The UN Human Rights Council and the prosecution's case against SRM

A new report by the UN Human Rights Council's Advisory Committee provides a highly skewed case against CDR and SRM that fails to do the human rights issues these technologies raise justice

This week the UN Human Rights Council heard the findings of a new report prepared by it’s advisory committee. Far from being an impartial review of the issue, it reads more like the case for the prosecution in the trial against Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR).

The case against CDR and SRM

The report begins by setting out its definitions. “New Technologies intended for Climate Protection (NTCP)” is the term it uses to cover SRM and CDR and it wastes no time getting in it’s first blows against these ideas, stressing the uncertainties and risks associated with these ideas which justify the emphasis on intended.

It then stresses the threat that climate change poses and explains that “States have human rights obligations to prevent to the greatest extent possible its current and future negative impacts.” As CDR and SRM offer the potential to reduce those negative impacts you might expect that there is a case for them on the basis of these human rights obligations. However, the authors immediately argue that the only way to discharge those obligations is to pursue certain specific policies, i.e., rapid fossil fuel phase-out, the build-out of renewables and the restoration of natural ecosystems.

After the introduction, the report opens a section on the “Risks and side-effects” of SRM and CDR, that as the title suggests gives an entirely one-sided account that neglects to mention any potential benefits.

As the report goes on, at every turn they stress that we have everything we need to solve the climate problem and that CDR and SRM are unreliable, counter-productive, and dangerous distractions from implementing true solutions to climate change.

The report is full of bold and often completely unsubstantiated claims about CDR and SRM’s negative impacts, the biases of researchers in these fields, and the sinister role of fossil fuel interests in promoting these ideas. It would take too long to list all these instances of bias, but here are a few illustrative quotes:

“NTCPs… with the potential exception of some nature-based solutions, currently have no negative emission impact, as they all increase CO2 in the system if the overall emission process of the relevant facilities construction and functioning is taken into account.” (Paragraph 10)

Referring to all SRM and CDR proposals without distinction, the authors claim: “The magnitude of the potential negative socio-economic and human rights impacts is currently incommensurable to any hypothetical benefits.” (Paragraph 46)

On the possibilities for international governance: “SRM proponents recommend a well-structured global governance of it, but an international agreement on usage of such a controversial and uncertain technique borders on the impossible if it is not to ban it completely.” (Paragraph 28)

The case for the Defence

The report draws on a number of legal concepts and human rights obligations to argue for a moratorium on all SRM and CDR activities, but many of these arguments could be reversed.

The precautionary principle

As the report notes, Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration declared: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”

Does climate change not pose a threat of serious or irreversible harm? If so, it seems that an argument could be made for developing and deploying CDR and SRM, even though there is a “lack of full scientific certainty.” If the climate were not changing then it seems clear that the precautionary principle would argue strongly against such interventions, but as there is a clear and growing danger from climate change the precautionary principle clearly cuts both ways.

The report argues that whenever there is an alternative option to some policy then only the more preferable option should be pursued. However, this seems contrary to the Rio Declaration’s focus on “cost-effective measures” as a mix of technologies or policies is often a more cost-effective than focusing exclusively on a single approach. The report suggests that “a moratorium on fossil fuel extraction could be the less potentially harmful option.” But the obvious and disastrous economic impacts of a moratorium on all fossil fuel extraction (not exploration, or licensing for which a reasonable case could be made) suggest that it might fail the “cost-effective” requirement in the Rio Declaration.

Climate change and Human Rights

Climate change is widely recognized to be a human rights issue, as its impacts would threaten the enjoyment of many crucial human rights. As the foreword to the UN Environment Program’s Climate Change and Human Rights report puts it:

“Climate change is one of the greatest threats to human rights of our generation, posing a serious risk to the fundamental rights to life, health, food and an adequate standard of living of individuals and communities across the world.”

As SRM and CDR could have the potential to greatly reduce the impacts of climate change, there is a human rights case to be made for researching, developing and potentially deploying them. However, that case is not to be found in this report.

The human rights implications of SRM deserve more serious scrutiny

SRM and CDR have the potential to greatly reduce the impacts of climate change and so it's impact on human rights. However, these technologies are not without their issues.

Developing and potentially deploying SRM in a legitimate, internationally collaborative, and wise way will be an enormous challenge. Can conflicting policy preferences and an unequal distribution of benefits and risks ever be reconciled? Can the views of indigenous and marginalized people be properly reflected in these processes?

SRM raises a host of serious human rights issues which need to be taken seriously, but by taking such an obviously biased and hostile approach this report fails to do this important issue justice.

FIN