December 10 is human rights day, thus it seemed quite fitting to attend an event that discussed how to frame climate change as a human rights issue.
The predicted impacts of climate change include increased intensity and frequency of extreme climatic events, droughts, floods, ocean acidification, among others, which in turn threaten food security, limit water availability, and increase the propensity for diseases. In effect, climate change jeopardizes the livelihood of many.
The panel consisted of representatives from Climate Law and Policy Project, Earthjustice and Republic of Seychelles. An Inuit and environmental activist stated that it is an ethical imperative to act on climate change. Global warming of the arctic, caused by green house gas emissions, threatened her culture, damaged her home and violated her people’s rights. She presented a petition with 4 demands:
- Parties accept Climate Change
- Recognize the Human Rights violations by emitting GHG
- Protect the human rights of people for whom climate change impacts are inevitable
- Ensure that the definition of “vulnerable” areas includes those of ice and snow
Aside: During this discussion water was stated as a “pre-requisite for the realization of human rights” yet it was not included in any demands. I think it should, but I must keep in minnd the objective of the COP: stabilize GHG emissions at levels that prevent irreversible negative impacts.
The idea of human rights violation brought up the point of an ecological debt that developed nations owe to developing nations. A more extreme panel (short from proposing a vigil, civil disobedience and sequestration until an agreement was signed) with members of only developing countries made the point that it is the marginalized nations that indeed suffer the most. “Climate change is like a sinking ship. The ones in the bottom sink first, but soon after, so do the ones at the top.”
The extreme panel also seemed to suggest that big business was at the root of the problem. To completely eliminate the business sector, or cast it as the foe, seems ineffective to me. The business sector has unique capabilities particularly to mobilize financial capital. Something that is very difficult to do if when the legal framework is purely humanitarian and voluntary.
To structure climate change as a human rights issue is to take a moral element and give it a legal backbone. This is often necessary in order to drive action. (This could be analogous to the U.S structuring greenhouse gas emissions as a health issue and thus allowing the EPA to act.)
Written by ANJULI JAIN.
Climate Blue 
There is a market shift, at least there is here in the USA. Consumers and shareholders are beginning to make demands on business with respect to climate change and sustainability in general. Even the most hard-nosed businessman needs to acknowledge the existence of climate change, if not as an atmospheric phenomenon, then at the very least as a market shift. There is good money to be made saving the world.
Why blame business? Because it is faceless. It is the best thing to blame when you want to keep it from being personal, business or maybe “the government”. But who is business? While it may satisfy some emotional desire to place the blame somewhere, does it even make sense to blame business? Who is responsible for the decisions that businesses make? Management? The board of directors? Consumers? Investors?
When it comes down to it, we’re ALL to blame. Did you buy a product? Did you invest in the company but do nothing? Did you invest in a fund that invested in the company? Did you not invest in the company and hence forgo an opportunity to speak at a shareholder meeting? Did you protest outside the company’s doors? Did you take the most extreme action humanly possible to stop that business from doing what you didn’t want it to do?
No?
Well, you are to blame. It’s okay though, we’re a big club, you have friends among us.
The extreme panel also seemed to suggest that big business was at the root of the problem. To completely eliminate the business sector, or cast it as the foe, seems ineffective to me. The business sector has unique capabilities particularly to mobilize financial capital. Something that is very difficult to do if when the legal framework is purely humanitarian and voluntary.
LikeLike