Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Human rights and climate change: a fresh perspective

Climate change has been considered under many lenses – economic, geopolitical, diplomatic and developmental. However, human rights are rarely considered. Instead, they are a peripheral concern for the…

The threat to human rights should be a central focus of climate change action. Flickr/The World Wants a Real Deal

Climate change has been considered under many lenses – economic, geopolitical, diplomatic and developmental. However, human rights are rarely considered. Instead, they are a peripheral concern for the diplomats, researchers and policy-makers working in the climate change field. This is a major oversight.

Last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Fifth Assessment Report, recognised it is now beyond doubt that the global climate system is warming as a result of greenhouse gas emissions.

How is climate change affecting the basic right of people to sustain their livelihoods across the planet?

Climate change may bring sea level rise, increasing extreme weather such as flooding and drought, unpredictable seasons, the increasing spread of both water and vector borne diseases, greater water shortages and rising concerns over food security.

All of these gravely threaten people’s human rights: access to safe and adequate food and water, and the rights to information, justice, security, and culture.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, along with the eight international and legally-binding human rights conventions, protect human rights.

For instance, the right to livelihoods and subsistence is enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in Article 25, which states that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services”. This makes clear that people should not be deprived of their livelihood.

In 2008 the United Nations Human Rights Council said climate change “poses an immediate and far-reaching threat to people and communities around the world”. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner began a study of the relationship between human rights and climate change, and in 2009 a subsequent resolution was adopted, stipulating that “climate change-related impacts have a range of implications, both direct and indirect, for the effective enjoyment of human rights”.

Climate change’s threat to human rights is recognised, but this has not yet been translated into global or local policy.

At the Cancun Conference of the Parties (to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) in 2010, the final documents called on member countries to respect and uphold human rights in all climate change-related policies and decisions. At the most recent Conference of the Parties (in Doha in late 2012), no in-roads were made in utilising the sentiments and language from the Cancun Agreements. This was a missed opportunity.

The impacts of climate change are set to undermine the protection of human rights, especially in countries where there is a very real concern over their long-term viability and sustainability. The human rights to survival, self-determination, culture and nationality therefore becomes an appropriate lens by which to understand and respond to the impacts of climate change.

Australia is a signatory to the major international human rights conventions. As such, it is obliged to protect the human rights of all people. Climate change is a key threat to the enjoyment of many of these human rights.

If the government here in Australia was to take the human rights implications of climate change seriously they would act with urgency at international negotiations to cut global emissions and encourage other countries to follow suit. National mitigation targets would be bold and implemented. The government would provide more finance to allow developing counties to adapt to climate change, prepare for extreme weather events and switch to low-carbon technologies and economies.

Australia would also have to make some important changes to domestic law. While Australia might be a signatory to the major international human rights instruments, we have only enacted some human rights norms. A number of human rights have yet to be enshrined into domestic law – many of which are under threat from the impacts of climate change. To date, climate change work has been concentrated at the global level – global economy, global solutions and global frameworks, with a focus on technical, economic, environmental and developmental aspects. Human rights should be placed at the centre of international climate change policy and discussions.

The global community has a moral and legal obligation to uphold and protect human rights. With climate change set to undermine such rights across the planet, it is time that such principles and foundations for life are placed at the centre of international climate change policy, and elsewhere.

Join the conversation

73 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

  1. Marc Hendrickx

    Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

    This article posits that Human rights are rarely considered when it comes to climate change. How so? A quick web search of google scholar yields over 500 references for the precise phrase "human rights and climate change". The less precise terms yield over 1.8 million references. It seems quite a few have been busy considering this aspect of the issue for some time. The article title claims to offer a "fresh perspective" but the main text appears to cover points already raised in a clichéd manner…

    Read more
    1. In reply to Mike Hansen

      Comment removed by moderator.

    2. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Michael Shand

      Yet another example of a trolling comment. Moderator please note.

