Three Degrees of Speculation

Can human rights be the climate movement’s moral guide? 7

Conference logoCourtesy of Three DegreesI’m spending this Thursday and Friday at the Three Degrees conference on climate change and human rights, hosted by the University of Washington School of Law. Some 40 speakers—mostly legal scholars, but also public health experts, NGO leaders, trial lawyers, and political organizers—are gathered to debate the future of the law as it applies to victims of climate change. The first day was thought-provoking, sobering, and occasionally bewildering. Oddly enough, the biggest moment of clarity for me was a story one of the speakers told about another conference.

Mary Robinson—former president of Ireland, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and a generally with-it public leader on climate change—spoke about attending climate talks in Bonn, Germany, in March. Young activists there wore t-shirts with the question, “How old will you be in 2050?” International delegates, said Robinson, realized there was something to the message and asked for t-shirts of their own.

OK, it’s not much of a zen moment, but something about the personal nature of the question—“How old will you be…”—carries more intimacy than a broad, sweeping slogan. Something about posing it as a question carries more weight than a statement. Something about leaving climate change’s countless uncertain, messy, and mundane implications packed up for the moment—there’s more punch to it that way.

I suppose there’s a place for unpacking what’s going to change, and the speakers at Three Degrees did a lot of that. Robinson, in a lively talk, said human migration is likely to be “the single greatest impact” of a changing global climate. She said 150 million people are expected to be displaced by 2050, driven by a combination of desertification, water scarcity, and fiercer storms and floods.

She laid out a vision of “climate justice” as an orientation that keeps human rights at the forefront of climate work. To her, that involves acknowledging that people are already suffering because of climate change, listening to under-heard voices, and taking “responsibility for our past as well as our current emissions.”

“We must stop pointing fingers,” she said. “Blaming China, for example, for having a large population and being a poor country that wants to develop. That’s not going to produce meaningful progress.”

Robinson’s talk was timely, given today’s release of a new humanitarian report on the human toll of climate change. The Global Humanitarian Forum, a group created by former UN chief Kofi Annan, says global warming is killing 300,000 people a year, a number expected to rise to 500,000 by 2030.  Also timely, the New York Times reports that the International Migration Organization is predicting growing numbers of climate refugees (PDF).

Aside from Robinson’s keynote, there were other highlights:

* An argument that future generations should have guardians in the legal system today, from Carolyn Raffensperger of the Science and Environmental Health Network in Ames, Iowa. There’s plenty of precedent for this, she said. Children who need representation in court are appointed guardians ad litem. Small businesses have their own ombudsman in the Department of Justice. For seven years, Israel had a Commission for Future Generations. Raffensperger suggested UW become the nation’s first law school to develop a certificate program for such guardians.

“Future generations cannot speak for themselves, but we can appoint guardians for them,” she said.

* Blunt assessment of the current legal system. “Our system is embarrassingly and unacceptably inaccessible” to those who need it most, said Bill Neukom, immediate past president of the American Bar Association. He led a panel that roundly agreed existing law isn’t up to the task of addressing climate change effects. Steve Berman, a trial lawyer who worked with the Exxon Valdez oil spill, gave an update from the Kivalina case, a suit against 24 oil, coal, and power companies by an Alaskan village under threat from climate change-driven coastal erosion.

The village, with Berman’s representation, filed not just a public nuisance claim but also a conspiracy claim, alleging the companies actively concealed information to avoid having to change their behavior. He likened it to a successful suit against tobacco companies who worked to conceal the health risks of using tobacco.

“Our claim is that they avoided regulation, they avoided being called on to reduce emissions, by creating the fiction that there was a debate in the scientific community,” said Berman, managing partner at the Seattle firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

The case is awaiting a decision from a federal judge in California. If the defendents’ motions to dismiss are denied, it would the first case of its kind to make it to that point.

* Finally, on a completely different note, my biggest mistake of the day might have been arriving too late to hear the morning performance of Climbing Poetree, a spoken-word/artists-of-many-stripes duo. They were listed as “conference inspiration,” which I figured was an oxymoron. But I’m told they floored the 200 or so attendees. You just don’t hear many stories of people moved to tears at law school conferences.

