COP26, the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties, took place in Glasgow from the 31st October – 12th November 2021, and was branded as an attempt to “unite the world to tackle climate change”.
Though undoubtedly an important goal, the Conference’s agenda neglected a vital consequence and aspect of climate change: climate migration, potentially harming the sustainability of the negotiations and giving the impression that one of the most frightening consequences of climate change is being ‘swept under the rug’.
The main target of the UN climate change conference was to solidify the targets presented in the 2015 Paris Agreement, namely, to limit warming of the Earth’s temperature to 1.5 °C from pre-industrial times. The published aims of the negotiations are to:
Reduce emissions
Strengthen adaptation and resilience to climate impacts
Scale up finance and support.
The summit’s introductory document, website, and published targets hardly mentioned climate-induced migration. The only time where one could see negotiations approach the topic was on a single day under the theme of “adaptation, loss and damage”, whilst other agenda items ranged from the World Leader’s Summit to discussions relating to finance, energy, nature, science, and innovation,
Whilst this commentary does not intend to down-play the importance of such a conference as a positive first step, it must be acknowledged that to sideline climate-induced displacement is to ignore some of climate change’s most devastating impacts upon individuals, cultures and communities. Though COP26 mentions that “the international community must unite and support people who are most vulnerable to the impacts of the changing climate”, there do not appear to be any elements of this conference dedicated to those who are, and will be, forced to flee their homes as a result of increasingly hostile climates.
The approach of the United Kingdom
The UK’s leadership page itself is mainly focused on the economic aspect of climate change and its following ‘Green Revolution’, with every target or accomplishment listed on its presentation being associated with either economics or finance. Whilst it is true that long-term, durable solutions to the climate crisis do require financial backing, emphasising the economics at the expense of a focus on the lived experiences of the individual severely undermines the possibility of developing tenable solutions which are inclusive of people across the globe, living in countries with differing economic ‘buying power’.
Moreover, Boris Johnson’s statement that “securing a brighter future for our children and future generations requires countries to take urgent action at home and abroad to turn the tide on climate change” is firmly juxtaposed with the UK’s policy towards refugees, specifically the Home Office’s recently proposed ‘New Plan for Immigration’. At a time when the UK seeks to penalise, criminalise, and limit protections for those fleeing their homes as a result of persecution and violence, it seems sadly fitting that provisions for those made to leave their homes for environmental reasons are also neglected. Hostile attitudes towards climate migrants, and of displaced persons in general, occur for a multitude of reasons that are often shared across nations, including a denial of the existence of environmental refugees and also a generally negative attitude towards immigration.
For the UK at least, it seems difficult for the former to change whilst the latter still holds true; all the time that hostile policies are continually implemented towards those fleeing persecution, furthering the rights of those displaced through the effects of climate change will be an uphill battle. This is despite the fact that Western Nations are often disproportionately involved in the perpetuation of the factors which drive both forms of displacement.
The consequences of failure to address climate migration
Given that there are so many topics relating to climate change to cover, and such a long road ahead before rights are upheld for those forced to leave their homes, why is it necessary to include climate change migration issues in today’s discourse? The answer is simple: there is no time to wait. Climate migration will be one of the most important contemporary issues of the next 50 years as climate change causes environmental degradation in more and more areas of the world.
For example, today 1% of the world is a barely liveable hot zone, meaning that humans could not live in these areas due to their extreme weather conditions – specifically heat. By 2070 that zone could go up to 19% – almost a fifth of the planet. This means that more and more people across this type of territory will be displaced due to the destruction of their habitat, whilst others will be forced to flee due to flooding, natural disasters, extremes of weather, and rising sea levels. People have already begun to flee, not only from natural disasters and short-term environmental damage, but also from slow onset environmental decay.
In Southeast Asia the agriculture sector is suffering as rainfall patterns and droughts become more intense, causing the displacement of around 8 million people who have moved toward the Middle East, Europe and North America. The World Bank’s Groundswell Report suggests that by 2050, if no action is taken, there will be more than 143 million climate change migrants in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America alone.
Concluding thoughts
Despite having good intentions and aims in terms of prevention and economics, the COP26 summit failed to mention this and its potentially dire consequences for the international effort to tackle human displacement. This could in turn lead to a lack of funds, resources, and political will to provide help to people who have witnessed the destruction of their homes. Climate change migration deserves more academic, policy and political attention, and COP26 is a perfect example of this. Those at risk of becoming displaced deserve protection from long-lasting environmental damage, and those already displaced deserve international support and access to their full human and legal rights. Alongside affected communities, it is up to activists, environmentalists, and the general population to bring attention to the cause of climate migration, and to establish a protection and assistance framework.
Johanna Wassong is in her final year, studying International Relations at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, specializing in human rights and refugee rights in sub–Saharan Africa. She is currently writing her dissertation on the refugee politics after the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
Johanna initially started working with refugees in her hometown Cologne, Germany during the European Migrant Crisis in 2015-2016 and was specifically confronted with the issues of environmental migration after the floodings in Ahrtal in Summer 2021.
This article was originally published in the Earth Refuge Archive as part of our collaboration with Human Rights Pulse on the COP26 Summit.
Melting ice shelves, cyclones, floods, wildfires – these are the visuals that come to mind when thinking about climate change. Increasingly, the global community is also realizing the impact of rising temperatures on the world’s poor and most vulnerable communities. But the future could be bleaker still – scientists opine that wars of the future could be fought over resources made scarce due to climate change.
Conflict over natural resources is not a new phenomenon. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) suggests that in the last 60 years, at least 40% of all intrastate conflicts had a link to natural resources. Since 1990, at least 18 violent conflicts have been fueled by the exploitation of natural resources, whether high-value resources like diamonds, gold and oil, or scarce ones like fertile land and water. That being said, increasing numbers of climate-linked disasters, including desertification, more frequent and intense droughts, heavier rains, and flash floods have only added to existing tensions. An international group of scholars has recently concluded that severe climate change will lead to more conflict in the future.According to a 2014 report authored by a group of more than a dozen retired U.S. generals and admirals from the armed forces, climate change poses a serious threat to U.S. national security and is becoming a “catalyst for conflict” in vulnerable areas. This is not to say that the link between climate change and armed conflict is well understood. Disentangling higher temperatures, drought and sea-level rise from other factors, such as bad governance, corruption, existing ethnic tensions and economics, is difficult. But researchers do believe that even if climate change won’t initiate conflicts in the future, it could serve as a ‘threat multiplier’ and exacerbate crises.[4]
A recent report from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre used advance machine-learning algorithms to identify five hotspots for potential conflicts where multiple countries shared the same water body. The hotspots identified were the Ganges-Brahmaputra region, where the water flows through Bangladesh and India; the Colorado river, which runs through the United States and Mexico; the Indus region, which has water bodies separating India and Pakistan; the Tigris-Euphrates, which flows through Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait; and finally, the Nile that runs through 11 African countries. Lack of water across these water bodies could intensify existing tensions among countries and bring about social unrest.
For example, Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia all depend on inflow from the Nile and have long exchanged political blows over the $5bn upstream Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) project. Egypt relies on the Nile for 90 per cent of its water needs while Sudan is highly vulnerable to droughts due to alteration of the river’s behavior. The in-progress dam will be able to bring electricity to over 50 per cent of Ethiopians who currently do not have it and also enable Ethiopia to control the flow of the Blue Nile, a major tributary of the Nile. When the Ethiopian government announced plans to press ahead with the project, Egypt and Sudan held a joint war exercise in May 2021, pointedly called “Guardians of the Nile.” The situation has perhaps the highest risk of spilling into a water war of all the disputes in today’s political landscape, but there are several other hotspots around the world.
Solutions to averting resource conflicts vary depending on a multitude of factors – sometimes resolution requires diplomacy, whereas other instances require innovative infrastructure projects. As climate change and growing human populations continue to compound the problem of resource scarcity around the world, bespoke solutions will become ever more necessary to stop conflict.
