earth: Ecocide as Prosecutable Genocide Against Indigenous People) (Dishonoring the Earth: Ecocide as Prosecutable Genocide Against Indigenous People). Likewise in Australia, mining has trampled Aboriginal heritage: in 2020 mining giant Rio Tinto legally blew up 46,000-year-old Aboriginal rock shelters at Juukan Gorge for an iron ore mine, an act met with global outrage ( Opinion: Rio Tinto and the Juukan Gorge incident: legal compliance – always necessary, rarely sufficient | International Bar Association). While domestic law failed to prevent this tragedy (no Australian law was broken in that “legal” detonation (Opinion: Rio Tinto and the Juukan Gorge incident: legal compliance)), it underscored the moral culpability of corporate actions that erase Indigenous heritage. Such incidents bolster the case for an international legal response. They could potentially fall under “persecution” as a crime against humanity – a deliberate deprivation of fundamental rights of an identifiable group (Indigenous people) in furtherance of a state or corporate policy (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). Indeed, the ICC has jurisdiction over persecution and other inhumane acts causing great suffering, which could be argued in cases where environmental destruction is used as a weapon against a community. In sum, there is a plausible legal framework to prosecute extreme extraction-related abuses under existing categories (e.g. persecution, forcible transfer of populations, or other inhumane acts) even before ecocide is formally recognized (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). EE’s legal mission is to “represent the planet and its most harmed communities in the halls of justice,” by identifying test cases that fit these theories (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future) (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future).

Precedents and Emerging Practice: While no fossil fuel executive has yet been hauled before the ICC, there are emerging precedents of environmental harm being treated with gravity by international law. The ICC Prosecutor’s office has received communications urging investigation of climate-related crimes – for example, a complaint on behalf of Filipino typhoon survivors arguing that major oil companies’ carbon emissions amount to human rights violations. Though the ICC has not opened a full case, the Office did declare climate change “one of the most serious challenges of our time” and indicated willingness to consider acts like illegal resource exploitation or severe environmental damage under existing crimes (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future) (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). Notably, environmental destruction has been prosecuted in other contexts: the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) recognized that the deliberate scorched-earth destruction of natural environment can be evidence of genocidal intent (Dishonoring the Earth: Ecocide as Prosecutable Genocide Against Indigenous People) (Dishonoring the Earth: Ecocide as Prosecutable Genocide Against Indigenous People). And under the law of war, the Rome Statute already classifies “widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment” as a war crime when done recklessly in conflict (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)). The leap now being advocated is to treat peacetime, profit-driven environmental destruction – especially fossil fuel extraction that predictably causes climate catastrophe – as an international crime. Given the sheer scale of harm attributed to the fossil industry, campaigners argue this is legally and morally justified. For perspective: burning fossil fuels and industrial waste pollution kill an estimated 7 million people every year via air pollution (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). These deaths, occurring from cancer villages in the Niger Delta to lung disease in coal country, amount to what EE calls “a holocaust of the atmosphere” (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). No other industry has inflicted such widespread harm on human health and the environment. By contrast, accidents in the nuclear power sector – often maligned – account for only a minute fraction of those deaths (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). The contrast underscores EE’s framing of fossil fuel executives as perpetrators of mass harm who have so far operated with impunity. Documents show companies like ExxonMobil knew of the catastrophic climate risks of their products as early as the 1970s, yet funded decades of misinformation to delay action (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). This deliberate deceit and “profit-driven decisions” in the face of known harm (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear) strengthen the argument that senior oil executives and officials acted with the requisite mens rea (knowledge and disregard of severe consequences) to be held criminally responsible. As one analysis put it, such behavior “meets every moral definition of a crime against humanity”, if not yet the legal definition (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). The task now is to align the law with this moral reality. EE’s strategy involves working with sympathetic states (likely climate-vulnerable nations or progressive European states) to refer situations to the ICC and test these legal arguments (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future) (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future), while simultaneously lobbying for the ecocide amendment to solidify the law (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future).

Potential and Limitations of Using the ICC to Curb Fossil Fuel Extraction

Deterrent Potential: If ecocide or analogous charges are accepted into international law, the ICC could, in theory, become a powerful forum to criminalize future fossil fuel extraction that causes severe climate harm. The mere existence of an international criminal prohibition would send a strong signal to industry and governments. For example, executives might think twice about greenlighting a new tar sands mine or coal power station if they could one day face arrest warrants in The Hague. EE envisions scenarios where, say, a CEO responsible for a devastating oil spill that ruined an Indigenous community’s livelihood might be arrested upon landing in Paris or Brussels under an ecocide law (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). Such an event would reverberate globally and “finally place legal risk on the decision-makers” behind environmentally destructive projects (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). Even without a new ecocide crime, the ICC Prosecutor could choose an egregious case – for instance, a government minister who violently suppresses environmental protests and enables deadly levels of pollution – and charge it under existing crimes against humanity (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). A high-profile prosecution of a political or business leader for climate-related crimes would be paradigm-shifting: it would establish accountability at the highest level and pierce the shield of state sovereignty or corporate lobbying that currently protects such actors. It could also deter future offenses (“general deterrence”), much as the Nuremberg trials’ prosecution of industrialists signaled that business leaders can be culpable for grave harms. Moreover, an ICC process can incorporate voices of victims from around the world (through victim participation provisions), keeping the human cost front and center in a way that purely state-driven climate talks do not.

