“The CHR Report is the first of its kind, and its contribution to the climate change discussion, particularly
that on loss and damage, is invaluable.”
A few weeks from now, governments will meet in Sharm Al Sharif in Egypt for the 27th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
It will be a pivotal meeting that will hopefully make progress on addressing the climate emergency.
Specifically, I hope climate justice will guide the actions of everyone.
Several months ago, the Commission on Human Rights published its report on the link between climate change and human rights.
The report concluded that climate change is a human rights issue and Carbon Majors can be held liable for their human rights violations.
While belatedly released, the Report is a big win for the environmental and climate justice movement, especially as we strengthen our resolve to combat the climate crisis, here in the Philippines and everywhere else in the world.
A battle cry by many climate activists and environmental workers for years now, it is a victory to witness human rights institutions acknowledge this important—and fundamental—truth.
Acknowledging that climate change is a human rights issue has many consequences, including the fact that the way to fight the climate crisis will involve a deep resolve to simultaneously protect and promote human rights.
The CHR noted the many impacts of climate change on the rights of people, including, but not limited to, their rights to life, health (both physical and mental), food security, water and sanitation, livelihood, adequate housing, and the right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.
Laudably, the Report mentioned rights to preservation of culture, noting that “climate change particularly impacts cultures closely connected with the natural environment,” and using rituals and cultures of indigenous peoples as examples.
The Report also discussed the impact of climate change to the right of future generations and inter-generational equity, noting that the lack of urgency in the fight against the climate crisis unfairly shifts the burden unto future generations.
Perhaps one of the most important, if not the main highlight, of the CHR Report was the discussion on the liability of Carbon Majors—fossil fuel and agriculture companies among others—in the context of climate change.
It used a study that linked the emissions of Carbon Majors to observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and an increase in global average temperature, among others.
To discuss further their liabilities, the CHR noted that these Carbon Majors had early awareness, notice, or knowledge of the adverse effects of their products.
Further, that these Carbon Majors engaged in willful obfuscation and obstruction (including the coal industry’s “history of misleading the public about climate science” and the Carbon Majors’ efforts to sow “doubt and misinformation about climate change”), which, according to the CHR, “prejudiced the right of the public to make informed decisions about their products, concealing that their products posed significant harms to the environment and the climate system.”
The CHR concluded that paragraph strongly by saying that “[a]ll these have served to obfuscate scientific findings and delay meaningful environment and climate action.”
The CHR ended its groundbreaking Report with a number of recommendations. Despite the successes of the Paris Agreement, which had, for one of its main goals the limiting of temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, preferably 1.5 degrees, compared to pre-industrial levels, the CHR echoed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s report that even if all the current Nationally
Determined Contributions (NDCs) are implemented, “the world will still face a 2.7 degree increase in temperature by the end of the century.
“Therefore, there is a need for “maximum ambition from all countries on all fronts.”
Its recommendations to governments focused on climate justice, discouraging the dependence on fossil fuels, and ensuring that all persons have the necessary capacity to adapt to climate change, among others.
Notably, it also recommended governments, specifically developed nations, to fulfill their climate finance commitments and device new mechanisms for loss and damage from climate-related events, stressing the need for “a separate finance mechanism for loss and damage xxx to assist developing countries” in addition to climate financing for mitigation and adaptation, a call that environmental workers, particularly from climate-vulnerable countries, have been making.
The fact that this is part of the recommendations, therefore, is a big victory for climate justice.
Another notable recommendation to governments was to support and provide adequate legal protection to environmental defenders and climate activists, and States are encouraged to, for instance, (a) stop labeling climate advocates, environmental groups, and defenders as enemies of the State, and other related actions, based on their advocacy for climate action, and (b) prohibit vilification, surveillance, red-tagging, threats of retaliation, and other activities that limit the freedom of climate activist and environmental groups.
The CHR Report is the first of its kind, and its contribution to the climate change discussion, particularly that on loss and damage, is invaluable.
It provided novel recommendations, put a lot of focus on climate justice and just transition, and laid down one by one and in no uncertain terms—rights, obligations, and liabilities. It can now serve as precedent and can be cited by courts all over the world as we begin to witness a surge in climate litigation.
Website; tonylavina.com.
Facebook: deantonylavs
Twitter: tonylavs