Nikunj Bhimsaria is a consultant currently working for a climate focused philanthropy. In the past, he has worked as a business strategy consultant across various sectors and has also volunteered for various non-profits. His undergraduate background is in Engineering from BITS Pilani.
Interested in human-environmental ecosystems and how they adapt to climate change, Nikunj has been part of various climate adaptation projects. He is committed to mainstreaming climate issues by combining research with human narratives.
Climate change is forcing the displacement of people, both within states (i.e., internally displaced persons or ‘IDPs’) and beyond borders (i.e., climate change-forced migrants). According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (‘UNHCR’), as of 22 April 2021, climate change has triggered more than twice as much displacement than conflict has in the last decade.[i] Since 2010, weather emergencies have caused an average of 21.5 million people to move per year.[ii] The International Panel for Climate Change (‘IPCC’) recently found that climate change exasperates gender inequalities and women are less likely to have equal rights and access to resources.[iii] These inequalities appear to result in women being more likely to be displaced than men, and it has been reported that women represent 80% of people displaced by climate change globally.[iv]
Research is showing that this increase in displacement has a direct effect on the rise of modern slavery. Although each year more traffickers are being brought to justice,[v] modern slavery still presents serious cause for concern, particularly when contemplating an increase in vulnerability as people are affected by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and conflict amongst other factors. Migrants account for a considerable share of detected victims globally as they are often marginalised and impoverished, and therefore preyed upon by traffickers.[vi]
The aim of this paper is to examine the causal relationship between climate change and sex trafficing – specifically with regard to women. The experiences of children will also be included where possible. The experiences of non-binary victims have not been included due to a current lack of data which needs to be addressed in future research. The paper also aims to highlight recent migration and pollution trends in order to give an overview of who is being affected and where accountability should lie. Sex trafficking is examined as opposed to other forms of exploitation, such as forced labour (including domestic servitude), organ harvesting, forced adoption, or forced criminality. This is due to the fact that, according to data gathered about detected victims, the majority of modern slavery cases constitute sexual exploitation. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (‘UNODC’) Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2020 records that 50% of those detected were trafficked for sexual exploitation, 38% were trafficked for forced labour, 6% were forced into criminality, and just over 1% were forced to beg. Smaller numbers were reported for people trafficked for the purposes of forced marriages, organ removals, and other types of exploitation.[vii]
Women and girls are the focus of this paper as they continue to be the most affected demographic. The UNODC recorded that in 2018, for every 10 victims globally, about five were adult women and two were girls.[viii] The International Labour Organization (‘ILO’) also recorded that in 2017, women and girls accounted for 99% of victims in the commercial sex industry.[ix]
Climate change and women
Forced migration as the result of climate change has risen in the last decade and is projected to continue rising. Some states are large enough geographically that governments can move citizens to areas of the country that are not as affected by climate change yet- such as away from coast lines for example. However, to do this people are often placed in camps, thus becoming internally displaced persons. Although this means that they still have recognised rights from their governments, IDPs are often more vulnerable than non-displaced persons due to the fact that they may have to inhabit camps with poor sanitation, limited access to clean water and food, higher rates of disease, and sometimes social and economic exclusion.
A study on internal displacement camps in Northern Uganda showed that placing people into these camps hampers the rights provided by citizenship as people do not always have their basic needs met, such as access to adequate healthcare facilities.[x] Moreover, climate change can put stress on national infrastructures and limit access to land which can cause food insecurity. It is not uncommon for IDPs in internal camps to suffer from food shortages.
Other states, including low-lying Small Island States (‘SIDS’)- such as Kiribati and the Maldives, do not have the capacity to internally protect all displaced citizens.[xi] Consequently, many are forced to cross state borders due to adverse weather caused by climate change. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol (‘the Refugee Convention’) do not currently recognise climate change as a ground for claiming refugee status.[xii] A refugee is legally defined as a person who is ‘unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion’. The 1967 Protocol removes the temporal and geographical limitations of the Convention’s definition.[xiii]
The 1951 Refugee Convention was drafted because of people who were displaced due to World War Two and so only applied to people displaced due to events that occurred before the 1st of January 1951 and state parties could choose to restrict its application to only cover Europe. The Protocol removes these limitations so that the Refugee Convention can be applied globally and for events up to present day.
This lack of legal protection for those who are forced to cross borders due to hazardous weather caused by climate change are often from countries that contribute the least to climate change and may already have been vulnerable to poverty- for example, SIDS according to 2019 data, made up seven of the ten countries globally that face the highest risk of internal displacement from extreme weather events but SIDS per capita emissions are around a third of those from high-income countries.[xiv] C02 emissions are of particular concern as the IPCC identified that Green House Gases (GHGs) are the main anthropogenic contribution to climate change, with the main gas being CO2[xv]. According to data from 2018 published by the World Bank, the ten countries that produce the highest level of CO2 emissions are as follows:
China (10,313,460 kt);
United States (4,981,300 kt);
India (2,434,520 kt);
Russian Federation (1,607,550 kt);
Japan (1,106,150 kt);
Germany (709,540 kt);
Republic of Korea (630, 870 kt);
Islamic Republic of Iran (629,290 kt);
Indonesia (583,110 kt); and
Canada (574,400 kt).
These countries are typically considered to be ‘developed’ and therefore better equipped to respond to adverse weather conditions. It seems that this group of states should be held accountable if forced migration from climate change is to be prevented- this would also follow the ‘polluter pays’ principle wherein those who produce pollution should bear the responsibility of managing it to prevent damage to the environment. Many of the countries that appeared to produce the lowest number of CO2 were SIDS such as the Seychelles (620); Sao Tome and Principe (140); Samoa (320); Palau (290); Nauru (70); the Federated States of Micronesia (180); the Marshall Islands (190) and Kiribati (80) amongst others.[xvi] As aforementioned, SIDS often contribute the least to carbon emissions but are the group of states that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
Research in this area shows that it is women and girls who appear more at risk of displacement due to climate change, particularly those who live in developing countries.[xvii] This is likely due to pre-existing gender inequalities that render women and girls to have less access to resources, including land. Following floods, wildfires, droughts and other extreme weather events, food can be scarce as crops can be destroyed and agricultural land can be in left in conditions that make it difficult to cultivate food in adequate quantities. Women and girls being denied access to land can then be another barrier in them being able to grow food so this coupled with devastation from extreme weather means that women and girls are disproportionally affected.
Data from the United Nations shows that women are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than men, as they constitute the majority of the world’s poor, and their livelihood is also more dependent upon the natural resources that are threatened by these changes.[xviii] They also are more likely to face economic, social, and political barriers as a result of existing gender inequalities which limit their ability to access resources and cope with the effects of climate change, making them less likely to be involved in any decision-making processes.[xix]
Sex trafficking and women
The 2016 UNODC Global Report found that when using data that was disaggregated by gender, it was clear that women and girls are usually trafficked for marriage and sexual slavery, whereas men and boys are often trafficked for forced labour.[xx] There are several societal reasons for this gender inequality. For example, women are disproportionally affected by poverty as they are often excluded from economic and educational resources and opportunities- research shows that women are generally paid less than men are, many women are in the informal economy which means they are not likely to have secure employment contracts and are not always paid enough to get out of poverty. This same research also shows that women do at least twice as much unpaid care work as men do.[xxi] On top of being unpaid this gives them less opportunity to engage in paid work. Traffickers prey on poorer individuals who are in need of an income to survive and may not recognise the signs of exploitation until it is too late. In many societies women have been treated as unequal to men and have been sexualised or objectified, and their societal ‘value’ is perceived to be lesser than that of men.
Although the Refugee Convention does not require State Parties to legally recognise forced migration from climate change as grounds for refugee status, Article 6 of the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (“CEDAW”) stipulates that State Parties “shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women”.[xxii] It can therefore be argued that due to the link between climate change forced migration and sex trafficking in women and girls, the latter should be tackled by reducing and preventing climate change forced migration in order to mitigate the vulnerability exploited by traffickers.
