The crisis of climate change risks irrevocably damaging the planet and biodiversity – and all of us will be affected by the challenge of mitigating it. The UN Environment Programme has described what we are facing as a “triple planetary crisis”, such is the gravity of scientific evidence about global warming, the scale of biodiversity loss and the impact of toxic waste pollution.
It’s crisis for humanity, damaging health, claiming lives and livelihoods, and threatening the existence of small island states and coastal communities. According to the World Health Organisation, 24 per cent of global deaths are linked to the environment each year – eight million of which are caused by forms of air pollution. Between 2030 and 2050, an extra 250,000 deaths are anticipated globally directly due to climate-induced risks, such as heat stress, malnutrition and malaria. Climate change is part of a deeper environmental crisis, which has the destruction of human rights and health at its core.
Cop26 was not expected to meet the ambition contained in the Paris Agreement to keep global temperature rises within 1.5 degrees, with models predicting 1.8-2.4 degrees if existing commitments are delivered. If Cop27 in Egypt next year can definitively close that gap, it will be the most impactful step possible to safeguard human rights.
Between 2030 and 2050, an extra 250,000 deaths are anticipated globally directly due to climate-induced risks, such as heat stress, malnutrition and malaria
The inclusivity of the language on human rights in the preamble to the Glasgow Climate Pact is striking. It’s tempting to dismiss this as not providing anything fresh or substantive. The pact calls on states to “respect, promote and consider” their obligations on human rights “when taking action to address climate change”.
The preamble highlights in particular the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities and other vulnerable persons – including migrants, people with disabilities and young people.
Social injustice
The importance of “climate justice” is noted, a brief acknowledgment in stark contrast with the size of the global movement so effectively raising awareness of social injustice inherent in climate change .
Repeated mentions of rights of indigenous peoples and their role in highlighting cultural knowledge to inform action on climate change extends the language on indigenous peoples present in the Paris Agreement.
It’s welcome to see language reflecting the reality of indigenous peoples as stakeholders in conservation, and not only as victims. This was evident at the start of Cop26, when the Norwegian Supreme Court revoked wind-farm licences for violating the Sami reindeer herders’ way of life. Pro-climate projects shouldn’t get a special pass.
There is substantial scope to deliver actions upholding rights, equality, climate justice – and the expansion of this language in the Glasgow Climate Pact shows that demands for such action cannot be ignored.
Some aspects of the Glasgow Climate Pact risk undermining human rights. At a deeper level, they reflect unwillingness on the part of some developed countries to take responsibility for their contributions to climate change. The failure to establish a loss-and-damage facility is an example.
The idea of the international community providing compensation to developing countries for material damage was part of the climate debate three decades ago. Instead of establishing a body to deliver funding, the “Glasgow Dialogue between Parties” will discuss the concept over the coming three years.
Whatever inspires this ongoing reluctance to take responsibility, the moral imperative to compensate countries impacted by climate change caused by industrialised nations largely remains a topic for dialogue. Adaptation funding pledges at Cop26 could help notwithstanding this – pledges stand at $356 million, one-third pledged by the EU ($116 million). But dealing with climate damage can only be comprehensively done with predictable and formalised funding streams.
International community
Cop26 was tasked with finalising the “Paris rulebook” to guide countries on how to meet their commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement. Central to this was the regulation of carbon markets – whereby countries which overperform in decarbonisation can sell their credits on, in theory helping other countries to decarbonise more affordably and meet their climate goals.
The urgency to proceed with carbon trading mechanisms at Cop26 was unjustified
The Centre for International Environmental Law warned that the models in which the world avoids the risk of failing to limit warming to 1.5 degrees rely on “near or complete decarbonisation by 2050”. With the international community so far off the goal of 1.5 degrees, and when commitments to the deep decarbonisation needed are set to long time scales, the urgency to proceed with carbon trading mechanisms at Cop26 was unjustified.
Sharpening human rights, environmental and social safeguards, enhancing accountability and public engagement, and requiring the consent of indigenous communities for projects are essential measures to prevent polluting states abusing the system.
At Cop27, the stakes will be even higher – for the future of our climate and for the rights of people already suffering the consequences of climate change. There is huge energy and optimism outside of the Cop arena that will keep pushing for progress, not least on filling the gaps evident in the Glasgow Climate Pact.
The youth climate justice movement sweeping courts around the world reminds us that intergenerational rights risk being defined by the climate crisis. It is in everyone’s interest that Cop27 elevates human rights, placing them at the centre of every political decision that makes it into the final text.
Noreen O’Meara is senior lecturer in human rights and European law at the University of Surrey