Jurisdictional Limits: Despite its promise, the ICC is no panacea. The Court’s reach is constrained by jurisdictional and structural limits that make universal climate enforcement unlikely. First, the ICC only has jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of or by nationals of States that have ratified the Rome Statute (or if the U.N. Security Council refers a situation) (World's Youth for Climate Justice). Many of the biggest carbon polluting countries are notably not ICC members – including the United States, China, India, Russia, and Gulf oil states – which means their territory and nationals are generally beyond ICC reach. For example, if a future ecocide amendment were in place, it might not apply to a Chinese coal executive or a U.S. oil fracking operation unless the U.N. Security Council intervened (an unlikely scenario given that China, the U.S. and Russia each hold veto power). This creates an accountability gap: the nations most responsible for emissions could remain outside the regime, unless they chose to opt in. Even among ICC states parties like Canada or Australia (both ICC members), there is a temporal limitation – the ICC can only prosecute crimes that occurred after the Rome Statute came into effect for that state (2002 for most) and after the crime is defined. This means any new crime of ecocide would not be enforceable retroactively (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). It could only criminalize future conduct. Thus, past decades of extraction (and attendant emissions) would largely evade direct ICC judgment – the goal is to influence future behavior.

Enforcement Challenges: Even where the ICC has jurisdiction, it faces practical enforcement hurdles. The ICC has no police force of its own; it relies on member states to arrest and surrender suspects. In politically sensitive cases, cooperation may be tenuous. One can easily imagine a petro-state refusing to hand over its oil minister, or a company hiding a culpable executive in a non-ICC country. Without broad international consensus, ICC arrest warrants might be difficult to execute – especially if the accused have powerful state protectors. There’s also the issue of evidence and causation in climate crimes. Unlike a single atrocity in one location, climate harm is diffuse and cumulative, making it challenging to link specific decisions to specific injuries beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors would need to marshal climate science and attribution studies to show, for instance, that a particular expansion of fossil fuel extraction contributed materially to deadly heatwaves or sea-level rise that forced evacuations (and did so with the perpetrator’s knowledge of the likely consequences) (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). While our scientific ability to attribute extreme weather to climate change has grown, translating that into a courtroom narrative attributing legal responsibility is complex. The ICC judges – typically used to evidence of direct violence – would be navigating new terrain dealing with CO₂ parts-per-million and climate models. There is a risk they might view such cases as too novel or “political.”

ICC’s Institutional Capacity: The ICC is also a court of limited capacity, designed to handle at most a few large cases at a time. It is currently dealing with war crimes in conflict zones; adding climate-crime prosecutions would stretch its small budget and could invite political pushback that jeopardizes its core work. The ICC Prosecutor, while open to environmental cases, has noted resource constraints and the need for states to support any expansion of mandate (Is a Failure to Act on Climate Change a Crime against Humanity?). Some critics caution that pushing the ICC into climate issues might overextend the court or undermine its perceived neutrality, turning it into an arena for global policy debates rather than strictly adjudicating criminal conduct (Ecocide, environmental harm and framework integration at the ...). These are valid concerns – the ICC cannot and will not become a global environmental regulator overnight.

Alternative Avenues: Because of these limitations, EE’s strategy does not rely on the ICC alone. It pairs ICC advocacy with encouraging states to adopt domestic ecocide laws and use universal jurisdiction. For instance, Belgium in 2023 became the first EU country to add ecocide to its national criminal code (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). This means Belgian courts (and others that follow suit) could prosecute severe environmental crimes regardless of where they occur, if the offender is found on their soil. A network of states with ecocide laws could fill gaps left by the ICC, by arresting traveling officials or executives accused of ecocide. (EE imagines, for example, a polluting CEO being detained upon travel to Europe – a sobering prospect for perpetrators (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future).) Additionally, civil litigation and human rights cases are being pursued in domestic and regional courts to hold extractors accountable, and EE supports these efforts as a parallel track (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). One landmark example was a Dutch court’s 2021 ruling that ordered Shell to cut its emissions 45% by 2030, citing a duty of care to prevent climate harm (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). That was a human-rights-based civil case, not criminal – but it set an important precedent. Still, such victories are rare and often tied to specific jurisdictions. The ICC route, if successful, offers something unique: the stigma and gravity of criminal condemnation on the global stage, and the potential for imprisonment of offenders. Despite its limits, this prospect is powerful. It would reshape the cost-benefit analysis of fossil fuel ventures by introducing personal criminal liability in addition to profit motives. In summary, the ICC can at best handle a few symbolic cases that establish principles and deter others. It will not prosecute every oil well, but it could make an example of the worst offenders – much as international courts have done for high-level human rights criminals – and thereby influence the behavior of many.

Domestic vs. International Strategies: Why National Climate Litigation Often Falls Short

While EE pursues international justice, many jurisdictions are also seeking to hold oil companies accountable through domestic courts. For example, in September 2023, California sued five major oil companies (ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, ConocoPhillips) for misrepresenting climate risks and causing harm to Californians (US Supreme Court nixes challenge to state climate suits against oil firms | Reuters) (US Supreme Court nixes challenge to state climate suits against oil firms | Reuters). This lawsuit and dozens like it across the U.S. aim to recover damages for wildfires, droughts, and sea-level rise and to force industry to pay for climate adaptation. Such cases are built on tort law (e.g. nuisance, fraud) and parallel the strategy used against Big Tobacco decades ago. In principle, these lawsuits could yield compensation and uncover internal documents, and they keep pressure on industry. However, not a single court to date has held fossil fuel companies financially liable for climate change (CA take aims at Big Oil for climate change. Will the strategy work? - CalMatters) (CA take aims at Big Oil for climate change. Will the strategy work? - CalMatters). Legal experts caution that it is “highly uncertain whether these cases will ultimately succeed.” (CA take aims at Big Oil for climate change. Will the strategy work? - CalMatters) (CA take aims at Big Oil for climate change. Will the strategy work? - CalMatters) The challenges are formidable:

• Causation and Attribution: Industry defendants argue that holding any one company liable for global climate change is unfair, since emissions are the cumulative result of “an entire economy” dependent on fossil fuels (CA take aims at Big Oil for climate change. Will the strategy work? - CalMatters) (CA take aims at Big Oil for climate change. Will the strategy work? - CalMatters). They claim that everyone (including consumers) shares some blame. Courts have struggled with this argument. In a recent case, a New Jersey judge dismissed the state’s climate lawsuit, opining that the complaint was “entirely about…global climate change” – essentially adopting the oil companies’ view that courts shouldn’t wade into this global issue (State judges side with Big Oil, teeing up appeals fights ). This illustrates the difficulty in pinning legal responsibility on particular actors for an intertwined, worldwide problem. By contrast, an international criminal approach can focus on individual conduct – like executives’ decisions to deceive the public or governments’ policies to destroy environments – rather than trying to apportion all climate damages to one trial.

• Political and Judicial Resistance: Domestic courts and governments are often enmeshed with political interests. In jurisdictions like the United States, political polarization and industry influence have led to what some describe as regulatory and judicial capture. The fossil fuel industry has spent decades building political power and shaping the judiciary’s philosophy (for instance, via funding of the Federalist Society and other pipelines for conservative jurists) (Supreme Court EPA ruling: A brief history of how we got here | Grist) (Supreme Court EPA ruling: A brief history of how we got here | Grist). The result is a judiciary often skeptical of expansive climate action. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, has a solid majority of justices who favor limiting government regulation of industry. In 2022, the Court’s ruling in West Virginia v. EPA invoked the “major questions doctrine” to strike down an EPA climate regulation, significantly hampering federal authority to curb power-plant emissions (Supreme Court EPA ruling: A brief history of how we got here | Grist) (Supreme Court EPA ruling: A brief history of how we got here | Grist). This decision was the fruit of a “decades-long campaign” by libertarian think tanks and fossil-fuel-funded groups to “kneecap” environmental regulation (Supreme Court EPA ruling: A brief history of how we got here | Grist) (Supreme Court EPA ruling: A brief history of how we got here | Grist). Such rulings suggest that if a climate tort case were to reach the current Supreme Court, it might face a very hostile audience. There are concerns about outright judicial corruption or bias as well – recent revelations of judges accepting gifts or luxury trips from billionaires have fueled worries about corporate interests (including oil magnates) having undue influence on high courts. In short, domestic legal avenues in some countries are bottlenecked by politics: legislators often won’t enact strong climate laws (due to lobbying), and courts may either defer to political branches or be composed of judges aligned with industry-friendly ideology. This dysfunction is part of why EE’s manifesto calls out “political corruption and judicial capture” in places like the U.S., arguing that relying on domestic courts there may be futile. An international forum like the ICC, by contrast, is more insulated from any one nation’s politics and could hold perpetrators accountable without the local political baggage.

• Limited Scope of Domestic Law: Many countries simply do not have laws that criminalize the core grievance EE highlights – i.e. the knowing perpetuation of climate destruction. Tort cases can seek monetary damages, but they do not put executives in jail or directly halt projects; at most they make harmful conduct more expensive. Some countries have considered criminal charges (for instance, there have been discussions of fraud charges for climate disinformation), but these are novel and untested. In the absence of a clear domestic crime of “ecocide” or similar, national prosecutors are hesitant to treat environmental devastation as equivalent to, say, homicide – even if the death toll from pollution is far greater. Domestic environmental laws usually focus on regulatory compliance (permits, emissions standards) and impose fines, not imprisonment, and often they have loopholes for government-sanctioned projects. Thus state-sanctioned extraction, like government-approved mining in Australia or oil drilling in Canada, is generally legal under national law, even if it violates Indigenous treaty rights or contributes to climate harm. Indigenous communities have fought extraction through domestic courts (invoking land rights, human rights, etc.), sometimes winning important victories, but these tend to constrain or delay projects rather than criminalize the decision-makers. For example, Canadian First Nations have sued to enforce treaty rights against tar sands expansion (Dishonoring the Earth: Ecocide as Prosecutable Genocide Against Indigenous People) (Dishonoring the Earth: Ecocide as Prosecutable Genocide Against Indigenous People), and while some settlements and impact benefit agreements have been won, the overarching policy of expanding oil production largely continued, with the federal government often fighting Indigenous claims in court (Dishonoring the Earth: Ecocide as Prosecutable Genocide Against Indigenous People) (Dishonoring the Earth: Ecocide as Prosecutable Genocide Against Indigenous People). Given these shortcomings, EE argues that an international legal strategy is needed to bypass national deadlocks. International criminal law, historically, has stepped in when states are unwilling or unable to prosecute grave offenses (as seen with human rights abuses). Climate destruction, EE contends, fits that bill: many governments are “complicit petro-states” (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear) that will not incriminate themselves or their key industries. Therefore, a venue like the ICC could ensure accountability that no single country’s legal system would impose on its own.