Of the top CO2 producing countries listed above, eight have signed and ratified CEDAW. The United States of America has signed the treaty but is yet to ratify. Iran ratified the treaty in 2003 but this was later vetoed by the Guardian Council. This means that the majority has acknowledged their responsibility to take all appropriate measures including the implementation of legislation that protects women and girls from sexual exploitation and although some progress is being made this does not appear to be happening effectively enough to protect women and girls.
Conclusions
It is clear, therefore, that as the result of existing gender inequalities and vulnerabilities, women and girls are most affected by climate displacement globally. This renders them more susceptible to human trafficking and sexual exploitation.
The main solution for preventing women and girls being so vulnerable would be to achieve economic and social gender equality. However, this is obviously a long-term aim. More short-term solutions could include increasing economic opportunities for women and girls such as providing education, vocational training, and apprenticeships. The dissemination of information to women and girls on their rights and on sexual exploitation could help them recognise signs of coercion and give them avenues in which to report it. This could include information on rights and signs of exploitation at displacement camps, information on the legitimacy of overseas ‘job’ opportunities, and the visitation of displacement camps by qualified people such as aid workers and governmental officials. The equal employment of women in such positions as well as in law enforcement and border officials could help women and girls to feel safe to report sexual exploitation. The accountability of states that contribute the most to climate change needs to be examined in order to reduce CO2 emissions. Tackling the causes of climate change could help mitigate one area where women and girls are disproportionally affected. The accountability of the traffickers also needs to be addressed more as this is often lacking in research conducted on sexual exploitation. Efforts could be made to target key areas to ascertain exploitation networks by identifying states that are affected the most by extreme weather conditions caused by climate change. Looking at routes that displaced people take and monitoring these as well as migrant camps could help protect people whilst also maintaining surveillance for perpetrators. Cross-border cooperation would also be advantageous for the identifying of perpetrators- as forced migration and sex trafficking often involves crossing state borders then communication between states is key.
Rebecca Allen obtained her MA in Human Rights from UCL. Her dissertation looked at displacement from climate change, the accountability of governments, and the role of advocacy networks. She now works as a researcher. Her main areas of interest are climate change, displacement, modern slavery, and the effects of conflict upon civilians.
She is passionate about using her research to bring attention to marginalised groups and the need for policy change to protect the rights of people in vulnerable situations.
[v] UNODC, ‘Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2020’(United Nations, January 2021). Since 2003, the number of those convicted per 100,000 people has nearly tripled.
[x] M. Oosterom, ‘Internal Displacement, the Camp and the Construction of Citizenship: Perspectives from Northern Uganda’, (2016) 29(3) Journal of Refugee Studies.
[xi] Data from 2016 showed that China, the Philippines, and India had the highest number of internally displaced persons from disaster. However, these states have more capacity for moving citizens internally but it is small island states that are disproportionally affected. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, ‘Global Report on Internal Displacement’, (2017), <http://www.internal-displacement.org/global-report/grid2017/>.
[xii] In Ioane Teitiota v. The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (New Zealand Supreme Court, 2015),the Court rejected the claimant as a ‘climate change refugee’ on the basis of lack of legal recognition of climate change as grounds for refugee status.
[xiii] Refugee Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (1951), United Nations.
[xiv] Oxfam, ‘Forced from Home: Climate-fuelled Displacement’, 2019.
“It’s an act of sabotage on our future, a reckless and totally irresponsible act.”[i]
Such was the reaction of climate official Ian Fry, from the tiny South Pacific Island nation of Tuvalu, to Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 and represents the first instrument in international law to contain legally binding greenhouse gas limitation and reduction commitments for industrialized countries. As such, Canada’s withdrawal from this legal milestone not only directly worsens the situation of threatened states such as Tuvalu through its apparently intended increase in greenhouse gas emissions, but also sends an ominous signal to the rest of the world, potentially opening the door for other states to follow suit.
Tuvalu is one of the countries suffering the most from the consequences of climate change. Rising sea levels are causing the erosion of ever larger coastal areas of the island nation’s low-lying atolls (coral reefs).Groundwater is becoming saline, threatening both food crops and drinking water supplies, and the increasing number of storms is destroying vital infrastructure in the country. Thus, Fry’s statement can be understood as an example of a global trend: the consequences of climate change are increasingly being recognized as a massive threat to peace for more and more states.
Examples of possible sources of conflict arising from climate change include the struggle for resources[ii], food scarcity[iii], and forced migration, with estimates for the year 2050 ranging from 200 million[iv] to 1 billion[v] climate refugees. The view that not only the consequences, but also the underlying causes of climate change, can be perceived as a threat to peace in their own right, seems set to gain acceptance.[vi] And these very causes of climate change can, in turn, often be clearly attributed to the actions of certain states.
Based on this extremely limited introduction, it becomes important to consider the question of whether states whose citizens, economies, and cultures suffer particularly severely from the consequences of man-made climate change may, under certain conditions, resort to the use of force against the polluter states.
In what situations might the use of force in the name of climate change be legal?
There are two possible scenarios under which the use of force may be legal: in the name of self-defense, or with the permission of the UN Security Council.
Regarding self-defense, Article 51 of the UN Charter (1945) states an “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against [themselves or another] Member of the United Nations”. If this is interpreted literally, the legality of the use of force against “climate rogue states”[vii] can already be ruled out. Without wanting to belittle the threat of heavy Green House Gas (GHG)-emissions, this is definitely a different kind of threat than ‘an armed attack’.
However, if one takes the commonly accepted requirements of the so-called ‘Caroline Test’, a closer look is worthwhile. The Caroline Test lists a number of criteria that must be met for the right to practice self-defense. In the original formulation of this test (Webster, 1841) it says that, “a use of force can [only] be admissible if there is ‘a necessity of self-defence, instant, over-whelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation’. Moreover, ‘the act, justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’.”[viii] In essence, this test argues that the two key requirements to justify the use of force in self-defence are ‘necessity’ and ‘proportionality’. While ‘proportionality’ determines the intensity of force that may be used, the requirement for ‘necessity’ determines whether a resort to the use of force is permissible at all. Thus, the necessity criterion is more interesting for us at this point.
Especially given the Test’s requirement for a threat to be ‘instant [and] over-whelming’, it would seem, given that GHG emissions don’t instantly affect populations, that the necessity criterion cannot be fulfilled. The reality is that many of the harmful effects of climate change take years or decades to come to light, and the delayed effects of emitted GHGs make it extremely difficult to attribute a specific consequence of climate change to a specific state. Thus, at least in the current state of climate change, under this framework it would be argued that states do have the time and therefore possibility to choose other means than force, which in turn must always be a last resort[ix]. In summary, then, “[u]nless the global climate was at a tipping point, and the attacking state or coalition knew it, the imminence of the threat implied by necessity would be absent.”[x]
Instead, the justification for a military strike against GHG-emitting facilities through anticipatory self-defense seems more realistic. This is because such a military strike would involve the pre-emptive thwarting of probable harm emanating from a state which is either unwilling or unable to stop this harm from happening, just as the theory of anticipatory self-defense states. However, the application of this particular variety of self-defense is highly controversial. Many scholars believe “that the pre-emptive use of force against emerging threat(s) is unauthorised under existing legal framework.”[xi]
As such, the use of force against climate rogue states cannot be justified on the basis of Article 51 of the UN Charter as acts of self-defense, at least for the time being. The other alternative for nations to legitimize a resort to use of force would be by being granted permission from the UN Security Council (UNSC). As a first step in this respect “[t]he Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”[xii] This type of determination of threats to global peace is usually expressed in a UNSC resolution. Such resolutions not only officially determine that the situation in question is a legitimate threat to the peace, but also provide recommendations or decisions regarding “what measures shall be taken […] to maintain or restore international peace and security”.[xiii] Article 41 of the UN Charter lists a number of peaceful means by which the identified threat to peace shall be overcome. However, if these peaceful means were deemed by the UNSC to either have failed or to be inadequate, the resort to the use of force would be possible[xiv].
