According to human rights theory, if climate change caused harm violates human rights, all governments have duties take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within their jurisdictions to that nation’s fair share of global emissions. Further, according to human rights theory, all persons whose rights are violated by climate change may demand protection from those nations who are exceeding their fair share of global emissions for as long as greenhouse gas emissions interfere with basic human rights.

If climate change can trigger human rights responsibilities, the duty to reduce national emissions to any nation’s fair share of global emission is not diminished because of justifications that have sometimes been used by some nations for not reducing their emissions such as cost-benefit analysis or the fact that not all nations have agreed to reduce their emissions.

For this reason, if climate change damages interfere with human rights, the international; debate about national responsibility should be limited to what is each nation’s fair share of safe global emissions. Therefore, understanding climate change as triggering human rights violations should transform the subject of future international climate change negotiations even if no existing human rights tribunal has jurisdiction to provide a remedy for climate change caused damages. This is so because very strong moral claims can be made that climate change interferes with human right enjoyment even if existing human rights regimes prove to not be viable remedies for climate change because of legal initiations of these regimes.

By BETH GORHAM

WASHINGTON (CP) - While U.S. senators talked about new measures on global warming, advocacy groups revealed Tuesday top officials put pressure on climate scientists for years to downplay the threat.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, along with the Government Accountability Project, said they’ve uncovered widespread interference and censorship in documents, interviews and surveys of hundreds of scientists at seven agencies. “This new evidence shows that political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic,” said Dr. Francesca Grifo, a senior scientist at the union.

Source

‘You can doooooo it!’

And yes, I know you’re rolling your eyes at me.

States are the ones to lobby, and NGOs doing the lobbying (on their own behalf, as representatives for other bodies like businesses, or on behalf of individuals).

They make a big difference in raising awareness about issues, especially through the media. They have less power in formulating policy, but still have some role. In some cases, they are also important when it comes to implementation.

I am reading Raustiala’s piece on ‘the participatory revolution’ to help thicken my argument (ideally, to the point where it is like a tasty stew). Emerging notes:

Raustiala, Kal. “The ‘Participatory Revolution’ in International Environmental Law.” 21 Harvard Environmental Law Review 537-586 (1997).