Comparative Advantages of ICC Approach: An ICC or international route not only bypasses captured institutions, but also frames the issue as one of global justice rather than parochial interests. It puts fossil fuel executives and officials in the same moral category as war criminals – a powerful narrative shift. Additionally, an ICC investigation can pressure states to take action domestically. We saw this in other contexts: the ICC’s preliminary examination of Colombia’s human rights situation, for example, pushed Colombia to prosecute its own war criminals to avoid ICC intervention. Similarly, the threat of ICC action on climate crimes might spur countries like Australia or Canada to strengthen their environmental accountability at home (to show “complementarity”). Another advantage is the global evidence-gathering power – the ICC can draw on scientific and testimonial evidence from around the world, painting a comprehensive picture of climate harm that a single national court, limited to its jurisdiction, might not see. International proceedings can elevate voices of Indigenous peoples from the Amazon, residents of sinking Pacific islands, and scientists measuring Arctic melt together, establishing a broad narrative of wrongdoing by a few actors against the global commons. This holistic perspective is precisely what EE’s “One Earth, One Crew, One Future” manifesto calls for, as opposed to piecemeal national cases (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future) (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future).

Domestic Efforts Continue: None of this is to say domestic climate litigation is pointless. In fact, such lawsuits are gaining traction and can work in tandem with international efforts. For example, as of early 2025, over 40 U.S. cities, states, and counties have filed climate lawsuits against oil majors (CA take aims at Big Oil for climate change. Will the strategy work?), and the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to block those suits from proceeding in state courts (US Supreme Court nixes challenge to state climate suits against oil firms | Reuters). That denial was a small pro-accountability signal, suggesting even some conservative justices were not ready to slam the door on all climate torts. California’s case will likely take years of battle, and industry will invoke every possible defense (e.g. that federal law preempts state claims, that courts cannot judge global-policy matters, etc. (State judges side with Big Oil, teeing up appeals fights )). Win or lose, those cases keep public attention on fossil companies’ decades of deception. They also produce valuable evidence and documents (which could even assist an ICC prosecutor later). EE’s approach is thus complementary: support local and national legal actions (filing amicus briefs, coordinating evidence (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future)), but also create an overarching framework that treats these issues as international crimes when domestic systems fail. In EE’s view, much like with human rights, a multi-level strategy is needed – one that doesn’t rely solely on captured domestic institutions, but also doesn’t ignore any forum that could provide relief or precedent. The ultimate critique EE levels at domestic-only strategies is that they are too slow and susceptible to reversal. A jury verdict against an oil company can be overturned on appeal; a climate-friendly government can be replaced by one that withdraws lawsuits or pardons offenders. International prosecution, once initiated, is harder for a single election or lobbying campaign to derail. Thus, for lasting accountability, EE sees the ICC and international law as an essential piece of the puzzle.

Strategic Advantages (and Risks) of Basing in France and Engaging Global Powers like China

Earthrise Équité has deliberately situated itself in France, signaling a strategic choice of venue and alliances. France is presented as the “ideal home” for this climate justice movement for several reasons:

• Alignment with Nuclear Climate Solutions: France has a unique energy profile among major nations – about 70% of its electricity comes from nuclear power, resulting in one of the lowest carbon electricity footprints in the industrialized world (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future) (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). EE strongly advocates for nuclear energy as a key climate solution and part of “energy reparations,” arguing that if other nations had followed France’s example, the climate crisis would be far less dire (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear) (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear). By basing in France, EE stands on politically friendly ground to promote nuclear as a climate justice tool (France’s public and institutions are comparatively pronuclear). This helps EE advance its narrative that decarbonization must be honest (i.e. include all viable solutions) and counters the fossil industry’s longstanding efforts to undermine nuclear. France’s expertise in nuclear technology (from its EPR reactors to waste reprocessing) gives EE access to a wealth of technical knowledge for its proposals to aid communities with clean energy (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear) (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). In essence, France embodies the feasibility of rapid decarbonization through non-fossil means, bolstering EE’s credibility.

• ICC and International Law Champion: France is a founding member of the ICC and traditionally a strong supporter of international law and multilateralism. Paris has often been a venue for global accords (most famously the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate). EE notes that France “prides itself on supporting international law” and has publicly supported the concept of ecocide as an international crime (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future) (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). President Macron’s government not only endorsed the idea but committed to “champion an ICC ecocide amendment” on the world stage (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). This high-level political support is invaluable – it means EE can coordinate with French diplomats and leverage France’s voice at the United Nations and ICC Assembly of States Parties. For instance, France can lobby other EU countries and francophone African nations (many of whom are ICC members) to back the ecocide proposal. Being located in Paris (and bilingual in French-English as EE is (France: Leading a Movement Uniting Nuclear Energy and Climate Justice)) positions EE to engage directly with the diplomatic community that passes treaties and amendments. It also doesn’t hurt that the ICC itself is in The Hague, a short trip away, facilitating interaction with ICC officials and hearings.

