Climate Change and Human Rights

Die Erde, 2006

Political Studies, 1999

Global climate change has important implications for the way in which benefits and burdens will be distributed amongst present and future generations. As a result it raises important questions of intergenerational justice. It is shown that there is at least one serious problem for those who wish to approach these questions by utilising familiar principles of justice. This is that such theories often pre-suppose harm-based accounts of injustice which are incompatible with the fact that the very social policies which climatologists and scientists claim will reduce the risks of climate change will also predictably, if indirectly, determine which individuals will live in the future. One proposed solution to this problem is outlined grounded in terms of 2 See M. Grubb, 'Seeking fair weather: ethics and the international debate on climate change ', International Affairs, 71, 3 (1995), 463-96; H. Shue, 'Avoidable necessity: Global warming, international fairness, and alternative energy', in I.

in Thomas Cottier et al. (Eds.), Intergenerational Equity: Environmental and Cultural Concerns, Leiden/Boston, Brill-Martinus Nijhoff, World Trade Institute Advanced Studies series, 2019, pp.115-138

Drawing on recent examples of the Paris Agreement talks and Trump's vivid efforts to make America’s energy potential great again, I argue that attempts to resolve the issue of climate change through the constrained channels of an international environmental treaty would eventually fail. From the perspective of intergenerational justice, the problem of climate change, and in particular, current attempts to regulate the GHG emissions reveal the inadequacy of combined market-based and traditional international law strategies in the face of endless economic growth on the one hand, and persistent population growth on the other, both implying ever-rising energy consumption and natural resources depletion. In this chapter, I submit that the ideas of a wider narrative and practices of contemporary environmentalism and sustainability should change. To wit, today’s approach to climate change as an issue to be solved by international environmental law and policies precludes us from addressing it from a more pluralistic and inclusive perspective. Such perspective should spread far beyond the universality of State form, an international environmental treaty, the paradigm of sustainable economic growth and ensuing cost-benefit analysis resulting into market-based efforts. In the ultimate section of the chapter I offer some solutions to the above problem.

The 'consequentialist' and 'welfarist' approach − the assessment of a policy in terms of its consequences for individual welfare − that is embodied in standard welfare economics is highly relevant to the ethics of climate change. In Section 2.3, we described the standard approach to ethics in welfare economics i.e. the evaluation of actions in terms of their consequences for consumption by individuals of goods and services. We emphasised that 'goods and services' in consumption were multi-dimensional and should be interpreted broadly. In this appendix we examine that approach in a little more detail and compare it with different ethical perspectives of relevance to the economics of climate change. For many applications of the standard theory, the community is defined as the nation-state and the decision-maker is interpreted as the government. Indeed this is often seen as sufficiently obvious as to go unstated. This is not, of course, intended to deny the complexities and pressures of political systems: the results of this approach should be seen as an ethical benchmark rather than a descriptive model of how political decisions are actually taken. Nevertheless, questions such as 'what do individuals value', 'what should be their relation to decisions and decision-making', 'what is the decision-making process' and 'who are the decision-makers' arise immediately and strongly in the ethical analysis of climate change. These questions take us immediately to different perspectives on ethics. Economics, together with the other social sciences, has in fact embraced a much broader perspective on the objectives of policy than that of standard welfare-economic analysis. Amartya Sen 1 , for example, has focused on the capabilities and freedoms of individuals to live a life they have reason to value, rather than narrowly on the bundles of goods and services they consume. His focus is on opportunities and the processes that create them, rather than on outcomes only. Similar emphases come from discussions of equity 2 (with its focus on opportunity), empowerment 3 , or social inclusion 4. While such perspectives are indeed different, in practice many of the indicators arising from them would overlap strongly with the areas of focus in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and other indicators commonly used by international institutions. Indeed, the MDGs were the outcome of analyses and discussions which themselves embraced a range of ethical approaches. Impacts of climate change on future generations and other nations raise very firmly questions of rights. Protection from harm done by others lies at the heart of many philosophical approaches to liberty, freedom and justice. 5 Protection from harm is also expressed in many legal structures round the world in terms of legal responsibility for damage to the property or well-being of others. This is often applied whether or not the individual or firm was knowingly doing harm. A clear example is asbestos, whose use was not prohibited 6 when it was placed in buildings with the worthy purpose of protecting against the spread of fire. Nevertheless insurance companies are still today paying large sums as compensation for its consequences.

