Nayarit

Nuevo León

Oaxaca

Puebla

Aguascalientes

Querétaro

Baja California

Quintana Roo

Baja California Sur

Sinaloa

Campeche

San Luis Potosí

Chihuahua

Sonora

Chiapas

Tabasco

Ciudad de México

Tamaulipas

Coahuila de Zaragoza

Tlaxcala

Colima

Veracruz de Ignacio de la Llave

Durango

Yucatán

Guerrero

Zacatecas

Guanajuato

Hidalgo

Jalisco

México

Michoacán de Ocampo

Morelos

Mexico

Generating electricity with 35% clean energy by 2024

Average annual rate of 1.9% reduction in final energy consumption intensity in 2016-2030, and of 3.7% in 2031-2050

Renewable energy to account for 35% of total electricty generation by 2024, 37.7% by 2030, 50% by 2050

Renewable energy sources to account for 35.1% of total energy generation by 2024; 39.9% by 2023, and; 50% by 2050

Transition to a rate of 0% carbon loss in original ecosystems

Renewable energy sources should account for 35% of total energy generation by 2024

Reduction of GHG emissions by 30% by 2020, and by 50% by 2050 against a 2000 baseline

Annual average reduction of energy intensity in final consumption 2.2% between 2020-2035, and 2.5% between 2035-2050.

Target on Clean Energy: 35% by 2024; 39-9% by 2033; and 50% by 2050.




By 2030, Mexico will reduce its total GHG emissions by 22% and will reduce its Black Carbon emissions by 51% compared with a 2000 baseline

Reducing  emissions by 30% by the year 2020 and 50% reduction in emissions by 2050, against a 2000 baseline

30% cut in GHG emission against baseline by 2020 and 50% cut in GHG emission compared to 2000 in 2050

Minimum 35% of electricity from clean energy sources by 2024

Around 35% of electricity generation will come from clean sources by 2020, al least 40% by 2030 and at least 50% by 2050

Forest carbon sinks have a positive balance on sequestration by 2030, compared with negative situation today

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

On October 1, 2025, Nuestro Futuro, A.C., representing The Whales of the Gulf of California, filed amparo lawsuit alleging a failure to act on the part of the Ministry of the Environment, which violates the general conservation obligation under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the specific duty to conserve the marine environment set forth in the Convention on the Law of the Sea. This failure is attributable to the fact that the Ministry has not issued the decree that would classify the Gulf of California as a critical habitat for the protection of endangered wildlife species, despite that this ecosystem is threatened by the interests of the fossil fuel industry.

The expansion of the fossil fuel industry is currently threatening the whales that inhabit the Gulf of California. Specifically, there are three natural gas liquefaction projects planned for the Gulf’s coastline: Saguaro LNG, Amigo LNG, and Vista Pacifico LNG. These projects are natural gas liquefaction terminals that will transport gas from Texas through Mexico to be exported on LNG carriers via the Gulf of California to Asia. The problem identified is that LNG carriers will be passing through this ecosystem, known as the “Aquarium of the World,” because it is the home to 39% of the world’s marine mammal species, overlapping with at least 12 cetacean species habitats.

The lawsuit argues that the whales should have standing to file for the conservation and protection of their species in the Gulf of California. Therefore, the lawsuit calls for protective, conservation, and care measures commensurate with the recognition that the whales possess intrinsic rights derived from respect for their life cycles: migration, feeding, reproduction, freedom of movement, and the right to life itself.

The complaint seeks the designation of the Gulf of California as a critical habitat under the General Wildlife Law. Under this law, a critical habitat is described as “areas that are regularly used for feeding, hunting, foraging, resting, rearing, or breeding, or as migration routes” for endangered species. The lawsuit argues that the government has an obligation to protect and conserve these species, arising from its international and constitutional obligations, in the face of the expansion of natural gas export infrastructure. These obligations are fulfilled by declaration of the Gulf of California as a critical habitat.

On October 6, 2025, the District Court agreed to hear the case. The case is pending.

On October 1, 2025, a non-profit, representing The Whales of the Gulf of California, filed amparo lawsuit against the environmental impact permits issued by the Ministry of the Environment and the ASEA, for “Saguaro Project LNG”, since they were issued in violation of the constitutional and treaty-based duty to protect the right to a healthy environment—as understood from an eco-centric perspective—and of the obligations to conserve biodiversity.

In 2006, the Ministry of the Environment authorized the construction of a natural gas regasification terminal off the coast of the community of Puerto Libertad, Sonora. In 2018, the company decided to replace the authorized industrial project with a natural gas liquefaction terminal, and ASEA authorized it without conducting a comprehensive study of the project modifications. This industrial development is known as the “Saguaro Project.” 