      I would suggest a week of active rather than passive moderation may help contributors to be more respectful of community standards.

      report
    3. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      I would suggest a week of active rather than passive moderation may help contributors to be more respectful of community standards.

      I'd agree but you just won't do it, why won't you respect the standards of the community Marc?

      report
    4. Andy Saunders

      Consultant

      In reply to Michael Shand

      I may disapprove of what Marc says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it.

      report
    5. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Andy Saunders

      Don't expect Hendrickx to return the compliment.

      The reason for the deleted comments is an overreaction from the moderator to some quite reasonable comments on Hendrickx's trolling after he whined loudly about the criticism.

      report
    6. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Andy Saunders

      "may disapprove of what Marc says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it."

      I would suggest calming down Andy, there is no need to start threats of violence over nothing.

      Responding to Marc does not equate to restricting freedom of speech and certainly doesn't require your macho pride

      report
    7. Andy Saunders

      Consultant

      In reply to Michael Shand

      Michael, google Voltaire (actually it wasn't him, but normally is attributed to him)...

      report
    8. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Andy Saunders

      No I know the quote

      WHat you did is see that Marc and I had a disagreement and then you quoted voltaire - the implication being that whilst I disagree with Marc I am trying to shut him up but you are not - ohhh how wonderful you are

      This is both not true and completely asinine, hyperbolic

      why would me responding to Marc require you to fight, let alone fight to your death?

      Merely responding to marc caused you to put your own life on the line?

      report
    9. Andy Saunders

      Consultant

      In reply to Michael Shand

      Man, take a chill pill!

      It's a well-known quote, I would have thought that most readers would have recognised it - maybe you didn't the first time. Actually I (and some quite respected authorities) don't completely agree with Voltaire, there are times when the right to free expression is not absolute. But this is not one of them, imho. Voltaire was exaggerating, to make a point (he didn't *actually* sacrifice himself after all). The point was that allowing opinions you don't share to be expressed…

      Read more
    10. Valerie Kay

      PhD candidate, public health

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      I just did a quick search in Monash library and found there in a search of 'human rights' and 'climate change' in any criteria there were over 120,000 items, However if you did a search with 'human rights' and 'climate change' both in subject, articles in peer reviewed journals only there only 82 results. So Marc's statement, even at face value, is very misleading.

      If you then take into account that the author of this article is actually focusing on responses under the UN framework convention…

      Read more
    11. Andy Saunders

      Consultant

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Maybe he is being nasty generally. I get that. And you and he have been having a ding-dong over many web pages. I get that too.

      But his (one) post here isn't nasty, misleading (except, possibly in the use of the world "mild" - and he's made it clear that his post is his opinion). Censorship isn't the answer to everything, and (in my opinion) not in this particular case.

      Pray tell, where was I "wrong"? I'll let the "pompous" comment through to the keeper (just like I did the "asinine" one) - but be on notice that gratuitous insults do one's cause and reputation no good.

      report
    12. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Andy Saunders

      Pathetic. Where did I call for Hendrickx to be censored?

      On the contrary, I would hope that the trolls are never censored here. Their comments speak for themselves.

      So your implication is a lie.

      You simply pretend that Hendrickx is not the one demanding censorship. You started off with a smart-alec comment and rather than admit you were wrong you have continued to double down. Lack of honesty does not help your reputation in the least.

      report
    13. Andy Saunders

      Consultant

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      OK Mike, I'm calling you on this.

      "Smart-alec" - well, your opinion, you can have it. Doesn't mean you are right.

      "Pathetic" - ditto.

      "Where did I call for Hendrickx to be censored?" - I dunno. Where did I accuse *you* of that? You just made it up, as far as I can tell.

      "Lie" and "lack of honesty" - libellous. I'd appreciate a retraction (or pointing out where the lie or lack of honesty is - I'll give you that chance). That may help partially rescue your reputation.