Because such a UNSC resolution does not exist as of today[xv], it would be tempting to dismiss this approach as irrelevant. However, this would be too simplistic. In general, the UNSC has an obligation to determine threats to peace[xvi]. A glance at the past shows that this can also involve categories of illicit conduct other than classic, direct violations of the sovereignty of states. In 1992, for example, the UNSC confirmed that “[t]he absence of war and military conflicts among States does not in itself ensure international peace and security. The non-military sources of instability in the economic, social, humanitarian and ecological fields have become threats to peace and security.”[xvii] Thus, it is by no means impossible that calls for climate change to be classified as a threat to peace[xviii] will be heard. And indeed, there have been repeated shifts in this direction in the recent past.
The UNSC, for example, “has held four open debates specifically on climate security risks”[xix] already. At the most recent of these open debates, climate change was unanimously referred to as a ‘threat multiplier’[xx], but no agreement could be reached on a classification as a threat to peace itself. Since two or three of the five permanent members with veto power in the UNSC, China and Russia, and in recent years also Trump’s USA, have taken the politically motivated stance that “[i]n fact, qualifying climate change as a threat to the peace was, in their view, neither ‘right’ nor beneficial”[xxi], this classification is not to be expected in the near future.
How might this change in the future?
Nevertheless, should climate change be classified as a threat to peace at some point, the whole situation could possibly change very quickly. The effectiveness of peaceful means can already be doubted from today’s point of view, since neither the Kyoto Protocol nor the Paris Agreement can be considered to have effectively halted climate change and GHG emissions[xxii]. Were a Security Council resolution to be passed, it could open the door for the use of force against climate rogue states. For very practical reasons, however, it must be asked at this point whether this would actually be effective, either in combating climate change, or in furthering and protecting human rights at all. If a tiny state like the aforementioned Tuvalu suddenly had the theoretical right to take military action against a large country like Canada, it would still lack the means to do so. Thus, the jus ad bellum wartime principle of ‘probability of success’, in contrast to the other principles[xxiii], could not be fulfilled under any circumstances[xxiv]. The principle of ‘probability of success’ states that war can only be justified if such violence has a real chance of changing the causal grievance in the long run. If Tuvalu is now apparently justified in using force against Canada due to changed conditions, there is still the question of how it should win this war. Tuvalu does not have an army, and if one were to be created, it would almost certainly not be able to take on the Canadian army. A tiny country like Tuvalu trying to take military action against a superpower like Canada is likely to cause harm and loss of life, but has very little chance of bringing about change.
From this point of view, the proportionality of military action is also highly questionable. Because the principle of proportionality prohibits any “attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”[xxv] The invoking of the right to collective self-defense could provide a remedy[xxvi]. Going beyond this, the question may even arise, “[i]f a state pursues or allows very damaging activities that harm its own population or the international community as a whole through climate change, would it be legal to use force to stop those activities in the name of humanitarian intervention or the Responsibility to Protect [R2P]?”[xxvii]. However, this would only be possible if the UNSC classified the consequences of climate change as a mass atrocity crime[xxviii]. Additionally, the status of R2P is also controversial[xxix].
Conclusion
The scope of this paper could only provide a very rough framework. Nevertheless, it was possible to show why there is currently no legal resort to the use of force against climate rogue states and under what circumstances this assessment could change in the future. In addition to these findings themselves, however, it is momentous that such deliberations are taking place at all. Of course, no one wants to see countries become violent in the name of climate change, nor to see the devastation of communities, cultures and infrastructure that comes with war and violence. That the use of force is even being discussed is testament to the fact that there is still no actual, reliable way of holding states accountable for their international climate responsibilities. Countries and ecosystems around the world are at a breaking point, and in the not-too-distant future, the progress of climate change could lead to an even more frightening scenario.
Given that climate change is already triggering violence today, as destroyed homes or impeded access to drinking water might cause people in hardship to resort to violence in order to ensure their survival. If those states, whose citizens are worst affected, in their desperation see no other way out than using force against climate rogue states to stop them from causing further harm, we could see a rapid downturn into a new spiral of violence. Finding a way of holding states accountable for their international climate responsibilities is urgently needed, because otherwise violence will not only increase as a consequence of climate change impacts, but seems likely to also increase as an attempt to control the reckless actions of other states.
However, as explained in detail above, the use of force would not even come close to solving the problems caused by climate change. It must therefore be a top priority that international cooperation eventually lives up to its name and that a viable solution for the well-being of all in the face of the changing climate is found and implemented. We need to finally come together as an international community in holding nation states accountable – because only in this way can we ensure that this paper remains what it is: the description of an intellectual, purely theoretical thought experiment.
Ole ter Wey is currently studying International Law and Human Rights at the UN-mandated University for Peace in San José, Costa Rica. He previously lived with a local community in Kiribati for over a year. There, he experienced first hand the consequences of climate change endangering the existence of an entire state. It was then that he began thinking about how to address forced migration and dedicated his Liberal Arts Bachelor to the topics of migration and integration.
[ii]Gleditsch, Nils Petter (2012): Whither the weather? Climate change and conflict. In: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 49(1), pp. 3-9. DOI: 10.1177/0022343311431288.
[iv]Brown, Oli (2008): Migration and Climate Change, p. 11. In: IOM Migration Research Series, Vol. 31. https://www.ipcc.ch/apps/njlite/srex/njlite_download.php?id=5866
[v]Bassetti, Francesco (2019): Environmental Migrants: Up to 1 Billion by 2050. https://www.climateforesight.eu/migrations-inequalities/environmental-migrants-up-to-1-billion-by-2050/
[vi]e.g., Steinbruner, John D. (2013): Climate and Social Stress – Implications for Security Analysis, p. 37. Washington: The National Academies Press.
[vii]Martin, Craig (2020): Atmospheric Intervention? The Climate Change Crisis and the Jus ad Bellum Regime, p. 334. In: Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 45(S). DOI: 10.7916/cjel.v45iS.5786.
[viii]Corten, Olivier (2017): Necessity, p. 862. In: Marc Weller, The Oxford Handbook of The Use of Force in International Law, pp. 861-878. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[ix]UNOCHA (2012): Foreign Military and Civil Defence Assets in Support of Humanitarian Emergency Operations: What is Last Resort?. http://www.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/Last%20Resort%20Pamphlet%20-%20FINAL%20April%202012_5.3.pdf
[x]Kinsella, David (2013): The Use of Force to Achieve Climate Change Goals, p. 18. http://web.pdx.edu/~kinsella/papers/isa13.pdf
[xi]Mirza, Muhammad Nasrullah (2019): Use of Force in Self-Defence for Global Peace: A Conceptual Framework, p. 21. In: Strategic Studies, Vol. 39(3), pp. 1-21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48544307
[xii] UN Charter (1945): United Nations Charter (full text), Art. 39. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
[xv]Bourghelle, Valentine (2019): Climate change in the Security Council: On the road to qualifying climate change as ‘threat multiplier’. In: Völkerrechtsblog, 9 December 2019. DOI: 10.17176/20191209-180639-0.
[xvi]Dipalo, Sabina (2018): The Security Council’s Non-Determination of a Threat to the Peace as a Breach of International Law, p. 61. In: Pécs Journal of International and European Law. 2018/01, pp. 61-81. http://ceere.eu/pjiel/wpcontent/uploads/2018/08/63pjielPJIEL1801.pdf
[xviii]e.g., Scott, Shirley V. (2008): Climate Change and Peak Oil as Threats to International Peace and Security: Is It Time for the Security Council to Legislate?. In: Melbourne Journal of International Law. Vol. 9(2), pp. 495-515. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1683221/Scott.pdf
[xix]Toufanian, Melissa Turley (2020): Climate Change at the UN Security Council: Seeking Peace in a Warming World. https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/climate-change-a-un-security-council-seeking-peace-warming-world/
[xxi]Bourghelle, Valentine (2019): Climate change in the Security Council: On the road to qualifying climate change as ‘threat multiplier’. In: Völkerrechtsblog, 9 December 2019. DOI: 10.17176/20191209-180639-0.
[xxii]As the most prominent examples, neither the Kyoto Protocol nor the Paris Agreement could significantly change the progress of climate change.
[xxiii]Proper authority, just cause, right intention, proportionality, last resort.
[xxiv]Stanford Encyclopedia (2016): War, 2.5. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/
[xxvi]Kunz, Josef L. (1947): Individual and Collective Self-Defense in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, p. 872. In: The American Journal of International Law. Vol. 41(4), pp. 872-879. https://doi.org/10.2307/2193095
[xxvii]Gray, Christine (2012): Climate Change and the Law on the Use of Force, p. 238. In: Rosemary Rayfuse, International Law in the Era of Climate Change, pp. 219-241. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
[xxviii]Nollkaemper, André (2017): Failures to Protect in International Law. In: Marc Weller, The Oxford Handbook of The Use of Force in International Law, pp. 437-461. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[xxix]Glover, Nicholas (2011): A critique of the theory and practice of R2P.
“What is the use of a house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?” ― Henry David Thoreau, Familiar Letters
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) released its Sixth Assessment Report (“the Report”) in August 2021. The detailed assessment on the “physical science of climate change” sheds light on the severity of climate change and comprehensively speaks to the escalating effects of greenhouse gases on Earth that are so much worse than we previously believed. It is, at this juncture, undeniable that the determining factor accelerating climate change is humans. The impact of ‘human-driven’ climate change is patent in recent devastating climate-related disasters and weather extremes across the globe. The pertinent question remains as to whether nations can combat the outcomes of climate change on humanity, or whether such changes are irreversible. The Report is envisaged to carry extra weight in anticipation of the COP26 global climate summit to be held in Glasgow, UK, in November 2021.
Background
The Report is the culmination of several years of research, comments, and drafting by over 200 scientists that was approved by 195 states. It is the debut report of a forthcoming trilogy, with the objective of evaluating climate change, its effects, how it can be slowed down, and what can be done to tackle its deepening and rapid damage. The Report assesses our past, present, and future climate status, its impacts and future risks, the available options to mitigate the effects, as well as adaptation suggestions. It aims to enlighten policymakers as to the scientific findings of climate change and the Sustainable Development Goals and envisions a collective goal of implementing laws and statutes which take cognizance of these scientific findings.
The Paris Agreement, which was signed by several nations worldwide in 2015, was employed to ensure that global surface temperature remains far below 2°C and particularly maintained below 1.5°C. The Report specifies that, alarmingly, in each scenario assessed by scientists, the present century will see the failure of both thresholds if immediate action is not implemented to halt the outcome. Carbon dioxide emissions are to be significantly reduced across the globe for any hopeful change to materialise.
The Report’s findings may be condensed to a few main takeaways. Firstly, the Report confirms that drastic weather changes and events (especially as of late) are directly linked to human behaviour. Humans are altering the climate system. Secondly, the link between greenhouse gases and global temperature is further confirmed. Carbon dioxide emissions are recorded to be at their highest in the last two million years. Climate catastrophe is additionally driven by methane emissions from agriculture and livestock rearing, as well as the burning of fossil fuels. This may be avoided if there are “immediate, deep and sustained emissions reductions”. Thirdly, the Earth is heating up at a distressing rate. Global surface temperature is recorded to be at the greatest it has been in the last 125 000 years. It has been 1.09°C higher between the period 2011 – 2020 than it was in the period 1850 – 1900. The impact of the Earth’s warming is far-reaching, devastating, and infiltrates into all livelihoods, ecosystems, and species on the planet.
As indicated by the Report, “with every additional increment of global warming, changes in extremes continue to become larger”. This essentially denotes that even an increase in global surface temperature by 0.5°C perpetuates the frequency of wildfires, intense rainfalls, droughts, and heatwaves, to name a few. The changes in climate and extreme weather patterns are unparalleled and pose an immediate threat to communities and their social security and wellbeing around the globe. Finally, the Report signifies that sea level rise has tripled since the 1900s – 1970s, with human behaviour being the “very likely” determining factor in the melting of the glaciers and reduction in Arctic sea-ice since the 1900s. In fact, research shows that the Arctic “is heating up at a rate that is more than twice as fast as the global average”.
Human Handiwork = Code Red
The Report is unfaltering with respect to the impact that humans have had on the planet, and more specifically, on the dire state of the global surface temperature today. It states that “it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, oceans, and land.” Fossil fuels are warming the Earth at an unprecedented pace. Climatologist Xuebin Zhang pointed out that “[t]he evidence is everywhere: if we don’t act, the situation is going to get really bad.” In 2019, carbon dioxide emissions were the highest they have been in the last 2 million years, while methane and nitrous oxide emissions – the other two major gas emissions – were recorded to be their highest in the last 800 000 years.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated that it is “a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable.” He further noted that the global surface temperature threshold of 1.5 °C, as internationally agreed upon, was “perilously close. We are at imminent risk of hitting 1.5 °C in the near term. The only way to prevent exceeding this threshold is by urgently stepping up our efforts and pursuing the most ambitious path. We must act decisively now, to keep 1.5 alive.” The Report warns that unless immediate action is taken communally across the globe, the climate shifts will be irreversible. Global surface temperature is expected to crossover the 1.5°C threshold within the next 20 years.
What’s To Come
Man’s hand, as observed by scientists, in extreme changes in the atmosphere, land, the ocean, and the glaciers is striking. Should any meaningful and alleviating steps not be taken, five future impacts may be noted based on predictions made by scientists after assessment of all possible scenarios. Firstly, the Arctic will essentially be without ice at least once in the month of September before the year 2050. Secondly, even at 1.5°C, extreme weather patterns and natural disasters will become even more frequent and widespread, which will be “unprecedented in the historical record”. Thirdly, sea level events are projected to occur at least annually at more than half of tidal gauge locations by 2100, whereas in the past, extreme sea level events only occurred once in a century. Due to unremitting ocean heating and the ice melting, sea levels are “committed to rise for centuries to millennia”. Sea levels “will remain elevated for thousands of years”.Fourthly, the global surface temperature will exceed the 1.5°C threshold by the year 2040. Finally, wildfires will become more frequent in many regions around the world.
What Can Be Done
By 2050, global emissions ought to reach net zero, if we are to honour the commitment made in the 2015 Paris Agreement and maintain the global surface temperature to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. According to Valérie Masson-Delmotte, climatologist and one of the scientists who worked on the Report, “the climate we experience in the future depends on our decisions now.”
The quality of our atmosphere must change drastically. Carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases are to decrease substantially worldwide for the global surface temperature to stabilize over the next 20 to 30 years. According to the UN chief, “inclusive and green economies, prosperity, cleaner air and better health are possible for all, if we respond to this crisis with solidarity and courage.” A daunting thought, however, is that despite mitigating steps being available to avoid a complete climate catastrophe, the benefits of these steps will only be realised in decades to come. While some impacts may fortunately be limited in the grand scheme of climate change, many other devastating outcomes will remain an immediate threat to communities and will escalate over the forthcoming years.
The Report is an essential component in sparking international negotiations and informing states on the status and actions that they are required to execute. The Report is especially relevant in light of the upcoming COP26 climate conference to be held in November 2021. All nations should collectively aim to reach net-zero greenhouse emissions and commit to the decreasing of global heating “with credible, concrete, and enhanced Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)” stipulating detailed steps to be taken. The situation is critical. It is imminent. We have been warned by preceding generations, and this may be our final warning as the future of life on Earth rests on what we elect to do with the scientific findings embedded in the Report. The bloody snare of climate change will entrap both present and future generations – it is up to us as to how to mitigate the effects.
Crystal-Lee Harilall is an admitted attorney of the High Court of South Africa and LLM candidate in Human Rights Law. She is passionate about using Law to explore social justice, sustainability, and the distressing effect humans have had on the planet.