• Receptivity to Climate Justice Framing: French political culture, while not without its issues, has shown an openness to climate justice arguments. French courts in recent years have entertained climate lawsuits (e.g. the “Affaire du Siècle” case held the French state liable for climate inaction). The French public generally supports strong climate action and was receptive when the idea of ecocide was floated by the Citizen’s Climate Convention. By operating in France, EE finds a relatively hospitable legal and social environment to develop innovative legal theories. There is less risk of being dismissed as fringe – indeed French lawmakers have debated ecocide, and Paris was home to an International Tribunal on Climate Justice (a mock trial) in 2015 that set the stage for today’s efforts. Furthermore, France lacks a powerful domestic fossil lobby compared to, say, the U.S. or Australia. France has no equivalent of ExxonMobil or Peabody Energy influencing its politicians (its major energy firms, like EDF and Orano, are nuclear-focused; TotalEnergies is a global oil player but even it has had to adjust to France’s climate policies). This relative freedom from “taint by major fossil fuel crimes” gives France moral authority – as EE quips, it is “relatively untainted” and thus an ideal base to “embody the Earthrise ethos” of decarbonization and justice (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future) (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future). France can advocate globally for holding others accountable without an obvious hypocrisy (in contrast, a climate justice NGO based in an oil-exporting state might face credibility issues).

• Technical and Financial Resources: Paris is a global hub for international organizations and green finance. Institutions like the Green Climate Fund, International Energy Agency, and various UN offices are accessible. France can also offer funding support – for example, through its development agency or climate finance commitments – for initiatives aligned with EE’s goals (such as funding nuclear desalination projects in climate-affected African communities, one of EE’s proposals (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear)). Being in the EU, EE can tap into EU research grants or networks on environmental justice. Additionally, France’s legal community includes experts in international criminal law (some of whom were involved in the establishment of the ICC) and environmental law, providing a rich pool of allies and advisors for EE’s legal work.

Engaging China – Opportunities and Dilemmas: EE’s strategy also calls for engaging international actors like China, which might seem counterintuitive given China’s status as the world’s largest emitter and an authoritarian state. However, EE recognizes that global climate justice requires global participation, including from major powers outside Western democracies. The potential upsides of involving China are significant:

• Scale of Impact: China emits nearly 30% of global CO₂ annually and burns more coal than the rest of the world combined (Green China: Where authoritarianism and environmentalism meet) (Authoritarian Environmentalism | Human Rights Watch). No climate solution can succeed if China isn’t part of it. Engaging China could mean influencing the trajectory of gigatons of emissions. For instance, if China can be persuaded to peak and reduce coal consumption faster, or to invest even more heavily in renewables and nuclear (where it is already a world leader), that has huge climate benefits. EE imagines leveraging France’s diplomatic ties with China (France maintains active relations with Beijing) to promote a kind of “climate truce” or cooperation, where China contributes to global climate justice efforts. One idea floated is to have Chinese companies participate in an international energy reparations framework – e.g. providing solar panels, wind turbines, or small modular reactors to developing countries as part of a climate justice deal (France: Leading a Movement Uniting Nuclear Energy and Climate Justice). This would align with China’s Belt and Road infrastructure investments, but redirect them toward green projects in vulnerable nations. If China’s immense industrial capacity can be harnessed to supply clean technology to those most harmed by climate change (say, building renewable microgrids in Pacific islands or desalination plants in drought-hit Africa), it could accelerate climate adaptation and mitigation globally (France: Leading a Movement Uniting Nuclear Energy and Climate Justice). In essence, China’s cooperation could supercharge the “reparations” concept with concrete investments.

• Authoritarian Efficiency: China’s political system, while repressive, can execute infrastructure and policy shifts quickly. Beijing has shown the ability to drastically curb certain pollutants on short notice (as during the 2008 Olympics) and to mandate nationwide changes (like shutting down coal plants near cities to improve air quality). Some have theorized about “eco-authoritarianism” – the idea that China’s top-down governance could allow it to enforce climate measures more decisively than dithering democracies (Can China's Eco-Authoritarianism Lead Global Climate Action?) (Authoritarian Environmentalism | Human Rights Watch). Indeed, China leads the world in renewable energy deployment: it invests more in solar and wind annually than the U.S. and EU combined, and it is rolling out nuclear plants at a steady clip (Can China's Eco-Authoritarianism Lead Global Climate Action?) (Green China: Where authoritarianism and environmentalism meet). Xi Jinping has declared a goal of carbon neutrality by 2060 and has started to restrain overseas coal financing. If engaged constructively, China could become a driver of the clean energy transition (as it already is in manufacturing). EE likely calculates that bringing China on board with the vision of climate accountability (at least in rhetoric) could create a powerful East-West coalition for ecocide recognition. Notably, Chinese diplomats have in the past aligned with the idea that developed countries (the historic emitters) owe a “climate debt” to developing ones – a concept akin to climate justice. China often positions itself as a champion of the Global South in climate talks, demanding that rich nations pay for loss and damage. This narrative overlaps with EE’s “energy reparations” idea (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear) (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear). Thus, there is a diplomatic opening: France and EE can appeal to China to support holding Western fossil fuel corporations accountable, which aligns with China’s stance of highlighting Western responsibility. In doing so, EE can attempt to bridge Chinese interests with the ecocide campaign (perhaps emphasizing that ecocide would mainly target multi-national corporations and negligent governments, not ordinary citizens).

Risks and Ethical Concerns: Working with or in an authoritarian context like China comes with significant caveats:

• Hypocrisy and Sovereignty: China is not a party to the ICC and fiercely guards its sovereignty. It is unlikely to ever subject its own officials to ICC jurisdiction for environmental harm. In fact, China might seek to shape any ecocide norm to exclude its practices (for instance, ensuring that coal burning or mega-dams are not seen as criminal if done by a sovereign state for development). There’s a risk that China uses the climate justice rhetoric to score points against Western oil companies or governments, without curbing its own emissions substantially. If EE aligns too closely with China, it could dilute its message – critics could ask why EE targets Exxon and Shell at the ICC but not Chinese coal barons or officials driving record-high coal expansion. Maintaining moral consistency will be a challenge; EE must push for accountability “regardless of the perpetrator,” yet pragmatically it knows China won’t hand over its people. This could create a perception problem: an impression of bias or selectivity. However, EE might respond that any progress is good – if we can at least get Western companies and governments (who are under ICC jurisdiction) in the dock, that’s a start, and China’s turn would come through other pressures.