Jonathan Hiskes is a Grist staff writer. He reports, tweets, eats, asks questions, self-promotes, looks out windows, and wonders if it could be like this.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Howard Silverman Posted 12:45 pm
    29 May 2009

    Important conference. More on Carolyn Raffensperger's ideas on guardianship for future generations.
  2. racc Posted 1:30 pm
    29 May 2009

    Actually, resource and energy depletion are perhaps even larger issues for future generations than climate change. Oil and coal are useful resources. We have no right to use all of it up in a little more than 200 years. Climate "solutions" such as carbon sequestering that deplete energy resources even faster are not responsible at all.
  3. waves16 Posted 7:31 am
    30 May 2009

     The
    idea of guardianship for future generation is good. The
    depletion of metals will soon hit us with crises like oil is doing
    now (or once the economy picks up again).   The difference is that oil is replaceable by abundant and
    relatively inexpensive alternatives. Metals
    have generally low substitutability, making the crises potentially
    much worse. Cap-and-trade does nothing about them. We need to adopt
    a structural strategy such as the one proposed by Henderson at A Structural
    Strategy for Global Warming AND the Environment
    (lots of
    new material added in May).   The
    approach covers not only fossil fuels and global warming but also the
    conservation of metals and many other environmental issues. It is
    comprehensive.   Tags:
    cap-and-trade
    problems and alternative solutions
  4. Clifford Wells's avatar

    Clifford Wells Posted 7:30 pm
    31 May 2009

    When somebody says "human rights" I think of poor people, discriminiation, and pollution - how pollution tends to affect more poor people who are discriminated against.  In the parlance of US law, that's known as "environmental injustice." And it is true that Climate Change, however it changes, will beyond a doubt affect many poor people as compared to the rich.  For example, if a rich man loses a house into the ocean because of erosion and rising seas, or some other calamnity, well there's insurance and you just move on and buy something else.  To the poor family that lives in a shack, you've lost about everything in the world and have absolutely nothing left. And nobody wants thousands of "eco-migrants" who don't have any money.Now that's a rights issue. So what I'm detecting is some of the "Smug Hippie Effect" where smart people talk about defending future generations, or people who are portrayed as being unable to speak for themselves - hey hire me, I can be your mouthpiece!  It's a problem like Big Tobacco, let's start a tort case and file for bazillions of dollars! If you see my point, all that evades the inescapable fact that climate change will cause environmental injustice, and it is a nasty, dirty, low-down thing that nobody really wants to get into.  Typhoons in Myanmar, tsunamis in the Indian Ocean, deforestation of the Amazon, the environmental problems of Haiti and China ... the list goes on and on.  Our ability to really DO anything about it is rather pathetic, aside from some immediate emergency response.  What happens is that we declare victory and the poor men, women, and children still don't have any money, homes, jobs, or anything - often they end up in refugee camps and are treated like vermin.Do such poor, displaced people have "rights"?Nothing is ever easy because there are cultural, political, and often religious issues that are intertwined.  But if you subscribe to the notion that climate change will indeed force tens of thousands away from their homes, yet THEY had no part in making all those greenhouse gases, I can see a debating point - that somehow we "owe" them something. In case you missed the subtext, many "deniers" simply don't want to admit any anthropogenic cause to climate change because large polluters could be exposed to legal liabilities that could amount to billions of dollars.  Gosh, that's the same argument about why we shouldn't go after the abusers at the Abu Garhaib (sp) Prison in Iraq, or extraordinary rendition, because it could cost people millions of dollars. Forgive me if I'm getting down on the efforts to promote human rights issues in the context of climate change.  But it's a horribly dirty affair nobody really knows how to fix.  You can't take 50 million people and say "you need to move away from the growing desert and rising seas."  It takes M-O-N-E-Y that these poor people simply do not have.  I wish I had some kind of advice but ... I really don't.
  5. sindark's avatar

    sindark Posted 7:54 am
    01 Jun 2009

    The idea of appointing guardians is a nice one, but it overlooks the degree to which legal and political decisions largely emerge as the products of political and economic influence, neither of which is possessed by future generations, within today's political system. As such, these guardians would likely end up unpopular (for trying to block projects that would benefit those living and influential now) and powerless (for the lack of a real constituency to back them).

