We explore the legal frameworks that promote the attainment of 1.5°C.

At CGSL, we explore the legal frameworks essential for attaining the 1.5°C global warming limit. We recognize that “Net Zero” is no longer just a corporate slogan but a rigorous legal imperative rooted in the Paris Agreement and the latest climate science. Our work involves deconstructing the “Ratchet Mechanism” of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and evaluating the legal status of net-zero targets; whether they are enshrined in national law, executive orders, or sector-specific regulations. By analyzing the path to halving emissions by 2030 and reaching net-zero by 2050, we provide the legal intelligence necessary to ensure these targets are ambitious, transparent, and enforceable.

Our expertise serves as a catalyst for high-integrity climate action across both the public and private sectors. We focus on the “glocal” implementation of net-zero standards, examining how emerging “Hard Law” reporting mandates and climate litigation are forcing a rethink of corporate accountability. CGSL experts act as legislative architects, drafting informed proposals that integrate carbon removal technologies, “Beyond Value Chain Mitigation,” and strict neutralization standards into the legal fabric of the transition. Whether through analyzing science-based target frameworks or de-risking the energy transition for Emerging Markets, our mission is to ensure that the law provides the definitive roadmap to a 1.5°C-aligned future.

Our strategic role in the global race to 1.5°C is clear, covering:

• National Net-Zero Statutes: A comparative map of countries that have codified net-zero targets into binding law versus those with non-binding policy goals.
• The 1.5°C Compliance Map: Tracking the alignment of NDCs and corporate “Transition Plans” with the carbon budgets defined by the IPCC.
• Neutralization & Removal Law: Legal intelligence on the standards for carbon credits, offsets, and the permanent removal of residual emissions.
• Litigation & Accountability: Analysis of the “Urgenda-style” lawsuits and ICJ advisory opinions that are establishing a legal imperative for states to pursue their “highest possible ambition.”