• Human Rights Trade-offs: As Human Rights Watch has documented, China’s approach to environmental cleanup often tramples human rights, banning NGOs and silencing affected communities (Authoritarian Environmentalism | Human Rights Watch) (Authoritarian Environmentalism | Human Rights Watch). Xinjiang’s polysilicon industry (a key link in solar panel supply) is rife with forced labor and abuses against Uyghur Muslims – abuses that a UN report said “may constitute…crimes against humanity” (Authoritarian Environmentalism | Human Rights Watch). If EE partners with Chinese entities, it faces the moral quandary of being associated with such practices. It must be wary that climate action doesn’t become an excuse to ignore human rights (e.g. forcing coal reductions by fiat that leave the poor freezing, as happened when some regions banned coal heating abruptly (Authoritarian Environmentalism | Human Rights Watch)). EE’s core ethos is justice, so it must advocate that climate solutions uphold human rights, even in China. There is a risk that engagement could mute EE’s criticism of China’s ongoing emission growth or human rights issues, compromising its integrity. On the flip side, by engaging, EE might gently encourage China toward more socially just climate policies (for example, emphasizing the importance of community consent, even if that concept is nascent there). It’s a delicate balance.

• Geopolitical Backlash: If EE collaborates with Chinese actors, it could alienate supporters in other countries (especially the U.S., where hostility toward China is high). It might feed into conspiracy narratives (e.g. that ICC ecocide efforts are a ploy by China to hamper Western companies while China itself evades rules). EE will need to maintain independence and avoid being seen as beholden to any government, democratic or authoritarian. The ideal is to engage all major emitters – China, the U.S., the EU, India – in the broader campaign for climate accountability. But engaging China in particular might have to be done via multilateral fora (like Paris conferences or G20 climate sessions) rather than any formal partnership, to avoid these pitfalls.

In summary, France provides EE a strong platform: legitimacy, legal leverage, technical know-how, and a supportive public arena for climate justice innovation. Meanwhile, engaging China is a strategic necessity to address the bulk of emissions, but it must be pursued carefully. The hope is that through French-led diplomacy, even countries outside the ICC can be enticed to participate in global climate accountability efforts (for example, by signing on to agreements to phase out fossil fuels or contribute to climate reparations funds, even if they won’t accept ICC jurisdiction). EE’s manifesto phrase “One Earth, One Crew” emphasizes unity (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future) – this implies reaching out to all nations, recognizing we need even unlikely allies to solve a planetary crisis. By basing in France and speaking to both Western and non-Western powers, EE positions itself as a global convener for this cause.

Urgency of the Climate Crisis: From Stalled Diplomacy to Adversarial Law

Underpinning EE’s entire strategy is a profound sense of urgency. Climate science makes clear that the window for effective action is closing rapidly. The IPCC’s 2023 Sixth Assessment Synthesis Report delivered what was dubbed a “final warning” – act now on climate or it will be too late (Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late | Climate crisis | The Guardian) (Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late | Climate crisis | The Guardian). The report, endorsed by 195 nations, boiled down decades of data into a blunt message: “Our world needs climate action on all fronts: everything, everywhere, all at once.” (Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late | Climate crisis | The Guardian). It warned that we are nearing irreversible tipping points, with “increasingly irreversible losses” already occurring in vital ecosystems (Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late | Climate crisis | The Guardian). Already at ~1.1°C of warming, we see deadly heatwaves, famines, and floods; beyond 1.5°C, the damage will rapidly escalate (Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late | Climate crisis | The Guardian) (Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late | Climate crisis | The Guardian). As UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, we must “fast-track” efforts before the remaining carbon budget is exhausted (Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late | Climate crisis | The Guardian) (Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late | Climate crisis | The Guardian). Yet, despite more than 30 years of UN climate negotiations (the first IPCC report was 1990), global emissions have not been reined in – in fact, annual greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 44% since 1992 when the UN climate treaty (UNFCCC) was signed (Climate Negotiations at COP29: Financing a Livable Planet for All?). We are currently on track for a catastrophic 2.5–2.9°C temperature rise this century under the Paris Agreement’s current pledges (Climate Reports - the United Nations) (Current pledges put the world on track for 2.5-2.9C temperature rise). This trajectory spells disaster for billions and is far above the Paris goals of “well below 2°C” or 1.5°C.