      Or are you going to invoke Godwin's Law?

      report
    14. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to Valerie Kay

      Yes Valerie, and also it may be recognised, but is generally ignored. In many of the posts today there is deliberate confusion about other human rights (cultural and chauvinistic), but not the human right of survival, of people who's ability to live within their traditional lands which are and will be impacted by climate change. This article is in my opinion sensible.

      report
    15. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to Andy Saunders

      Andy, Marc usually throws many contentious statements around, usually off topic, lots of smear and innuendo, never showing any insight into the reality of climate change, or the necessity to do anything about it. Of what relevance is his statement about the photo? He derails intelligent conversation, that's all. Defending his "right" to have an "opinion" is another wasted opportunity, as is quoting Voltaire. You haven't commented on the article either.

      report
    16. Andy Saunders

      Consultant

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Alice, I think you are right in your first sentence, and probably your second.

      He certainly has a right to have an opinion, it is alarming if anyone thinks otherwise.

      In my opinion, he has the germ of something in his first paragraph - the topic has been raised quite a few times previously so to say that it is novel is perhaps a stretch.

      I don't particularly feel the need to comment on the article.

      report
    17. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Andy Saunders

      "I think you are trying to shut Marc up" - is my responding to you....also an attempt to shut you up?

      No, wait, you responded to me? are you trying to shut me up? cause whilst I may disagree with you, I will slaughter innocents in order for you to speak

      report
    18. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Andy Saunders

      ""Where did I call for Hendrickx to be censored?" - I dunno. Where did I accuse *you* of that? You just made it up, as far as I can tell."

      Gee I wonder what this comment was about:

      "I may disapprove of what Marc says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it."

      report
    19. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Andy Saunders

      "I may disapprove of what Marc says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it."

      I'm waiting for this statement with my name in it.

      report
    20. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Andy Saunders

      Me too - I just love the way he collapses into petulant and childish abuse after a couple of disagreements.

      report
    21. Andy Saunders

      Consultant

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Sure Chris, say what you like, I'll also defend to the death (metaphorically) your right to say it. Sheesh, some people here (not meaning you) are sensitive!

      As for your previous post, you might be confused - you might have to read back a fair way.

      report
    22. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Then again, Mike, if he was (a) sincere in his desire for people in the third world to have access to cheap energy and (b) able to rise above a psychotic-level of cost-accounting and appreciate the true cost of the kinds of energy he describes as 'cheap' (i.e. coal and oil) he would recognise that renewables would be the go for the third world. Maybe one of these days, thorium reactors might also be sufficiently developed and cheaply produced to be affordable and mageable in less developed countries as well but, at least for the next few decades, it's just got to be renewables.

      So, if we grant him his belief that he is indeed rational, wel meaning and honest, then we can only assume he is advocating renewable energy for the poor. It might also follow from that point that a rich, skilled nation like Ausralia could actually help with the process...maybe even make a modest and honest dollar along the way...

      report
    23. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Valerie Kay

      Thanks Valerie - you not only completely, calmly and factually burst Marc's silly deceitful balloon, but you provided the most accurate and succinct summary of how he works that I've yet seen in the final sentence of your third paragraph.

      Back when I was in school, people like that were known as bullies: tough when they were on top but the first to run for the teacher when someone fought back.

      report
  2. Stephen Ralph

    carer at n/a

    """ United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in Article 25, which states that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services”"""

    All very well to have such a grand and noble statement contained in Article 25, but out of the 7 billion peeps living on the planet I would surmise that the greater % have no such thing as medical care and necessary social services. And limited access in many cases to housing and enough good food.

    Perhaps if governments are NOT doing enough (or not much at all) and the ramifications are damning in relation to human rights, governments and individuals should be warned they face Crimes Against Humanity charges at future dates.

    report
  3. Chris Harries

    logged in via Facebook

    The current government's attitude seems to be that it is cheaper and easier to cope with climate change than to try to prevent it. That means a few billions dollars out of our national budget each year goes towards compensating the victims of extreme weather events, bushfires, droughts and and the costs of repairing destroyed infrastructure.