The Saguaro Project is a natural gas liquefaction plant that will transport gas from Texas through Mexico to be exported on LNG carriers via the Gulf of California to Asia. The problem identified is that LNG carriers will be passing through this ecosystem, known as the “Aquarium of the World,” because it is the home to 39% of the world’s marine mammal species, overlapping with at least 12 cetacean species habitats. The environmental authorizations did not consider the project’s impact on the whale species that live, migrate, feed and breed in the Gulf.

The lawsuit argues that the whales should have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the environmental permits, because the approved project would disrupt their life cycles and jeopardize the conservation and protection of their species in the Gulf of California. Therefore, the lawsuit calls for protective, conservation, and care measures commensurate with the recognition that the whales possess intrinsic rights derived from respect for their life cycles: migration, feeding, reproduction, freedom of movement, and the right to life itself.

The complaint seeks two reliefs: first, the designation of the Gulf of California as a critical habitat under the General Wildlife Law; and second, a declaration that the environmental permits are unconstitutional due to violations of Articles 4 and 27 of the Constitution, as well as various international treaties such as the Law of the Sea Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Escazú Agreement.

On October 6, 2025, the District Court agreed to hear the case. The case is pending.

In August 2024, a group of fisherwomen, together with the organization Tsikini A.C. residents from the state of Colima, filed an amparo lawsuit asking for legal protection against various authorities, including the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE), from the damage caused by the Manzanillo Thermoelectric Power Plant (the second largest thermoelectric plant in Mexico, which uses fuel oil and gas), citing the violation of the human right to a healthy environment and health, and the failure to comply with climate commitments.

The lawsuit alleged, among others, lack of access to information on pollutants or data on emissions from the thermoelectric plant and/or their effects; failure to measure hidden externalities, such as human, environmental, and climate health, which are currently causing serious damage; lack of mitigation measures and compliance with environmental and climate laws; destruction of the Cuyutlán lagoon, the fourth most important wetland on the Mexican Pacific coast, and failure to comply with climate commitments resulting from the operation of the thermoelectric plant. 

The lawsuit emphasizes the underlying climate implications of the thermoelectric plant's operation, as its operation represents a failure to comply with the Mexican government's climate policy (targets committed to under the Paris Agreement) and questions the energy transition model followed in the country to date.

On March 2025 the District Court granted an injunction, ordering that the authorities, within the scope of their duties and authority, take the necessary actions to safeguard the complainants' right to a healthy environment and:  i) immediately monitor the natural water reservoir known as Laguna de Cuyutlán and verify whether actions are being taken to protect the ecosystem that comprises it; (ii) examine whether the Thermoelectric Plant located in that locality is complying with environmental regulations and with the process of electricity generation and fuel gas storage, in order to prevent contamination of the water and air in the area covered by the plant; (iii) if they notice that activities are being carried out that are harmful to the environment, they shall issue measures to prevent pollution and achieve the remediation of the lagoon; that is, they must take the necessary measures to control and limit pollutants in the process of storing fuel gas, as well as in the process of generating electricity at the thermoelectric power plant; (iv) grant access to information on pollutants and their impact in a manner accessible to the population of Cuyutlán, which must be done twice a year, so that the appropriate preventive measures can be taken to safeguard their physical integrity. This information must be published in the media or on the website used for this purpose; and (v) provide medical care to the local population who suffer any health problems as a result of the environmental pollution generated by the thermoelectric plant.

The case is pending before the District Court.

The Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA) filed an amparo lawsuit in September 2025 for the Ministry of Energy’s failure to comply with the legal target set out in the General Law on Climate Change which established an obligation to produce, by 2024, at least 35% of its electricity generation from clean energy sources.

On February 2026, the District Court dismissed the Ministry of Energy’s arguments and decided in favor of CEMDA, based on the following arguments: i) It determined that CEMDA does have standing to file the lawsuit because its purpose is the protection of the environment and that the Ministry’s omission affects collective environmental services such as good air quality and climate regulation, which benefit all people. ii) The Court clarified that the law not only obliges the Ministry to “attempt” to meet the targets by implementing public policies to that end, but also imposes an obligation to achieve a result, which is to reach 35% by 2024; and iii) The evidence of the Ministry’s non-compliance was made explicit, since in its own reports, the agency states that in 2023 the share of clean energy fell to 26.5%, thus moving away from the legal target.

As a result, the District Court ordered the Ministry of Energy to: Inform the Court within 90 business days of all public policies, incentives, programs, or projects aimed at meeting the goal; present a timetable with intermediate targets for achieving the 35 percentage.; apply the principle of non-regression, which means that targets lower than those already achieved cannot be proposed.

Geography

Mexico

Recent cases