Why is this happening? A major reason, EE argues, is the ineffectiveness of the COP (Conference of the Parties) negotiation process and the delaying tactics of vested interests. International climate diplomacy – epitomized by the yearly COP meetings – operates by consensus and voluntary commitments. This has led to chronic inertia. It took six years from the failed 2009 Copenhagen summit to reach the Paris Agreement in 2015, and another seven years after Paris to finally establish a modest fund for loss and damage at COP27 (We need an urgent reform of our Climate COP’s to enable real climate action - International Science Council). All the while, emissions rose and promises went unmet. The COP28 summit in 2023 highlighted these shortcomings starkly: despite record attendance and fanfare, nations failed to agree on phasing out fossil fuels, even as climate extremes (from mega-droughts to megafires) ravaged the world (We need an urgent reform of our Climate COP’s to enable real climate action - International Science Council) (We need an urgent reform of our Climate COP’s to enable real climate action - International Science Council). Over 100 countries supported language to “end the fossil fuel era,” but a handful of powerful petrostates and some 2,500 oil and gas lobbyists present were able to block any meaningful commitment (We need an urgent reform of our Climate COP’s to enable real climate action - International Science Council). The consensus rule means progressive countries are dragged down to the pace of the slowest (often fossil-fuel-dependent) country. The result is often watered-down texts that reinforce inertia instead of action (We need an urgent reform of our Climate COP’s to enable real climate action - International Science Council). EE views this as an unacceptable failure of governance: “we are failing on the Paris Agreement… failing to deliver climate action at the speed necessary”, as one analysis put it (We need an urgent reform of our Climate COP’s to enable real climate action - International Science Council).

Meanwhile, fossil fuel companies continue to explore and exploit. By some estimates, the industry plans to produce far more oil, gas, and coal in the next decades than is compatible with any safe climate scenario, effectively betting on the failure of Paris goals. Each year’s delay in cutting emissions “eats up” the carbon budget and will force more drastic measures later (Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late | Climate crisis | The Guardian). In this context, EE and many climate advocates conclude that a more adversarial, accountability-driven approach is needed to complement (or even replace) the polite diplomacy of COP. As EE’s manifesto argues, climate advocacy must move “from protest to prosecution”: if negotiators cannot compel change, perhaps courts and tribunals can. This doesn’t mean abandoning international cooperation; rather, it means infusing it with teeth and consequences. The concept of “climate litigation as the new climate negotiation” is gaining traction. For example, when a Dutch court ordered emissions cuts by Shell in 2021, it effectively did through law what diplomats had failed to secure as a voluntary pledge. EE wants to replicate that on a global scale through the ICC – creating a legal threat that forces both companies and countries to act faster than they would through politics alone.

Another angle to urgency is the time-sensitive harm to particularly vulnerable communities. Indigenous groups, low-lying island nations, and young people have pleaded that by the time slow negotiations yield results, their cultures or futures may be lost. EE’s notion of “Energy Reparations” is itself grounded in urgency: it insists that those who caused the harm owe immediate support to those suffering now (for example, providing clean energy to a village whose water source was polluted by oil drilling) (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear) (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear). This has a reparative justice element, but also a preventative one: shifting resources now can avert worse crises down the line. Unfortunately, waiting for consensus at COP means waiting for every country to agree on financing – a process mired in decades-long disputes about who pays how much. As of COP28, wealthier nations had still not fully delivered even a promised $100 billion per year in climate finance – a target due by 2020 (We need an urgent reform of our Climate COP's to enable real ...) (We need an urgent reform of our Climate COP's to enable real ...), let alone the trillions needed for transformation. This is why activists have started turning to courts to force governments to act (e.g. the Urgenda case in the Netherlands forced the Dutch government to raise its emissions cuts ambition, citing human rights law). EE’s approach similarly seeks to force the issue: by criminalizing ecocide, it creates an obligation for all leaders to avoid that conduct, and by extension to transition off fossil fuels.

Adversarial Approach as Catalyst: The adversarial legal approach – lawsuits, prosecutions, naming and shaming in court – is seen as a way to break the logjam. It turns up the heat on those in power. When executives fear jail, they may lobby less against climate policy. When ministers fear international indictment, they may rethink rubber-stamping a polluting project. The adversarial approach also flips the script: instead of civil society begging governments at COP to do the right thing (often yielding empty promises), it puts governments and companies in the position of defendants who must justify their actions before a tribunal. It moves the arena from plush conference halls (where pledges are often non-binding) to judicial halls where rulings are binding and enforceable. EE cites the precedent of Big Tobacco: for decades, tobacco companies dodged regulation through lobbying and false doubt, not unlike Big Oil and climate. Eventually, it was aggressive litigation and the prospect of massive legal liability that forced tobacco companies into a Master Settlement Agreement in 1998, changing their behavior and compensating victims. Similarly, holding Big Oil to account may require courtroom showdowns. As EE puts it, “just as litigation against Big Tobacco brought justice for decades of harm, the ICC must now address climate crimes” (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear).

Importantly, pursuing an adversarial route does not mean abandoning international cooperation – rather it can reinforce it. In climate diplomacy, enforcement has always been the weak leg. An ICC judgment or even a preliminary investigation could galvanize diplomatic efforts: countries might race to demonstrate compliance or to negotiate an exemption by strengthening global rules (for instance, an ICC ecocide case might spur the next COP to finally agree on a firm fossil fuel phaseout timeline, in order to show that diplomacy works and stave off broader criminalization). The relationship can be symbiotic: diplomacy sets goals, and law enforces accountability for meeting them. But until now, the enforcement part has been missing at the global level. EE’s push for ecocide fills that gap, declaring that some actions (or inaction) are so beyond the pale that they will trigger legal sanction.

In terms of timing, the next few years (the rest of the 2020s) are absolutely critical for climate action. Emissions must peak and begin falling by 2025–2030 to maintain a viable path to 1.5°C (We need an urgent reform of our Climate COP’s to enable real climate action - International Science Council). We are also likely to witness increasingly severe climate disasters in this period, which could lend urgency to EE’s cause. Each disaster underscores the costs of inaction and may make courts more sympathetic to bold legal theories. There is also a burgeoning youth climate movement, including youth-led legal actions (such as petitions to the UN for an advisory opinion on climate rights, and domestic youth lawsuits asserting rights to a stable climate). These demonstrate a growing public sentiment that waiting on politics is unacceptable – rights must be asserted through courts. EE’s adversarial approach is very much in line with this spirit.

Finally, EE argues that time is not on our side, and we cannot rely solely on incremental progress or goodwill. The adversarial legal approach is essentially a way of introducing accountability into a system that has lacked it. As one climate expert said about the IPCC report, “If governments just stay on their current policies, the remaining carbon budget will be used up before the next IPCC report” (Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late | Climate crisis | The Guardian). We literally cannot afford to delay. Thus, making fossil fuel extraction a potential crime is aimed at forcing immediate change: it raises the stakes here and now. It tells governments and CEOs that failure to change course is not just irresponsible – it could be illegal. This is a profound shift from the voluntary ethos of COP. In essence, EE is betting that the threat of handcuffs will achieve what decades of handshakes have not. Given the high stakes of climate change, this bet may well be worth taking.

Conclusion

The feasibility of prosecuting fossil fuel extraction as an international crime is no longer a far-fetched idea, but an evolving frontier at the intersection of environmental reality and the law. Legally, there are challenges in applying frameworks like crimes against humanity to climate destruction, but innovative arguments and growing precedents support its viability – especially in extreme cases of environmental harm and rights violations. The push for a new crime of ecocide is gaining diplomatic momentum, signaling a recognition that the law must evolve to protect the planet. While the ICC alone cannot solve the climate crisis, it offers a unique venue to assign individual accountability for collective harms, piercing the veil of state sovereignty and corporate structure that has shielded decision-makers thus far. The limitations – jurisdictional gaps, enforcement issues, political pushback – are real, but not insurmountable if enough states and civil society allies rally behind this cause.

Comparatively, domestic efforts, though important, face uphill battles against powerful interests and often sluggish or captured institutions. As seen, lawsuits like California’s are vital but uncertain, and many domestic legal systems remain ill-equipped or unwilling to confront the full scale of climate wrongdoing. This is why Earthrise Équité’s strategy blends the moral clarity of climate science with the hard edge of legal enforcement. By situating in France, EE taps into a legacy of internationalism and technological leadership, and by reaching out globally (even to China), it acknowledges that justice must be inclusive to be effective. The organization’s ethos – “One Earth, One Crew, One Future” – encapsulates both the unity of purpose and the shared fate we have. It reminds us that in the face of a planetary emergency, new legal norms can be forged, just as human rights law was born from the ashes of World War II.

In conclusion, prosecuting fossil fuel extraction as an international crime is ambitious but legally plausible, and perhaps increasingly necessary. It reframes climate change not just as a policy problem but as a matter of justice – a crime against our common home. As the climate clock ticks down and diplomatic efforts falter, this adversarial legal approach could provide the leverage needed to compel meaningful action. The coming years will likely determine whether ecocide is codified and whether trailblazing cases make it to court. Success would mean that no CEO, minister, or dictator can henceforth assume that mass environmental harm is beyond accountability. Even the attempt – the process of seeking justice – can itself drive change: prompting industries to transition faster and governments to enshrine stronger protections, out of fear of liability. Earthrise Équité’s feasibility study ultimately finds that the law can, and must, rise to meet the climate crisis. By treating the willful destruction of nature as the gravest of crimes, humanity would be affirming a fundamental principle: that our planet is not property to be exploited without consequence, but a shared life-support system – one for which we all bear responsibility, and whose destruction demands justice.

Sources: International Criminal Court Rome Statute (1998); ICC Office of the Prosecutor Policy Paper on Case Selection (2016); Proposal to amend Rome Statute to include Ecocide (Vanuatu et al., 2024) (World's Youth for Climate Justice); Independent Expert Panel Definition of Ecocide (Stop Ecocide Foundation, 2021) (World's Youth for Climate Justice); Calls for ICC to end impunity for environmental crimes – The Guardian (Mar. 2024) (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future) (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future); EE Manifesto “Earthrise at Dusk” (2024) (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future) (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future); President Macron statement on ecocide (2020) (Earthrise at Dusk: The Earthrise Équité Manifesto – One Earth, One Crew, One Future); French Environmental Code (2021 amendments on ecocide); Michael Gerrard quoted in CalMatters (Mar. 2025) on climate litigation (CA take aims at Big Oil for climate change. Will the strategy work? - CalMatters) (CA take aims at Big Oil for climate change. Will the strategy work? - CalMatters); West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. ___ (2022); Grist analysis on judiciary and climate regulation (Supreme Court EPA ruling: A brief history of how we got here | Grist) (Supreme Court EPA ruling: A brief history of how we got here | Grist); Human Rights Watch on China’s environmental governance (2022) (Authoritarian Environmentalism | Human Rights Watch) (Authoritarian Environmentalism | Human Rights Watch); International Science Council blog on COP29 failures (2025) (We need an urgent reform of our Climate COP’s to enable real climate action - International Science Council) (We need an urgent reform of our Climate COP’s to enable real climate action - International Science Council); IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report (2023) and Guardian coverage (Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late | Climate crisis | The Guardian) (Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late | Climate crisis | The Guardian); Earthrise Équité official website and blog posts (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear) (Earth Rise Foundation | Environmentalists for Nuclear); and various academic and legal sources as cited above.