    All very well, but what about global victims who become displaced?

    Well, that ties in with the current government's harsh attitude to refugees. On humanitarian…

    Read more
    1. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Chris Harries

      Chris, I couldn't agree more, and I think the third-from-last paragraph of the article describes the situation perfectly:

      "If the government here in Australia was to take the human rights implications of climate change seriously they would act with urgency at international negotiations to cut global emissions and encourage other countries to follow suit. National mitigation targets would be bold and implemented. The government would provide more finance to allow developing counties to adapt to climate change, prepare for extreme weather events and switch to low-carbon technologies and economies."

      The whole problem hinges on that first word: "If..."

      report
    2. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Felix, I think when people hear the phrase "human rights" they think of a very specific demographic. It is this assumption that makes calling for action on climate change in the name of human rights a very bad example of hipocrisy. Those "bold" "mitigation targets" if taken seriously, are going to negatively affect some people very badly, others not so bad and others will be helped. Only trouble is that if we look at it from a human rights point of view we can't violate the rights of the people it would affect to improve the rights of the people it would help so we are stuck trying to help everyone whilst helping no one.

      report
    3. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      Interestingly, these issue have already been covered.

      The exact same issue arose with women in the workforce

      - every women with a job is a man without, so sure letting women work might be good but it will adversly affect others

      and slavery

      - sure owning human beings as property is bad but we have sturggling small business that rely on this trade, if you have to pay your workers the price of food will go up

      is that what you want? to abolish slavery only to make it harder for people to eat?

      Your concerns are not real concerns, they are intended to delay progress

      like, if Oil is not valuable due to carbon price - what about all the pension funds......or you could state the same thing as "who cares about the next generation, we want money"

      report
    4. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Michael Shand

      Michael that is a total strawman. I specifically directed my comment towards climate change and it's issues, where I believe human rights considerations do not apply, the rest of your comment has nothing to do with my position on the OP or life in general. You also show your hubris by assuming you know me.

      To one with a hammer, everything looks like a nail

      report
    5. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      There is an assumption in your comment that limiting greenhouse gases will impact some adversely. Bold, could apply to the construction of low emission and electric cars, to a small but incremental yearly increase in greenhouse gas free electricity, new houses could be required to orient towards the north, and be low energy, we could actively seek to persuade other countries to cut their emissions while actively doing so ourselves. At the present we do not need to adversely impact our economy, but…

      Read more
    6. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      "I specifically directed my comment towards climate change and it's issues"

      Yeah, it's called analogy and comparison. your concerns about how addressing climate change may disadvantage some is equivilant to the concerns of the slave owners

      The comparison was valid

      "The exact same issue arose with women in the workforce

      - every women with a job is a man without, so sure letting women work might be good but it will adversly affect others"

      report
    7. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      "There is an assumption in your comment that limiting greenhouse gases will impact some adversely" - it's a faux concern

      similar to the concern raised about women being introduced into the workforce - every women with a job is a man without

      we can't disadvantage some to benefit others

      it is a faux concern

      report
    8. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to Michael Shand

      "Those "bold" "mitigation targets" if taken seriously, are going to affect some people very badly....
      Bold, mitigation targets, and, if taken seriously.. in the manner this sentence was written, with underlining tone, followed by, affect some people very badly.. Complete Failure to identify the actual problem .

      report
    9. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Alice Kelly

      Hi Alice, thanks for your comment. I think from comments here people are misunderstanding my position. I agree with all your sentiments on climate change and personally do what I can on a daily basis to help. I don't usually sit around on the internet arguing about it but I have travelled to several places around the world in the last 18 months as a volunteer (yes I know Jet A1 and all that, but I do offset as much as I can) and at my expense using my skills to help gather rather awkward data in…

