UNHoly

To respect the "Human Right" to a safe/stable climate we must defossilize our economy by 2030. Go.

Elisa Morgera, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change who presents her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday, argues that the US, UK, Canada, Australia and other wealthy fossil fuel nations are legally obliged under international law to fully phase out oil, gas and coal by 2030 – and compensate communities for harms caused. (30 June 2025: friends don’t let friends read The Guardian)

The TL;DR version is that, as one would expect, this powerful UN apparatchik sees only the negative aspects of fossil fuel use - and clearly has bought into the simplistic, naive and dangerous narrative that we can simply “Just Stop Oil”. Young activists bandying around fun slogans is one thing - but when the UN peddles the same narrative, and wants to “criminalize” anyone with a different point of view - we should be very concerned

Advocating for the nebulous “right to a stable climate”, while ignoring the catastrophic consequences of abruptly phasing out of fossil fuels is not just shortsighted but recklessly irresponsible, prioritizing ideological purity over the practical realities of energy needs, economic stability, and human welfare. The clear and present danger is climate policy, not climate change.

Good Intentions

What is the point of the United Nations?

The standard answer would be the “Rules Based Order”¹ and 80 years of peace² since the end of the 2nd World War. Talking is better than fighting - or as Churchill didn’t say “Jaw jaw is better than war war”³

The UN is the successor to the League of Nations which was formed after the carnage of WW1. When the League of Nations failed it plunged the world once again into world war.

While the fighting raged on, diplomats worked simultaneously to design a new international system. This time, the goal remained grounded in the complex reality of international politics, focusing on just a few core principles such as collective security, fair access to the global commons, and universal human rights. As Swedish diplomat Dag Hammarskjöld once stated, the goal was not to “take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.” Parley Policy

Let’s stop there a moment and note these key points

1. Collective security

2. Fair access to the global commons, and

3. Universal human rights

Laudable, and a tacit admission of the failings of human nature - “to save humanity from hell” may have been phrased “to save humanity from humanity”. But as with almost everything to do with politics, we should judge on outcomes not on intent.

What is a Human Right?

Generally, we think a council on human rights should concern itself with things like freedom of expression and media, political repression, police brutality, corruption and inequality, exploitation and slavery and so on.

However, one could argue that there is no such thing as a “Human Right” - they are purely a human construct, not an inherent or natural feature of the universe. It is worth remembering that human rights are often presented as universal, inalienable truths, but they are fundamentally a product of human imagination and consensus, lacking any basis in objective reality. Unlike physical laws such as gravity, which exist independently of belief, human rights depend entirely on societal agreement.

The definition of human rights has expanded significantly over time, evolving from core principles like life, liberty, and security to encompass broader concepts. Originally rooted in protections against state oppression, the framework now includes socioeconomic rights like access to education and healthcare - which are manifest in the UN SDGs⁴. It is hard to argue against the SDGs - but there seems to me to be a grey area where aspirations of social justice have morphed into “Human Rights”, opening the door to further “creep”.

Over-Reach

The UNHRC already has an issue of credibility when many of its members⁵ are criticized for not exactly respecting basic human rights in their own countries, but I digress. Unfortunately on the question of credibility, the UN’s definition of Human Rights seems to be ever-expanding, further decreasing the credibility of the organization.

Whilst the UN SDGs encode laudable aspirations to have a fairer world for everyone, recent additions, such the "Right to Wi-Fi" (UN Resolution A/HRC/32/L.20)⁶, "Right to Leisure" (actually one of the original HRs #24) and “Right to a Minimum Income” seem to push the envelope of what is reasonable. As per the SDGs, who wouldn’t want internet access, leisure and a minimum income? These UN backed initiatives are unenforceable and vague, with some calling them "luxury rights" irrelevant to survival. One might argue that these stretch the concept of human rights into impractical or absurd territory, as they impose vague, resource-intensive obligations on states while diluting the urgency of fundamental protections debasing and devaluing the more fundamental and crucial Human Rights.

When everything is a Human Right, nothing is.

The Right To A Safe Climate

The “right to a safe/stable climate” is expressed by many bodies not just the UN:

Everyone, everywhere has a right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and eat healthy food, amid a safe and stable climate, a non-toxic environment, and healthy biodiversity and ecosystems. 2023 Volker Türk, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

The court affirmed the right to a healthy environment, and said for the first time that this includes the right to a stable climate. The Inter-American court of human rights (IACHR)

No human rights-based climate action based on U.S. federal law has yet to reach anything close to the merits, however. The most celebrated is Juliana v. U.S., a 2015 case in which plaintiffs alleged that the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution affords a fundamental right to a stable climate. (ABA)

European Court of Human Rights (2024) decision is that it interpreted Article 8 to encompass a “right for individuals to effective protection by the State authorities from serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life”. (NortonRoseFulbright)

There is a lot to unpack in this - but who, seriously, who thinks that “a stable climate” is a thing - let alone a “Human Right”?

Good Intentions 1, Credibility 0.

Maybe banning earthquakes next? Ah, but no - you see earthquakes are natural, climate change is all because of Big Oil/Gas/Coal.

