The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, echoed this message in Geneva earlier this year and posed a question to the Human Rights Council:
“Are we taking the necessary measures to protect people from climate chaos, safeguard their future and manage natural resources in a way that respects human rights and the environment?
His answer was very simple: we are not doing enough.
In this regard, the impacts of climate change must be understood not only as a climate emergency, but also as a violation of human rights, said Professor Joyeeta Gupta. UN News recently
She is co-chair of the international scientific advisory body Earth Commission and one of the the UN high-level representatives for science, technology and innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Who suffers the most?
Professor Gupta said that the 1992 climate convention never quantified human harm.
She noted that when the Paris agreement was adopted in 2015, the global consensus settled on limiting warming to 2° Celsius, later recognizing 1.5° Celsius as a safer target.
But for small island states, even that was a compromise forced by the imbalance of power, and “for them, two degrees was not viable,” Professor Gupta said.
“Rising seas, saltwater intrusion and extreme storms threaten to wipe out entire nations. When rich countries demanded scientific proof, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was tasked with studying the difference between 1.5° Celsius and 2° Celsius,” she continued.
She said the results were clear: 1.5° Celsius is significantly less destructive but still dangerous.
In his own research published in NatureShe says one degree Celsius is the right limit, because beyond that point, the impacts of climate change violate the rights of more than 1% of the world’s population, or around 100 million people.
The tragedy, she stressed, is that the planet crossed one degree in 2017 and will likely exceed 1.5° Celsius by 2030.
She stressed that promises of cooling later in the century ignore irreversible damage, including melting glaciers, collapsing ecosystems and lost lives.
“If the Himalayan glaciers melt,” she said, “they will not come back. We will live with the consequences forever.”
A man helps a woman after her car is stuck in waist-deep water. Globally, rainfall is more extreme due to the impacts of climate change.
A question of responsibility
Climate justice and development go hand in hand. Every fundamental right – from water and food to housing, mobility and electricity – requires energy.
“We believe that we can respond to the Sustainable Development Goals without changing the way the rich live. This does not work mathematically or ethically,” Professor Gupta explained.
His research shows that meeting basic human needs has a significant carbon footprint.
The research also highlights that since the planet has already exceeded safe limits, wealthy societies must reduce their emissions much more aggressively, not only to protect the climate, but also to create carbon space for others to assert their rights.
“Failure to do so turns inequalities into injustice. » she emphasized.
Climate change and displacement
Displacement is one of the most obvious effects of climate injustice. However, international law still does not recognize “climate refugees”.
Professor Gupta explains the progression clearly.
“Climate change first forces adaptation, for example by moving from water-intensive rice to drought-resistant crops. When adaptation fails, people absorb the losses: land, livelihoods, security. When survival itself becomes impossible, displacement begins,” she said.
“If the land becomes too dry to grow crops and there is no drinking water,” she said, “people are forced to leave.”
She added that most climate shifts today occur within countries or regions, not between continents.
“Moving is expensive, dangerous and often undesirable. The legal challenge is proving causation: did people leave because of climate change or because of other factors like poor governance or market failures?”
“This is where the science of attribution becomes crucial. New studies now compare decades of data to show when and how climate change alters precipitation, heat, health outcomes and extreme events. As this science advances, it may become possible to integrate climate displacement into international refugee law,” she noted.
“That,” she said, “will be the next step.” »
Africa’s children are among the most exposed to the impacts of climate change.
A broken legal framework
Professor Gupta said that addressing climate damage through human rights law is quite difficult due to the fragmented architecture of international law.
“This fragmentation allows states to compartmentalize responsibilities…They can say, ‘I accepted this here, but not there,’” she said.
“Environmental treaties, human rights conventions, trade agreements and investment regimes operate in parallel worlds. Countries can sign climate agreements without being bound by human rights treaties, or protect investors while ignoring environmental destruction,” she added.
She said this is why it is so difficult to invoke climate change as a global human rights violation. Until recently, climate damage was discussed in technical terms – parts per million of carbon dioxide, temperature targets, emission pathways – without explicitly asking: what does this do to humans?
Only recently has this started to change.
In a historic advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) clarified that climate change cannot be assessed in isolation. Courts and governments, the ICJ said, must consider climate obligations in conjunction with human rights and other environmental agreements.
For Professor Gupta, this legal change is long overdue but vital.
“He finally says to governments: we cannot talk about climate without talking about people.”
Climate change is transboundary
Assigning responsibility for climate change is exceptionally complex because its impacts cross borders, she said.
“For example, a Peruvian farmer sued a German company in a German court for damages caused by climate change. The court recognized that foreign plaintiffs can bring such suits, but proving the link between emissions and damages remains a major challenge. This case highlights the difficulties of holding states or companies accountable for cross-border climate-related human rights abuses,” she added.
Professor Gupta said the science of attribution helps link emissions to specific harms.
The ICJ has now affirmed that the continued use of fossil fuels may constitute an internationally wrongful act. States are responsible not only for their emissions, but also for regulating businesses within their borders.
“Different legal strategies are emerging, from lawsuits for corporate misrepresentations in the United States to France’s corporate vigilance law,” she added.
Vehicle emissions, diesel generators, biomass and waste burning have all contributed to poor air quality in Nigeria’s Lagos Lagoon. (2016 file)
Climate stability as a collective human right
Rather than considering climate as an individual right, Professor Gupta argues in favor of recognizing a collective right to a stable climate.
She explained that climate stability supports agriculture, water systems, supply chains and daily predictability, and that without it, society cannot function.
“Climate runs on water,” she said. “And water is at the heart of everything.”
Courts around the world are increasingly recognizing that climate instability infringes on existing human rights, even though climate itself is not yet codified as such.
This reflection is now echoed at the highest levels of the UN.
Erosion of fundamental rights
Speaking at the Human Rights Council in Geneva in June this year, UN High Commissioner Volker Türk warned that climate change was already eroding fundamental rights, particularly for the most vulnerable.
But he also presented climate action as an opportunity.
“Climate change can be a powerful lever for progress,” he said, if the world commits to a just transition away from environmentally destructive systems.
“What we need now,” he stressed, “is a roadmap to rethink our societies, our economies and our policies in an equitable and sustainable way.”
Political will, power and responsibility
“The erosion of multilateralism symbolized by the repeated withdrawals of the United States from Paris Agreement weakened global confidence. Meanwhile, 70 percent of the expansion of new fossil fuels is driven by four rich countries: the United States, Canada, Norway and Australia,” said Professor Gupta.
She argues that neoliberal ideology focused on markets, deregulation and individual freedom cannot solve a collective crisis.
“Climate change is a public good issue,” she said. “This requires rules, cooperation and strong states. »
Developing countries face a dilemma: wait for climate finance while emissions rise, or act independently and seek justice later. Waiting, she warns, is suicidal.
As the United Nations High Commissioner in Geneva concluded, a just transition must leave no one behind.
“If we fail to protect lives, health, jobs and the future,” Volker Türk warned, “we will reproduce the very injustices we claim to fight.”
Originally published at Almouwatin.com