      Read more
    10. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      Career miners do not keep my lights on. Career miners are not victims, one could argue that the Koch brothers and others who bankroll the Tea Party in the US are active in their contempt for human rights in the future, due to their seeking to derail any attempt to curb emissions. The reality of Climate Change, is that human right of future generations to a liveable planet are compromised by inaction. It is possible to see this as a human rights issue. DON'T SHOUT AT ME. You have not made your point well.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

      report
  4. Mark Pollock

    Analyst

    Given that the author is insisting the Australian government act to protect human rights under threat from climate change, it would have been nice to have a few examples of how climate change will impinge on these rights – especially at the local level. The author asserts that “A number of human rights have yet to be enshrined into domestic law – many of which are under threat from the impacts of climate change”.
    Before we start making the stupendous effort to protect global human rights from the grievous threat of climate change, maybe we should clean up our own act – whatever that may be. Once we have addressed these problems maybe then we can start adequately meeting our obligations to “protect the human rights of all people”. We can start ensuring that North Koreans have freedom of speech, Saudi Arabian Women have the right to vote, Burkina-Fausinians, or whatever, have the “right to a standard of living adequate for the(ir) health and well-being”.

    report
  5. Nick Kermode

    logged in via email @hotmail.com

    Hi Karen,

    "Human rights should be placed at the centre of international climate change policy and discussions."

    With respect I strongly disagree with that. The health of the planet should be at the centre of discussions. If we approach this major problem from your point of view nothing will ever get done and actually make life worse for the demographic your article seems to have focussed on. By having a narrow focus and bias the article also seems to forget there are two sides to the ledger…

    Read more
    1. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      Nick, I don't think the principle of right to a reasonable livelihood in any way implies a right to a particular livelihood, which your second paragraph sugests. Nobody has ever imagined that any form of human rights legislation could or should guarantee that you would get to keep a particular job or even a particular trade or profession - merely that there would be a reasonable opportunity within your environment to find a reasonably dignified and honourable way to make at least a basic living.

      If anyone imagined that we had a right to particular job or trade, then the whole 'creative destruction' of capitalism would have to be outlawed...now there's an interesting thought...

      report
    2. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      I see what you are saying however, to quote george carlin;

      "The planet is fine, the people are f**ked"

      report
    3. Paul Prociv

      ex medical academic; botanical engineer at University of Queensland

      In reply to Nick Kermode

      Yes, Nick, yours is a very thoughtful and pertinent response to a very complex issue.
      I find the entire business of "human rights" problematic. Does each of us really have a right to clothing, food, clean water, good health care etc., or should that be a right to work for those things? If the former, who is to provide all these goodies? Even the constitution of the USA does not guarantee happiness, only the right to pursue it. Some people might not be bothered . . .

      report
    4. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      " I don't think the principle of right to a reasonable livelihood in any way implies a right to a particular livelihood"

      Who decides what is reasonable Felix? How much money per week is reasonable? What is reasonable in Mogadishu? What is reasonable in New York? Besides, the article I took issue with said nothing about reasonable, probably because it is indefinable in this sense.
      I also have a problem with your term " within your environment". This term comes from the misguided sense that humans…

      Read more
  6. Mark McGuire

    climate consensus rebel

    Where are the Human Rights or Ethics in this Green Environmental Pogrom?
    “Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money from the Department for International Development have been spent on a programme that has forcibly sterilised Indian women and men, the Observer has learned. Many have died as a result of botched operations, while others have been left bleeding and in agony. A number of pregnant women selected for sterilisation suffered miscarriages and lost their babies. With officials and doctors…

    Read more
    1. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Wait? are you suggesting that a western nation has been remiss in it's application of human rights?

      well in that case we need to throw human rights out the window yeah? that's what your suggesting? that because a western nation may have a bad human rights record therefor we can't talk about human rights and the environment

      report
    2. Mark McGuire

      climate consensus rebel

      In reply to Michael Shand

      Hi Michael. Uhm, I would suggest we get rid of the UK's Department of International Development and ALL it's human hating programmes, apply some ethics & human rights, and charge all the people involved with murder, with a commission into what prompted this type of obscenity on humanity. And, shove Goodwin's Law up his clacker, the UK fought a war against this very thing.

      report
    3. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      You are quite right to criticise these programs. Blaming the poor for climate change is already becoming a very popular strategy among people who refuse to acknowledge that it is burning fossil fuels primarily in the developed countries that has and is causing climate change.