It is well known that during times of conflict, women and girls face increased violence and discrimination. The same can unfortunately be observed when people are forcibly displaced or forced to migrate due to extreme climate change and natural disasters. It has been reported that if global warming is not limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius, forced displacement will be one of the most detrimental realities faced by already-vulnerable communities. Climate change is causing more frequent and intense weather events resulting in mass migration and displacement.
By the end of 2020, extreme weather conditions left around55 million people internally displaced. The situation is projected to worsen by 2050, when approximately 150 million people will be displaced. Despite the bewilderment, destruction, and panic that people face as a result of climate change disasters, women and girls arguably shoulder a bigger burden that forces them to migrate for survival.
Why are women more vulnerable to the impact of climate change?
The vulnerability of women to the effect of climate change stems from various social, cultural, and economical factors. Women and girls constitute a major portion of the population living in poverty that are highly dependent on natural resources for their livelihood. This is especially so in rural areas where women are solely responsible for fetching water, collecting wood for cooking, heating, and various other household activities.
Moreover, the combination of deep-rooted and prevalent socio-cultural norms, restricted livelihood options, and limited or wholly precluded access to technologies and information bars the adaptive capacities of displaced women and girls. Women and girls are often denied the right to education and are forbidden from participating in public spheres or occupying decision-making roles. Consequently, women are less likely to receive important information that enables appropriate emergency responses, further limiting their right to adapt once they have been displaced.
On the other hand, socio-cultural norms and gendered responsibilities in various communities actually avert women from migrating to other places during times of calamity. This has the potential to increase the vulnerability of women if they are forced to stay in a place where resources are scarce. This leads to women being forced to travel long distances in search of basic necessities such as food and water, exposing them to the risk of sexual harassment, violence, and assault during the journey.
The gendered impact of climate migration on women
The negative effects of climate change on communities around the world have made the increased risk of gender-based violence a matter of significant concern. A study conducted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (‘IUCN’) found climate change to be a catalyst for gender-based violence.
A spike in the extreme effects of climate change has resulted in scarcity of resources. As a result, communities have been forced to migrate from one place to another in search of a better quality of life, which deepens pre-existing gender inequalities. Gender-based violence against women is often used as measure for reinforcing control over remaining resources. For instance, it has been reported that in eastern and southern Africa, particularly in Kenya, fishermen have refused to sell fish to women who do not agree to engage in sexual intercourse with them. This practice is known as the Jaboya System.
Child brides, human trafficking, and health issues
Specifically, the paucity of food and water caused by climate change has also created a host of other social issues. First, a new generation of child brides has been raised, in Malawi and Mozambique, because families are no longer in a position to feed or educate several children. In an attempt to avoid this problem, parents often marry (or perhaps sell) their daughters, to any man, at a young age. Child marriage clearly impacts the physical, mental, and sexual well-being of a child and is an abhorrent violation of children’s rights.
Second, climate change and natural disasters have exacerbated the issue of human trafficking. Women and girls are often trafficked for sexual exploitation, forced labor, and beggary amongst other reasons. Most of those who fall prey to trafficking are migrants and asylum seekers. The UN Environment Programme has observed a 20-30% increase in the incidents of trafficking following natural disasters.
Third, women and girls displaced by climate change and natural disasters are more likely to face severe health issues. Due to limited access to basic health-care services and sanitary products, women and girls face an increased risk of contracting life threatening diseases and infections. This has been observed in several countries. For instance, in 2019, Cyclone Idai resulted in the displacement of thousands of people in Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Malawi. Even today, these displaced women and girls remain without access to proper healthcare facilities. For these reasons, climate change should be considered a women’s rights issue.
Conclusion
In 2018, the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (‘CEDAW’) established the General Recommendation No. 37 on Gender-related dimensions of disaster risk reduction in the context of climate change (‘GR37’). This was the first time that a United Nations body addressed the connection between climate change and human rights, and focused on the gendered impact of climate change. GR37 elucidates that State Parties can and should be held accountable for the negative impact of climate change on women and girls.
Prevalent gender inequality has resulted in miserable conditions for women and girls as the result of climate change and subsequent migration. Violence against women is an impediment to conservation and sustainable development. For instance, it has been reported that sexual violence and exploitation are being used to prevent women from participating in ecosystem restoration activities. The improvement of women and girls’ adaptive capacities to climate change is of paramount importance as its effects can and do deepen existing gender inequalities. As women continue to have less opportunity to mitigate and cope with the effects of the climate crisis, there remains a dire need to take stringent action to ensure their safety and well-being.
For these reasons, adaptation initiatives designed to identify and address the gender-specific impacts of climate change, along with representation of the needs and demands of women in restoration planning are required to safeguard the interests and rights of women and girls.
Shambhavi Kant is a third year law student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. She is extremely interested in the field of Human Rights and likes to write about similar topics.
The advent of the Fifth Generation (5G) networking system can be seen as a progressive step in our fast-growing world. However, one important aspect which should concern both governments and service providers is the effect of the 5G networking system on the right to a healthy environment.
In 2020, the issue was raised by scientists and doctors from 36 countries in an appeal to the European Union. The concerns were encompassed by numerous issues that have a direct link to the right to a healthy environment.
Escalations in Energy Consumption
There will be a massive escalation in energy consumption as large volumes of new components will be manufactured to enable the initiation of the 5G networking system. Such an enormous increase in energy consumption will directly affect and play a key role in climate change, as referred to in the IEA’s 2010 Report. Notably, approximately 4% of global electricity consumption and 1.4% of global carbon emissions are linked to telecommunication. The Ericsson Mobility Report projects that by the year 2025, 5G could have an estimated number of 2.6 billion users, and that the total number of global mobile subscribers could reach 5.8 billion.
As a result of these projections, it is believed that information technology could account for one-fifth of total global electricity consumption. By the year 2040, information technology could account for around 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions. In this way, the 5G system lacks energy efficiency and is not sustainable.
Increase in E-Waste
E-waste is made up of numerous components, the majority of which are hazardous. When these components are dismantled and inappropriately processed, they contribute to water, soil, and air contamination, and pose a serious risk to the right to a healthy environment. The Basel Convention was the first treaty that endeavored to safeguard human health – as well as the environment – against the detriment that has continually persisted through generations, management of businesses and corporations, transboundary movements, and the disposal of hazardous waste.
Notably, following the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, E-waste was added to Annex VIII of the Convention. In 2011, the Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (MPPI) was formally adopted at the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention in Columbia. Its purpose was to encourage environmentally-friendly consumer behavior, and to advance a better alternative for reuse and material recycling. However, the effectiveness of the initiative is yet to be evaluated.
In 2015, an outline for the Agenda for Sustainable Development 2030 was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, encompassing the 17 integrated Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). E-waste is specifically linked to many of these targets, and the increase in worldwide levels of E-waste poses a threat to the achievement of the SDGs.
The production of new devices incorporating the latest 5G network would accelerate the demand for this technology in replacement of older versions, which would in turn increase E-waste levels. The Global E-waste Monitor reports that global E-waste is estimated to reach about 74 megatonnes by the year 2030. This is about double the 2014 figures, and would further fuel higher rates of electricity consumption and the use of electronics with a much shorter lifecycle and fewer repair alternatives. In order for countries to manage and minimize E-waste in an efficacious and sustainable manner, coordinated action is required.
Threats to the Ecosystem
A survey by Ericcson indicates that in order to establish effective 5G networks, 70 million towers would have to be installed across the world by the year 2025. Such extensive installations would increase harmful emissions of 5G technology radio frequency waves. The known effects of towers and radio frequency waves on the ecosystem are multifaceted in that they affect human beings, birds, and insects.
Humans
According to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2011 report, radio frequency waves pose a potential threat of cancer in humans. In the same year, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe released Resolution 1815 on the Potential Dangers of Electromagnetic Fields and their Consequences on the Environment. It called upon European governments to take all reasonable steps that required to mitigate exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to children and young people who are potentially more vulnerable to developing head tumors.