Environmental Politics, 2011

2014

It is widely recognized that Climate Change (CC) is a multidimensional, spatiotemporal and multi scale problem. These features raise an issue of framing: this means that it is difficult to conceptualize such a problem. Hence we shall discuss whether to approach it as a global or an international issue and whether or not it encompasses features of global justice. In order to do so we shall define a typical issue of Global Justice to see if CC falls into such a definition. The argument of this paper is that even though these two issues share some characteristics, the latter is a wicked problem that entails issues related to collective action and future generations. If the old paradigms have failed in recognizing such an aspect, then CC must be addressed through a new perspective into the larger framework of Sustainable Development (SD). Still a constructive debate on which actors should be involved is needed. The thesis of this paper is that if Global Governance has failed a new agent must be selected and this agent must be the community of people who is more efficient when pushing governments in acting against CC. At the end the problems related to our theory will be set forth.

Anthropogenic climate change is a global process affecting the lives and well-being of millions of people now and countless number of people in the future. For humans, the consequences may include significant threats to food security globally and regionally, increased risks of from food-borne and water-borne as well as vector-borne diseases, increased displacement of people due migrations, increased risks of violent conf licts, slowed economic growth and poverty eradication, and the creation of new poverty traps. Principles of justice are statements of what persons are owed either by others or by institutions and policies. Climate change gives rise to many concern of justice. This article brief ly summarizes some of the most important of these, including claims to have climate change mitigated, claims regarding the sharing of the costs of climate change mitigation, claims for investment into adaptation, and claims to be compensated. Anthropogenic climate change is a global process affecting the lives and well-being of millions of people now and countless number of people in the future. 1 Although the effects of climate change are likely to appear as the result of natural processes and disasters – and even though it may be difficult, for the time being at least even impossible, to distinguish them from natural misfortunes – they are in fact the result of human energy use and policy. Without substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, especially CO 2 , the most likely rise in the mean equilibrium surface temperature of the Earth over pre-industrial times by the end of this century is in the range of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, but the possible range is much wider, 2.5 to 7.8 °C. 2 That much warming at that rate is unprecedented in human history. It would produce high to very high risks of severely negative effects, including widespread loss of species and eco-systemic destruction, heat waves, extreme precipitation, and large and irreversible sea-level rise from ice sheet loss. 3 For humans, these consequences would include significant threats to food security globally and regionally, increased risks of from food-borne and water-borne as well as vector-borne diseases, increased displacement of people due migrations, increased risks of violent conf licts, slowed economic growth and poverty eradication, and the creation of new poverty traps. 4 According to some forecasts, such warming could simply overwhelm the capacity of communities in various regions to adapt, rendering certain areas uninhabitable. '[T]he limits for human adaptation are likely to be exceeded in many parts of the world, while the limits of adaptation for natural resource systems would largely be exceeded throughout the world.' 5 Principles of justice are statements of what persons are owed either by others or by institutions and policies. Climate change gives rise to many concern of justice. This article brief ly summarizes some of the most important of these, but due to the need to be brief, some important considerations relevant to justice will not be discussed. For example, although we will discuss formulations of various principles of justice, we will not consider all of the relevant questions regarding the formulation and justification of these principles. Additionally, considerations of justice directly raise questions of responsibility. Accounts of responsibility concern who is called upon to deliver that which is owed to those who are owed. Although there is a reasonably clear distinction in

Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2010

Global warming is expected to contribute to many human wrongs: disease, malnutrition, flooding of coastal communities. But does every human wrong violate a human right? Should we conceptualize climate change not only as an environmental problem – the preeminent one of our time – but also as a human rights violation? Proposals to treat climate change as a human rights problem raise many fundamental questions. Theoretically, what does it mean to conceptualize climate change in human rights terms? How would a human rights approach differ from treating climate change as an environmental or economic or scientific problem? Descriptively, what does human rights law say about climate change and, conversely, what does climate change law say about human rights? Normatively, does it make sense to approach climate change as a human rights issue? What are the pros and cons? This brief introduction to a symposium issue of the Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law on climate change and human rights seeks to map out the overarching distinctions and questions.

Journal of Human Rights and Social work, 2025