“Are we taking the necessary steps to protect people from climate chaos, safeguard their future, and manage natural resources in ways that respect human rights and the environment?”
Their answer was very simple: we are not doing enough.
In this sense, the impacts of climate change must be understood not only as a climate emergency, but also as a violation of human rights, said Professor Joyeeta Gupta. UN News recently
She is co-chair of the international scientific advisory body Earth Commission and one of the United Nations’ high-level representatives for science, technology and innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Who suffers more?
Professor Gupta said the 1992 climate convention never quantified human damage.
He noted that when the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015, the global consensus decided to limit warming to 2° Celsius, later recognizing 1.5° Celsius as a safer target.
But for small island states, even that was a compromise forced by the power imbalance, and “for them, two degrees was not something they could survive,” Professor Gupta said.
“Sea level rise, saltwater intrusion and extreme storms threaten to wipe out entire nations. When rich countries demanded scientific proof, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was tasked with studying the difference between 1.5° Celsius and 2° Celsius,” he continued.
He said the results were clear: 1.5° Celsius is significantly less destructive but still dangerous.
In his own research published in Natureargues that one degree Celsius is the fair limit, because beyond that point, the impacts of climate change violate the rights of more than one percent of the world’s population, around 100 million people.
The tragedy, he noted, is that the world exceeded one degree in 2017 and is likely to exceed 1.5° Celsius by 2030.
He stressed that promises of cooling later in the century ignore irreversible damage, including melting glaciers, collapsing ecosystems and loss of life.
“If the Himalayan glaciers melt,” he said, “they will not appear again. We will live with the consequences forever.”
A man helps a woman after her car became stranded in waist-deep water. Globally, rainfall is becoming more extreme due to the impacts of climate change.
A question of responsibility
Climate justice and development go hand in hand. Every basic right – from water and food to housing, mobility and electricity – requires energy.
“There is a belief that we can achieve the Sustainable Development Goals without changing the way the rich live. That doesn’t work mathematically or ethically,” Professor Gupta explained.
Their research shows that meeting basic human needs has a significant emissions footprint.
The research also highlights that since the planet has already crossed safe limits, wealthy societies must reduce emissions much more aggressively, not only to protect the climate but also to create carbon space for others to realize their rights.
“Not doing so turns inequality into injustice.” she stressed.
Climate change and displacement
Displacement is one of the most obvious effects of climate injustice. However, international law still does not recognize “climate refugees.”
Professor Gupta clearly explains the progression.
“Climate change first forces adaptation, for example, shifting from water-intensive rice to drought-resistant crops. When adaptation fails, people absorb the losses: land, livelihoods, security. When survival itself becomes impossible, displacement begins,” he said.
“If the land becomes too dry to farm and there is no drinking water,” he said, “people are forced to leave.”
He added that most climate displacement today occurs within countries or regions, not between continents.
“Moving is expensive, dangerous and often unwanted. The legal challenge lies in proving causality: did people leave due to climate change or other factors such as poor governance or market failures?
“This is where the science of attribution becomes crucial. New studies now compare decades of data to show when and how climate change alters precipitation, heat, health outcomes, and extreme events. As this science advances, it may be possible to integrate climate displacement into international refugee law,” he said.
“That,” he said, “will be the next step.”
Children in Africa are among those most at risk from the impacts of climate change.
A broken legal framework
Professor Gupta said climate harms have been quite difficult to address through human rights law due to the fragmented architecture of international law.
“This fragmentation allows states to compartmentalize responsibility… They can say: “I accepted this here, but not there,” he said.
“Environmental treaties, human rights conventions, trade agreements and investment regimes operate in parallel worlds. Countries can sign climate agreements without being bound by human rights treaties, or protect investors while ignoring environmental destruction,” he added.
He stated that this is why it has been so difficult to invoke climate change as a violation of human rights on a global level. Until recently, climate damage was discussed in technical terms (parts per million of carbon dioxide, temperature targets, emission trajectories) without explicitly asking: What effect does this have on people?
Only recently has this begun to change.
In a landmark advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) clarified that climate change cannot be assessed in isolation. Courts and governments, the ICJ said, must consider climate obligations alongside human rights and other environmental agreements.
For Professor Gupta, this legal change is long overdue, but vital.
“Finally, it tells governments: you can’t talk about climate without talking about people.”
Climate change is transboundary
Assigning responsibility for climate change is exceptionally complex because its impacts cross borders, he said.
“For example, a Peruvian farmer sued a German company in a German court for damages caused by climate change. The court recognized that foreign plaintiffs can bring such cases, but proving the link between emissions and damages remains a major challenge. This case highlights the difficulties of holding states or companies responsible for cross-border climate-related human rights harms,” he added.
Professor Gupta said attribution science is making it possible to link emissions to specific harms.
The ICJ has now affirmed that the continued use of fossil fuels may constitute an internationally wrongful act. States are responsible not only for their emissions, but also for regulating companies within their borders.
“Different legal strategies are emerging, from corporate misrepresentation lawsuits in the United States to France’s corporate surveillance law,” he added.
Emissions from vehicles, diesel generators, biomass burning and garbage have contributed to poor air quality in Lagos Lagoon, Nigeria. (archive 2016)
Climate stability as a collective human right
Instead of framing climate as an individual right, Professor Gupta advocates for recognizing a collective right to a stable climate.
He explained that climate stability underpins agriculture, water systems, supply chains and everyday predictability, and without it, society cannot function.
“Climate works through water,” he said. “And water is essential for everything.”
Courts around the world increasingly recognize that climate instability undermines existing human rights, even if the climate itself is not yet codified as such.
This thinking is now echoed at the highest levels of the UN.
Erosion of fundamental rights
Speaking at the Human Rights Council in Geneva in June this year, United Nations High Commissioner Volker Türk warned that climate change is already eroding fundamental rights, especially of the most vulnerable.
But he also framed climate action as an opportunity.
“Climate change can be a powerful lever for progress,” he said, if the world commits to a just transition away from environmentally destructive systems.
“What we need now,” he emphasized, “is a roadmap to rethink our societies, economies and policies so that they are equitable and sustainable.”
Political will, power and responsibility
“The erosion of multilateralism symbolized by the United States’ repeated withdrawals from the Paris Agreement has weakened global confidence. Meanwhile, 70 percent of the new fossil fuel expansion is driven by four rich countries: the United States, Canada, Norway and Australia,” Professor Gupta said.
He argues that neoliberal ideology focused on markets, deregulation and individual freedom cannot resolve a collective crisis.
“Climate change is a public good problem,” he said. “It requires rules, cooperation and strong states.”
Developing countries face a dilemma: wait for climate finance while emissions rise, or act independently and seek justice later. Waiting, he warns, is suicidal.
As the United Nations High Commissioner in Geneva concluded, a just transition must leave no one behind.
“If we do not protect lives, health, jobs and futures,” warned Volker Türk, “we will reproduce the same injustices we claim to fight.”