      Populationism is reactionary. The world's poor have negligible carbon footprints.

      report
    4. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      "As well as responding to disasters and emergencies, DFID works to support the United Nations' eight Millennium Development Goals, namely to:
      halve the number of people living in extreme poverty and hunger
      ensure that all children receive primary education
      promote sexual equality and give women a stronger voice
      reduce child death rates
      improve the health of mothers
      combat HIV & AIDS, malaria and other diseases
      make sure the environment is protected
      build a global partnership for those…

      Read more
    5. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      The other obvious point to make is that these programs are being financed by the UK Conservative government.

      When the populationist arguments get an airing here, they are usually made by the same people who support Abbott's refugee policy.

      report
    6. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      At least Energy and Climate Change are collectively in the one department of government in the UK. This is bold and honest. Unlike your comments about "Green Environmental Pogrom". Immature and silly. There are many countries which have started to transform public policy broadly.
      Human rights is a broad spectrum, in respect to climate change it means being able to survive in ones homelands. In Kenya I heard a Masai elder talking about their way of life, and climate change. His thoughts were that they could no longer live with cows, and goats were the only option. (Due to never to be seen before, long running drought.) We are by our behaviour impacting many people in other countries. This is a human rights issue. Anybody who states otherwise is being dishonest.

      report
  7. David Arthur

    resistance gnome

    Climate change and human rights: is it a human right to have your wealth protected?

    If so, that would account for Australian government actions over the last couple of decades, which seem geared towards protecting the value of investments in coal mines.

    report
    1. Mark Pollock

      Analyst

      In reply to David Arthur

      Yes, quiet enjoyment of one’s legally obtained property is the fundamentally human right. The stuff the author talks about is just feel-good flummery. There is no meaning at all in asserting that people have any special right to “food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services”. They might have the right to acquire these, in whatever quantity and order they choose.
      The author is not really interested in human rights. She is interested in forcing an obligation on others to distribute their property in a way she thinks appropriate and is using climate change as the moral vehicle for appropriation.

      report
    2. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Mark Pollock

      Tell that to the farmers who are legally obliged to let CSG prospectors in to destroy whatever carefully managed productive they've set in place.

      A question for you, Mr Pollock? If theft is legal, and one has obtained their wealth through such theft, then does one have a right to this "quiet enjoyment"?

      report
    3. Mark Pollock

      Analyst

      In reply to David Arthur

      It's not theft. It's law. We don't have title to what's under the ground. Never have had. The state owns it. If you don't like it change the constitution.

      report
    4. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Mark Pollock

      Trouble is, the States aren't competent to hold title to what's under the ground, as explained by Uni Newcastle Centre for Climate Change Impact Management director Garry Willgoose ("Independent research is the answer to coal seam gas dilemma", 4 April 2013, http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4609344.html).

      From the introduction to his article: "Truly independent data, collected by experts over long periods, is the only way to determine the genuine impact of coal seam gas mining on our environment…

      Read more
    5. Andy Saunders

      Consultant

      In reply to Mark Pollock

      "Quiet enjoyment" is a term used in relation to landlords interfering with tenants. Think it is somewhat mis-used here.