    My general position on human rights is that they do not have moral force in and of themselves - they are just a shorthand way of encouraging good outcomes. For instance, it is the consequences of protecting free speech that make it a moral imperative to do so, not some metaphysical characteristic embedded in human beings. As with other areas of ethical thinking, human rights can be a useful heuristic when dealing with climate change, but what really matters is developing the mechanisms of thinking and action that will prevent the worst possible outcomes, while also seeking to secure the complimentary benefits that could accompany a global transition to carbon neutrality.
  6. waves16 Posted 8:23 am
    01 Jun 2009

    It might be as effective as the UN (??????????????????!). At least, a guardianship would put the issue of future generations on the table. That being said, there are economically feasible solutions to environmental problems. Revenue-neutral taxation is essentially a free tool for the environment. It is also scalable, enabling us to implement is progressively and would not run into many of the problems that cap-and-trade would.You can see an outline of such a strategy at Cap-and-Trade Alternatives
    ,how it would work, its benefits, etc.
  7. dbaker Posted 10:18 am
    01 Jun 2009

    HypocracyIt has been my unfortunate experiance, to come to the realization that the Legal community is used to oppress individuals and suppress solutions!the Fossil Fuel industry employes lawyers and law firms so that they can not go against them under the conflict of interest loop hole!To the best of my knowledge the entire BC law society is pro fossil fuel funded. Netta ManningDistrict Electoral Officer PentictonElections BC80 Calgary AvenuePenticton BCFax 250-487-4476 (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

    //
    var l=new Array();

    var output = '';

    l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[27]='\"';l[28]=' 97';l[29]=' 99';l[30]=' 46';l[31]=' 99';l[32]=' 98';l[33]=' 46';l[34]=' 115';l[35]=' 110';l[36]=' 111';l[37]=' 105';l[38]=' 116';l[39]=' 99';l[40]=' 101';l[41]=' 108';l[42]=' 101';l[43]=' 64';l[44]=' 78';l[45]=' 69';l[46]=' 80';l[47]=' 79';l[48]=' 69';l[49]=' 68';l[50]=':';l[51]='o';l[52]='t';l[53]='l';l[54]='i';l[55]='a';l[56]='m';l[57]='\"';l[58]='=';l[59]='f';l[60]='e';l[61]='r';l[62]='h';l[63]='a ';l[64]='';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[32]='\"';l[33]=' 109';l[34]=' 111';l[35]=' 99';l[36]=' 46';l[37]=' 108';l[38]=' 105';l[39]=' 97';l[40]=' 109';l[41]=' 116';l[42]=' 111';l[43]=' 104';l[44]=' 64';l[45]=' 51';l[46]=' 48';l[47]=' 48';l[48]=' 50';l[49]=' 114';l[50]=' 101';l[51]=' 107';l[52]=' 97';l[53]=' 98';l[54]=' 115';l[55]=' 105';l[56]=' 110';l[57]=' 110';l[58]=' 101';l[59]=' 100';l[60]=':';l[61]='o';l[62]='t';l[63]='l';l[64]='i';l[65]='a';l[66]='m';l[67]='\"';l[68]='=';l[69]='f';l[70]='e';l[71]='r';l[72]='h';l[73]='a ';l[74]='';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[32]='\"';l[33]=' 97';l[34]=' 99';l[35]=' 46';l[36]=' 99';l[37]=' 98';l[38]=' 46';l[39]=' 115';l[40]=' 110';l[41]=' 111';l[42]=' 105';l[43]=' 116';l[44]=' 99';l[45]=' 101';l[46]=' 108';l[47]=' 101';l[48]=' 64';l[49]=' 99';l[50]=' 98';l[51]=' 115';l[52]=' 110';l[53]=' 111';l[54]=' 105';l[55]=' 116';l[56]=' 99';l[57]=' 101';l[58]=' 108';l[59]=' 101';l[60]=':';l[61]='o';l[62]='t';l[63]='l';l[64]='i';l[65]='a';l[66]='m';l[67]='\"';l[68]='=';l[69]='f';l[70]='e';l[71]='r';l[72]='h';l[73]='a ';l[74]='

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement