On May 20, 2026, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted resolution A/80/L.65, formally endorsing the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on states’ obligations regarding climate change.

The resolution was tabled by Vanuatu, the same small island that led the diplomatic campaign to bring the issue before the court, and attracted 90 co-sponsors from all regions of the world.

The vote is the result of a process that took three years to reach this stage.

Mar 2023 - The UNGA adopts by consensus a resolution requesting the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on states’ climate obligations.

Dec 2024 - The ICJ holds public hearings. The proceedings attracted the largest volume of written submissions in the court’s history.

23 Jul 2025 - The ICJ issued its advisory opinion unanimously, only the fifth unanimous ruling in nearly 88 years of operation.

Feb 2026 - Vanuatu introduces a draft resolution at the UNGA to translate the advisory opinion into concrete action.

20 May 2026 - The UNGA adopts resolution A/80/L.65. Result: 141 in favor, 8 against, 28 abstentions.

The advisory opinion issued unanimously in July 2025 responded to two questions put forward by the UNGA: what are states' obligations under international law regarding climate change, and what are the legal consequences when those obligations are breached.

On the first question, the court repositioned the Paris Agreement. The ICJ interpreted the treaty not as a political declaration but as a legally binding instrument with enforceable obligations. Meeting emission reduction targets consistent with the 1.5°C goal was framed as a legal duty, not a policy option.

On the second question, the court opened the door to accountability. States that breach their climate obligations are internationally liable and may be required to cease the conduct, provide guarantees of non-repetition, and make full reparation for damages caused.

The advisory opinion is not legally binding on its own. But it carries significant legal and moral weight: it is the most authoritative interpretation of international law on the subject and provides the foundation for climate litigation in domestic and regional courts worldwide.

The ICJ opinion and the UNGA resolution do not, by themselves, create new national laws. Their immediate effect works differently: they build the legal foundation that feeds domestic climate litigation and increases pressure on governments to regulate private emitters more strictly.

The construction sector accounts for approximately 37% of global CO₂ emissions, according to UNEP. It is one of the largest targets of any mandatory decarbonization agenda. As domestic courts begin to reference the ICJ opinion as legal authority, the standard of accountability for those who design, build, and operate buildings rises with it.

There is already a working precedent. In early 2026, a German court recognized that major emitters can be held liable under German civil law for the consequences of climate change. The ICJ opinion provides the theoretical grounding for decisions like that in any jurisdiction.

The cycle that follows is familiar from other sectors: international ruling, domestic litigation, regulatory pressure, new compliance standard. For the construction industry, the direction of travel is not new. It now has the backing of the UN's highest judicial body.

World Environment Week has been celebrated since 1972, and every year in June, governments, companies, and organizations use the moment to announce commitments and reinforce their vision for the future of the planet.

With that in mind, we decided to open a special condition on UGREEN Pass valid throughout the entire month of June.

UGREEN Pass brings together more than 25 courses in applied sustainability, all with completion certificates, for anyone who wants to deepen their knowledge and put it into practice — in projects, business decisions or everyday life.

If you follow UGREEN and haven't joined the platform yet, this is your opportunity

In Vancouver, in 2017, the University of British Columbia completed an 18-story, 53-meter student residence for 404 students — with a structure built almost entirely from engineered timber.

From the outside, the building looks ordinary. On the inside, the wood is concealed behind drywall, as required by the fire code. Anyone walking into Brock Commons has no idea they are inside a timber building.

Acton Ostry Architects chose a hybrid system: 17 floors of five-layer CLT panels supported on glulam columns, set above a one-story concrete podium, with two concrete cores for vertical circulation and building services.

The Athena Sustainable Materials Institute conducted a full LCA on the building following the EN 15978 standard, with a 100-year cradle-to-grave scope. The final report found:

These figures come from a direct comparative study: UBC commissioned LCAs for two buildings of the same height on the same campus — one in hybrid timber, one in conventional concrete.

Local code restricted timber buildings to six stories. Building to 18 required a specific regulatory approval, two independent structural reviews, and the creation of a site-specific standard, approved in September 2015.

The team ran the regulatory process in parallel with the architectural design. Teams that leave this step for later end up with the wrong schedule and a budget out of control.

In 2017, the reference cost for a comparable concrete building in Vancouver was CAD 215 per sq ft. Brock Commons came in at CAD 230 per sq ft.

A difference of roughly 7%, attributed to the innovation premium of being the first project of its kind in Canada: unprecedented approvals, additional reviews, and a process with no local precedent.

The full superstructure, including prefabricated facade panels, was assembled in approximately 70 days by nine installers — two months ahead of schedule. On-site material waste also dropped by roughly two-thirds compared to conventional construction standards.

There is another point that tends to be left out of the comparison: concealing the timber behind drywall allowed the team to use standard commercial-grade wood and reduce structural section sizes, since there was no need to calculate a char layer for fire protection.

The regulatory constraint that looked like a limitation became a source of cost efficiency.

Brock Commons demonstrates that, under specific conditions, structural timber delivers lower embodied carbon, faster assembly, and less waste — at a total cost close to conventional concrete.

Those conditions include: suppliers with prefabrication capacity, a viable building code or achievable regulatory approval, a team with structural timber experience, and life cycle analysis integrated into the design process — not added after the fact.

When any one of those conditions fails, the outcome changes. The decision on materials starts with a diagnosis of the context, not a choice from a catalog.

85% of Brazilian buildings have some degree of issue related to mold, moisture, or water infiltration.

That figure comes from the Brazilian Waterproofing Institute - and beyond being a statistic about substandard housing, it also describes the norm in conventional real estate.

The problem starts before poor construction. It begins with design, specification, and cost decisions made without considering what happens to the air inside a building once the door closes.

Volatile organic compounds are released by finishing materials. Fungi growing inside the wall before they appear on the surface. Undersized ventilation systems that pass the problem on to the occupant - without anyone ever accounting for it.

The cost doesn’t disappear … it just moves.

Watch the full video and find out how the construction industry got here - and what the data shows about the real cost of these actions.

Disclaimer: The video is in Brazilian Portuguese, but simultaneous translation and subtitles are available in multiple languages.