      "Property" is not a fundamental human right - it is mostly a legal construct (generally via common law).

      report
    6. Mark Pollock

      Analyst

      In reply to Andy Saunders

      It may be, somewhat, misued, but it seems apt. It’s as fundamental as free speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscience. These are the only real human rights. The rights the author bangs on about, the right to have nice clothes, an air conditioned house with a swimming pool, one’s own personal GP, and a commonwealth grant to do a PhD in, say, “transgender ideation in a carbon rich atmosphere” aren’t real rights.

      report
    7. Mark Pollock

      Analyst

      In reply to David Arthur

      So the states, with their imperfect but functioning democracies, with their constitutions and with their more or less good intention to govern for the benefit of all of us, aren’t competent. And someone from the Centre for Climate Change Impact Management (whatever that may be) is competent.
      Sounds like you want to suspend democracy or set up some intranational panel of “experts” to do the job.

      report
  8. David Arthur

    resistance gnome

    "... the diplomats, researchers and policy-makers working in the climate change field ...".

    I've been arguing for some time that the wrong people are in charge of policy. The diplomats and policy-makers need to butt out of trying to solve the problem, at least until they've finished reading James Hansen's "Dreams of My grandchildren".

    Not only does Prof Hansen set out exactly what the problem is, he also sets out the best way to fix it.

    report
  9. Michael Sheehan

    Geographer at Analyst

    "Australia is a signatory to the major international human rights conventions. As such, it is obliged to protect the human rights of all people."
    This is false.

    report
  10. Michael Brown

    Professional & academic

    In fact the recent IPCC report contradicts most of your statements about extreme weather:

    "Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability"
    "There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
    “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends…

    Read more
    1. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Michael Brown

      I copied this straight from a blog - notice how it is identical to yours? http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/coverage-of-extreme-events-in-ipcc-ar5.html

      Now I am not saying you copied this from this blog, it appears this same list is being circulated around many blogs;

      •“Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large…

      Read more
    2. Mark Pollock

      Analyst

      In reply to Michael Shand

      He could have copied them from a blog or he could have copied them direclty from WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_All.

      So what? Is this what the IPP is saying or isn't it?

      report
    3. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Mark Pollock

      "Is this what the IPP is saying or isn't it?" - it is

      notice how I address your concern here

      So what? - well thanks for asking

      so what if there is an online campaign at the moment which is attempting to undermine the IPCC report by posting and reposting the same bit of propaghanda all over the net?

      is that your question? I can address it but it takes a little bit of typing as if you don't understand on the face of it why this might be not only dishonest but harmful to societal discourse then to explain it, yeah takes a bit of time and I am not sure your not a trolly troll troll yourself - hence I don't want to waste my time, lets just see how you respond, if you acknowledge the issue

      report
    4. Mark Pollock

      Analyst

      In reply to Michael Shand

      What online campaign? There are a bunch of individuals independently interested in the issue? Do you think we’re all paid by the IPA or the Koch Brothers? I wish!.

      How can it be propaganda if it is directly quoted from the latest IPPC report? It directly relates to the author’s argument. She says that all these bad climactic things are going to make human rights worse and the IPCC, the scriptural authority, is saying they have “low” confidence that they are going to happen. What “societal discourse” (whatever that may be) does quoting the IPCC harm? If it’s one that is based on deception, exaggeration, mindless alarmism and totalitarian consensualism then good. Is there some new rule that says that only true believers can read the IPCC reports?

      report
    5. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Mark Pollock

      What online campaign? There are a bunch of individuals independently interested in the issue?

      you realise a campaign is made up of individuals independently interested in an issue yeah?

      "Do you think we’re all paid by the IPA or the Koch Brothers?" - no, I think there is a plethora of useful idiots all over the political spectrum - whipping up a base is a common tactic and is much easier than paying everyone

      "How can it be propaganda if it is directly quoted from the latest IPPC report?" - ahhhh so you are a trolly troll troll, either that or you are incredibly unaware of how propaghanda works.

      But me thinks you have heard of "cherry picking" before,

      lol, "But how can it be propaghanda if it's what they said uhdurrr" - I know you are smarter than this, you are clearly troll troll

      report