In 2020, the Health Council of the Netherlands provided a detailed report evaluating the effect of 5G technology on the health of humans. The Council advised avoiding using higher frequency bands, since the risk associated with such higher frequency has not yet been declared. In light of this, the Council appealed to the European Union and requested a moratorium on the roll out of 5G technology until further research has been conducted to trace any potential health risks.
Birds and insects
The impact of cellphone towers and radio frequency waves on birds has been established in various research studies. In 2012, the Indian Environment Ministry published a report acknowledging the negative impact of the effect of cellphone towers on birds and bees. In a similar research study conducted in Spain, it was found that the radiation from these towers negatively affects the reproduction of birds. Further research has shown that insects – including honeybees – absorb a significant amount of radiation from the 5G spectrum. This causes alterations in both the function and behavior of insects.
Conclusion
This new and advanced technology is spreading rapidly across the globe, in spite of the serious threats it poses.
The developers of 5G are attempting to establish a network with a less harmful effect on the environment, but the results of this are yet to be ascertained. It should have been imperative that the implications of 5G networking were considered prior to its roll out, and governmental and international organizations still have not taken a hands-on approach. Efforts are allegedly being made to nullify the threats posed by 5G, but the authenticity of these reports is questionable.
The right to a healthy environment is crucially already under threat, and this should guide developers to consider the potential dangers posed by new technologies. Prevention lies in abiding by existing environmental policies, so that technological advancement is on par with the right to a healthy environment.
The global cryptocurrency revolution has reached an all-time high with people actively involved in cryptocurrency investing. The idea of a decentralized currency without privacy concerns has been the key factor behind the growing popularity of these digital currencies. This has been acknowledged by institutions like Deutsche Bank, which anticipates that by 2030 digital currencies will have over 200 million users and could eventually replace cash one day. Another major factor that propels the success of already popular cryptocurrency is its portrayal as a ‘greener’ alternative to traditional cash and its potential to evolve into a global currency. However, Elon Musk stirred global controversy when he questioned the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies, and subsequently declined to accept Bitcoin for Tesla payments.
The exchange rate of Bitcoin has fallen drastically, due to subsiding hype and excitement, the prevalence of common sense, and the global audience shifting their attention to how much energy is actually consumed by these cryptocurrencies. The potential conflict between these ‘future global currencies’ and the efforts being made towards ‘a sustainable future’ is intriguing. This article attempts to understand this potential conflict through a detailed analysis of the energy consumed by cryptos, its incompatibility with the idea of a sustainable future, and the challenges it poses to a greener tomorrow.
Cryptocurrency Mining and Energy Consumption
Cryptocurrencies, unlike the traditional banking system of maintaining account balances in a central database, make use of a distributed network of ‘miners’. These are a network of specialized computers that keep a record of new and constantly added blocks. A computational race exists between these miners to earn incentives, and as such blocks can only be recorded by solving cryptographic puzzles. Incentives or bonuses are only given to the recording miner. While on the one hand this assures a fail-proof system, on the other, it requires huge computational power. This mining process tends to lose efficiency due to the rising prices of the cryptocurrencies, because the mathematical puzzles to create blocks become more complex and require more computation power to keep the number of transactions constant. This means more computing power and energy is being consumed per block to process the same number of transactions in the face of the increasing complexity of the puzzles.
As per recent research by the University of Cambridge which aims to create a Bitcoin electricity consumption index, it has been estimated that the miners of Bitcoin alone are going to consume 130 Terawatt-hours of energy (TWh). This energy is close to 0.5% of global electricity consumption. Just like any other conventional source of energy, electricity has its fair share of carbon emission issues. Using the standard global scale, such an amount of electricity usage would put the Bitcoin economy on par – in terms of carbon dioxide emissions – with a small developing nation. It is also interesting to note that 65% of Bitcoin mining takes place in China, where the major source of electricity generation is coal burning. Many other countries around the world are primarily dependent on coal and fossil fuels for electricity generation. This is even more concerning as coal burning is a significant contributor to climate change, owing to the high carbon emission rates associated with it. An alarming report by CNBC suggests that Bitcoin alone produces 35.95 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions every year.
The Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals
Under Article 2(c) of the UN Paris Agreement (a legally binding international treaty on climate change adopted by 196 Parties at COP 21 in Paris on 12 December 2015) every signatory is obligated to make attempts to hold global temperatures within 2°C above pre-industrial levels. This agreement also reflects the understanding that the future of international finance must include a to switch to low greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, the signatories that allow for such crypto-mining to continue are directly violating the agreement. Furthermore, the central idea of the agreement was to enable modern technology to be utilized in a way that mitigates greenhouse gas emissions to the highest standard possible. The highly polluting use of technology, such as that discussed above, would be in stark contravention of the spirit of the agreement.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a global agenda which was adopted by countries in 2015 with a vision to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity. The 17 SDGs and 169 targets are part of what is known as ‘the 2030 Agenda’ which recognizes that “eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development”. Usage of cryptocurrencies directly contradicts these goals which were formulated to ensure a sustainable and better future for humanity. They directly go against SDGs 7, 9, 11, and 12 which deal with ensuring affordable and clean energy, industry, innovation and infrastructure, creating sustainable cities, and responsible consumption and production respectively.
The Solution: Revamping the Crypto-Model
The analysis of the various reports and the due examination of the crypto energy consumption pattern highlights that the seemingly ‘green’ currency actually has a huge carbon footprint. The present generation of the human race, in its efforts to tackle global climate change, has been constantly trying to transition towards more energy-efficient technology. Millions of dollars are being poured into research and development to come up with sustainable and green technology. On the face of this, the growing popularity of cryptocurrencies can be seen as a major setback because, in their present state, they endanger the future of human civilization.
With global temperatures increasing, we have seen a fresh rise in global warming-related issues. Whether it be as a result of untimely flooding or pre-season blooming, the very existence of human life is being threatened. People are forced to leave their homelands because of climate stressors. It is ironic that the currency which promised to, in a way, mitigate the challenges of the global climate crisis has itself become one of its major causes. The energy consumption of these cryptocurrencies and the hope of a sustainable future are antagonist pairs; neither can live while the other survives. The key lies not in the complete abandonment of cryptos but a gradual transition to more energy-efficient ways of mining them.
Whether you’re in favor of cryptocurrencies or against them, there is little doubt that these blockchain-based currencies use enormous amounts of energy. Much of this energy usage comes from burning coal and other fossil fuels, although cryptocurrency advocates have argued that renewable sources are also a major component. While the exact figures are disputed, even the best-case scenarios indicate that mining is a major factor in carbon dioxide emissions. Thus, the question that naturally follows is: do we abandon the cryptocurrency framework? The answer to this question is tricky. While there is no denying that cryptocurrencies in their present state of operation are a great threat to the idea of sustainability, there have been recent developments of alternate cryptos which are more promising and less energy-consuming. For instance, Ripple (XRP) consume only 0.0079 KWh per transaction – this is highly power-efficient when compared to Bitcoins. Further, new forms of energy-efficient crypto mining are being introduced.
Cryptocurrencies, in their current form, are not only highly inefficient, but their continued usage can pose considerable danger to the future of humans. There is more than one solution to the problem: from devising a better mining strategy, to transitioning towards greener energy for mining. The entire concept is so nascent that hardly any academic debate or scientific report available could suggest concrete plans. However, looking at the growing popularity of cryptos, it is pertinent to note that there indeed exists a problem and the need of the hour lies not in ignoring it, but rather starting a meaningful discussion to come up with better strategies to effectively tackle it.
Raj Shekhar is a law student at National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India. He is the current Future Leaders India (Political Strategy) Fellowship holder.
Research conducted by Earth Refuge Advisor Dr Chris O’Connell in Bolivia and Peru, and published by Anti-Slavery International, indicates that climate change is a big – but not the only – factor driving displacement and vulnerability. He summarises his core findings in this article.