Summary The present report clarifies States’ international human rights obligations and businesses’ responsibilities to phase out fossil fuels and related subsidies within the current decade. The interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle, coupled with six decades of climate obstruction, compel urgent defossilization of our whole economies, for a just transition that is effective, human rights based and transformative in protecting the climate, nature, water and food on which life and health for present and future generations depend. Human Rights Council Fifty-ninth session, 16 June–11 July 2025, Agenda item 3, The imperative of defossilizing our economies

To counter this nonsense would require a series of post, maybe a book even - but it is extraordinary how people who fundamentally don’t understand energy or the economy, can be so convinced that fossil fuels are just - BAD.

The report points to a mountain of evidence on the severe, far-reaching and cumulative damage caused by the fossil fuel industry – oil, gas, coal, fertilizers and plastics – on almost every human right including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information and livelihoods. (friends don’t let friends read The Guardian)

Medicine Worse Than The Cure

As noted above, human rights are fundamentally a product of human imagination and consensus, lacking any basis in objective reality. Unlike physical laws. Cheap and reliable energy is fundamental to economic well being - as I have discussed here and here. Energy is physical, not a “product of human imagination and consensus”, and thus human well-being is related to energy use, but not any energy use - it has to be cheap and reliable.

HDI vs Energy (semi-log)

Fossil fuels have driven unprecedented improvements in life expectancy, economic prosperity, and resilience to natural disasters by providing cheap, reliable, and scalable energy. This energy has powered industrialization, improved access to clean water, and reduced poverty globally, particularly in developing nations.

Focusing on the negative externalities whilst simultaneously ignoring all the positives is only possible…

1. if you believe that continuing fossil fuel usage will lead to catastrophic climate breakdown (clearly the UN has a view on this) - so “nothing else matters”, and

2. if you believe that phasing out fossil fuels (and plastics, and petrochemicals, and, and and⁷,) will be painless because we have a plug-and-play alternative ready to slot in (we don’t).

and yes, like clockwork - there it is… another lawyer leaning into the “Greener and Cheaper” narrative.

“Paradoxically what may seem radical or unrealistic – a transition to a renewable energy-based economy – is now cheaper and safer for our economics and a healthier option for our societies,” Morgera told the Guardian.

Ironically, the UN has a long-standing discussion around the Right to Development⁸. Without a more balanced view of the role of hydrocarbons in our economy, the UN is going to find that the Right to a Safe Climate cuts across the Right to Development. Given that 7 billion people are on the Development ladder - this is going to become a contradiction that simple word-salad platitudes about “cheap renewable energy” and “leapfrogging” will not resolve.

The belief that “a transition to a renewable energy-based economy – is now cheaper and safer for our economics and a healthier option for our societies,” is a political dogma deeply embedded in the UN hierarchy. Getting this wrong will lead to utter chaos, and quite possibly (excuse the hyperbole) to WW3. Energy inputs that are too weak to support modern industrial societies will lead to rapid economic decline, social unrest, hyper-inflation, scapegoating of minorities and resource land-grabs. Sounds a lot like 1939.

Epilog: The Geneva Paradox

Last summer I was back in the Geneva area, waxing lyrical with a friend and local resident. There is a form of cognitive dissonance seeing all these UN offices (and vast staff) situated in one of the most beautiful, expensive and safe places in the world, working hard on global issues: famine, pandemics, wars and climate Armageddon. In my cynical way I was musing on how many of these people would still do these jobs if the UN relocated its headquarters to somewhere cheaper, less aesthetic and likely much more dangerous. My friend provided an interesting counter-point: the location and all its benefits was barely making up for the utter pointlessness of most people’s work. Endless meetings, reports, white-papers, conferences and resolutions - with virtually nothing ever getting “actioned”.

Let’s hope that “The Right to a Stable Climate” gets buried in a mountain of paperwork.

Sunrise over Lac Leman, Geneve.

The UN in Geneva - lake-front lawns and private beach club, located in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Value for money?

1. https://www.parleypolicy.com/post/the-rules-based-international-order-explained

2. Clearly this notion of 80 years of peace can, and should, be challenged, but it is a useful shorthand for the modern ear of prosperity and lack of war in Europe (mostly).

3. The phrase "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war" is often attributed to Winston Churchill, but it was actually said by Harold Macmillan in 1958, according to the International Churchill Society.

4. https://sdgs.un.org/goals

5. Members in recent years have included, Eritrea, Angola, Venezuela, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Gabon, Libya and Mauritania,

6. To be fair, this is not as silly as it seems - internet access supports human rights like freedom of expression, so can be tied back to the original tenets - but mandating infrastructure as a human right is clearly overreach. Critics argue it’s absurd to equate internet access with fundamental rights like life or liberty.

7. “The following sections illustrate the human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle, connecting evidence on the global climate crisis, toxic pollution and biodiversity loss, global plastic pollution and harmful petrochemical production.” Section II.6 https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g25/070/22/pdf/g2507022.pdf

8. The Right to Development, enshrined in a 1986 UN Declaration, asserts that everyone is entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy a holistic process of economic, social, cultural, and political development where all human rights are fully realized. This concept, championed primarily by Global South nations, emphasizes both national responsibility and international cooperation to overcome development obstacles and address global inequalities. While its legal status and operationalization remain subjects of debate, the UN continues to actively promote it through various mechanisms, including the Human Rights Council and the ongoing effort to draft a legally binding instrument, underscoring its relevance to the Sustainable Development Goals and a human rights-based approach to global progress