Transcript Slide 1
Human Rights, Future Generations and Climate Change: New Synergy or Costly Distraction Peter Lawrence, University of Tasmania What is required? • IPCC: 40–95 per cent reduction by 2050 as against 1990 levels, required in order to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. • Weaver et al show that a 90 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 will be required, in addition to direct carbon capture from the air with subsequent sequestration, to prevent global warming exceeding a 2 degrees C threshold Key Question • Does a human rights approach constitute an effective call for action on climate change to deliver justice for future generations? or • Burn up scarce negotiating resources and further complicate a crowded UNFCCC agenda? Criteria to assess whether human rights adds value. Does Human Rights: • • • • constitute an internally consistent approach, provide a call for stronger mitigation, increase protection of vulnerable groups, embody universal minimum standards and provide a basis to resolve conflict between inter and intra-generational justice, • assist in establishing thresholds eg 2 degrees threshold for dangerous anthropocentric climate change. Human Rights • Choice or claims theory (Kant, Hart Steiner): claimant must be able to assert a right - problematic for disabled and future unborn • Interest theory (Bentham, Raz) rights function to further the right holder‘s interests Human rights as universal core standards • Right to a clean environment upon which other rights depend (Hiskes) – extend to right to a stable climate system • Right to secure access to basic goods necessary for human flourishing (Pogge) extend to climate change “goods” can be basic needs, capacities (Sen, Nussbaum) future generations access to these threatened by climate change no necessary link to Western legal rights, implementation possible in non-legal forms collective rights, holistic view preferable The Promise of International Human Rights Law • Heightened political pressure for mitigation (2007 Male Declaration to OHCHR Report and Human Rights Council Decision 10/4 (2009)) • Avoid stating violation of human rights (difficulty in attribution) but • climate change impacted enjoyment of human rights (eg right to life, subsistence, health, self - determination) • Obligation to cooperate • Highlights vulnerable groups (eg Cancun decisions) Limitations of International Human Rights Law • Premised on right of citizen to be asserted against the state in which they reside (extraterritoriality controversial) • Individual claims difficult owing to causation (plus historic emissions vs existing emissions) • Responsive not preventative Conflicts between human rights • Rajamani’s example of poor in India’s claim for access to cheap fossil fuel and pacific island low lying states claim to avoid loss of their land. • Relevant rights to life, culture, development, permanent sovereinty over natural resouces • Need fairness/justice principle to resolve • Bell shows that liberal theories (Rawls and Beitz) fail to take into account attachment to place in island cultures. Beitz eg allows for continued pollution if you economically compensate island people even if they must move.