Climate change is the primary cause of migration worldwide. It presents an existential threat that is undermining traditional livelihoods, worsening the vulnerability of already marginalised groups and communities, and driving displacement. According to the World Bank, if sufficient action is not taken, over 140 million people could be displaced by 2050. Indeed, there is growing evidence that this is already occurring, with research linking northward migration from Central America to climate variability.
Under the right circumstances, migration represents an important form of climate adaptation, helping to mitigate economic precariousness and escape hazardous conditions. However, as highlighted in my report – ‘From a Vicious to a Virtuous Circle’ – if communities are not adequately listened to and supported, this situation can expose migrants to the risk of exploitation, including trafficking, debt bondage and forced labour.
My research in Bolivia and Peru reveals that climate change is not the only factor that is driving displacement and vulnerability, however. Until recently, the issue of environmentally destructive activities – such as mining and export-oriented agriculture – was predominantly treated as a ‘pull factor’ for migration by creating a demand for cheap labour. But as research participants made clear, in many places it is also a significant ‘push factor’ by making other economic activities – and even life – unviable in certain places.
Around 90% of the poorest people depend directly on natural resources, while 75% make a living from small-scale farming or fishing. These are more than just economic activities for many communities: they are deeply intertwined with their culture and identity, and often rely on ancestral knowledge passed down through generations. This same knowledge is increasingly recognised as crucial to preserving and restoring biodiversity, and for successful adaptation to the climate crisis.
Nevertheless, vital lifelines for communities and indigenous peoples are being shut down or restricted due to the expansion of extractive activities. Not only do these activities contaminate the air, soil and water, they are also associated with ‘staggering’ rates of deforestation and heavy water usage at a time when climate change is driving water scarcity.
Over and over, research participants described the negative environmental and human impacts of pesticides from industrialised agriculture, toxic oil spills, and pollution from mining residue that contains chemicals and heavy metals. This situation is also endangering the food security of these communities. In the words of an indigenous broadcaster I interviewed in the Peruvian Amazon,
“it is due to pollution, but also to the changes that are happening to the climate – both things are affecting us. The rivers used to be full of fish, but not now; we are eating our last fish…”
For many families and communities, this combination can represent the ‘last straw’ in pushing them to migrate. The cruel irony is that in countries where economic activity relies on natural resource extraction, the only choice for many citizens is to accept offers to work in these same environmentally destructive sectors. This work often consists of highly exploitative and degrading conditions, including instances of debt bondage and forced labour, which causes further human degradation and contributes to further greenhouse gas emissions. This is the vicious circle from which many struggle to escape.
The distinction between environmental impacts linked to climate change and those arising from man-made environmental harm is an important one. While the roots of both lie in the history of unequal development, their immediate drivers and control levers differ. Mitigating climate change is a long-term global challenge, but action to reduce environmental destruction should, in theory, be more straightforward.
Yet, rather than regulating these activities, governments in many countries are actively facilitating them via state policy, including tax breaks, subsidies, and infrastructure projects, while often turning a blind eye to human rights abuses against land- and environmental-rights defenders. This situation must be tackled as a matter of urgency, and must also involve the meaningful participation of affected groups and communities.
Responsibility for this scenario extends beyond national governments to include transnational corporations, consumer demand, and the architecture of global trade and investment – all of which restrict the ‘space’ for governments and suppliers to improve labour and environmental standards. Measures such as mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence legislation and a ‘Just Transition’ that respects workers’ rights are essential steps to taking a holistic approach to climate resilience.
All of this points to the need to not only improve legal safeguards for those who are displaced, but also to actively prevent or mitigate such vulnerability. Whether moving or staying, the fundamental rights of those most affected by climate and environmental breakdown must be upheld. Many of the tools required to tackle this situation already exist in the form of International Labour Organisation conventions, and UN human rights treaties, declarations, and principles such as the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights among others. What is needed now is corresponding action to translate these commitments into tangible change.
“The worst victims of environmental harm tend also to be those with the least political clout, such as members of racial and ethnic minorities, the poor, or those who are geographically isolated from the locus of political power within their country”
– Caroline Dommen
The global scale at which modern multinational corporations (MNCs) operate inevitability results in widespread environmental harm.[1] This article contends that international law must be developed to hold MNCs accountable for transboundary environmental harm as well as to offer protection to those upended by such harm.
Developing the international system
Poorly regulated and substandard MNC activities have resulted in numerous accidents such as water contamination, deforestation, soil erosion, and the exploitation of natural resources by oil, mining, and forestry companies.[2] Domestic recourse is the preferred avenue for preventing environmental abuses by MNCs.[3]This, however, is a largely ineffective as it presents an orthodox view of law wherein states are the principle actors in the global order and state sovereignty is paramount.[4] This disregards the fact that MNC operations in the host country have the potential to affect that state’s environment as well as that of other countries, as was the case in Ecuador and Peru with regards to MNC water contamination.[5] Additionally, this ignores the very real influence MNCs have on governments, especially developing states and the threat this presents to domestic enforcement.[6]For example, the Nigerian state relies on oil MNCs as its major source of revenue, granting these corporations enormous influence and control.[7]
The current international legal order is, however, not well equipped to address transboundary environmental harms.[8]One solution is the development of international jurisprudence to recognise a universal substantive environmental right, under which companies can be held accountable.[9]This long-term approach should be supplemented by short term enforcement by economic superpowers such as the United States, where many MNCs are incorporated.[10]
The dual potency of a substantive environmental right
Some scholars and legal experts find universal acceptance of substantive environmental rights at the national, regional, and international levels.[11]However, most of these instruments that address environmental protection and economic development are criticised as being non-binding, soft- law agreements, many of which are worded so broadly that they provide little or no guidance to states or MNCs.[12]The current international instruments do not sufficiently combine environmental protection and human rights or establish a substantive environmental right.
If drafted, or phrased, and implemented correctly, the two main goals of a universal substantive environmental right should be: i) to prevent environmental harm; and ii) to protect those forced to leave their home region due to sudden or long-term changes to their local environment, that is environmental migrants, post-harm.
Transboundary environmental degradation, including that perpetrated by MNCs, can impact millions at a time and the current international legal architecture does not offer any substantive protection for those displaced by this degradation.
The body of international human rights law does not effectively protect against displacement and migration which result from environmental degradation because it has not evolved to keep pace with the rapid advance of economic globalisation and the privatisation of resources.[13]The current lack of a universal provision means that at best, a substantive environmental right preventing harm and protecting migrants is to be derived from other existing rights, significantly weakening the position of those advocating for the protection of climate migrants and for the regulation of MNC activity.
It is therefore paramount that a universal substantive environmental right is developed to prevent of situations of environmental change as such as to promote reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the prohibition of transboundary damage as well as to mitigate the consequences of such harm, including especially the equal protection of all environmental migrants.
Human Rights Pulse core team member and Earth Refuge Archivist Vaughn is passionate about sustainability and human rights, his scholarship and writing focuses on international law, climate change and transitional justice.
[3] E. Prudence Taylor ‘From environmental to ecological human right: A new dynamic in international law?’ (1990) 10 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 309 350.
[4] A Shinsato ‘Increasing the accountability of transnational corporations for environmental harms: The petroleum industry in Nigeria’ (2005) 4 Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 194.
[11] U.N. ECOSOC, Comm. on Human Rights, Sub-Comm. on Prevention of Discrimination and Prot. of Minorities, Review of Further Developments in Fields with which the Sub-Commission Has Been Concerned, Human Rights and the Environment: Final Report, ¶ 240, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/9 (July 6, 1994).
[12] Joshua P. Eaton, The Nigerian Tragedy, Environmental Regulation of Transnational Corporations, and the Human Right to a Healthy Environment, 15 B.U. INT’L L.J. 261, 297 (1997).
[13] Dinah Shelton, Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment, 28 STAN. J.INT’L L. 103, 123 (1991).
Earth Refuge Newsletter
Sign up to our Earth Refuge newsletter for the latest updates on climate change, environmental justice and migration!
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OkPrivacy policy
