Young European Leaders Reflect on COP27

YOUNG EUROPEAN LEADERS REFLECT ON COP27

FROM GALLUP, PUBLISHER OF 10 INTERNATIONAL BESTSELLERS, INCLUDING STRENGTHSFINDER 2.0

The Global Rise of Unhappiness and How Leaders Missed It

How is your life going?

Gallup has been asking the world’s citizens this question since 2006. Learn more about one of the most concerning trends we have found and how leaders can address it.

How people feel matters

If you feel like the world is getting more negative, you’re right. People are reporting more stress, sadness, physical pain, worry and anger than at any point in the history of Gallup’s tracking.

3.3 billion

2 billion people want a great job, but only 300 million have one. people are struggling on their current income.

3 in 10 Over 300 million

people worldwide experienced food insecurity in 2020. people don’t have a single friend.

Over 1 billion people are so dissatisfied with their community that they want to leave it forever.

And it’s not just because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Negative emotions have been rising for a decade.

Find out why it’s crucial for leaders — and all of us — to pay attention.

Addressing the blind spot

Discover where the world is suffering in each of Gallup’s five elements of wellbeing and what private and public sector leaders can do to improve how people’s lives are going.

With powerful personal stories and compelling data from Gallup’s World Poll, Blind Spot outlines the indicators leaders need to watch so they are never again surprised by rising negative emotions.

About the Author

Jon Clifton is the CEO of Gallup. His mission is to help 7 billion citizens be heard on their most pressing work and life issues through the Gallup World Poll, a 100-year initiative spanning over 150 countries. Clifton is a nonresident senior fellow at Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion. He serves on the boards of directors for Gallup and Young Professionals in Foreign Policy. Clifton received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan and a Juris Doctor from the University of Nebraska. He was also awarded an honorary doctorate from Midland University.

The Gallup brand

Universal and trusted, Gallup’s unmatched authority and credibility transform businesses, nonprofit organizations, schools and faith communities that want to develop their human potential.

MASTHEAD

CEO & PUBLISHER

ANA C. ROLD

MANAGING EDITOR

SHANE SZARKOWSKI

SPECIAL SERIES EDITOR

KELLY R. BAILEY

ART DIRECTOR

MARC GARFIELD

SPECIAL SERIES EDITOR

JEREMY FUGLEBERG

SPECIAL SERIES EDITOR

WINONA ROYLANCE

MULTIMEDIA MANAGER

WHITNEY DEVRIES

BOOK REVIEWER

JOSHUA HUMINSKI

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

ANDREW M. BEATO

FUMBI CHIMA

DANTE A. DISPARTE KERSTIN EWELT

SIR IAN FORBES

LISA GABLE GREG LEBEDEV ANITA MCBRIDE

CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

JESSICA ANTONISSE

TARA GRACE CONNOLLY

GIACOMO DI CAPUA

JAKOB GOMOLKA

SARA GRAMBS

LAURYN LEE HALLET

ROSALIND SKILLEN NOEMIE VITERALE

Copyright © by Diplomatic Courier/Medauras Global Publishing 2023. All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the United States by Medauras Global and Diplomatic Courier.

LEGAL NOTICE. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form— except brief excerpts for the purpose of review—without written consent from the publisher and authors. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information in this publication; however, the authors, Diplomatic Courier, and Medauras Global make no warranties, express or implied, in regards to the information and disclaim all liability for any loss, damages, errors, or omissions.

EDITORIAL. The content represents the views of their authors and do not reflect those of the editors and the publishers. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information in this publication, however, Medauras Global and the Diplomatic Courier make no warranties, express or implied in regards to the information, and disclaim all liability for any loss, damages, errors, or omissions.

PERMISSIONS. This report cannot be reproduced without the permission of the authors and the publisher. For permissions please email: info@medauras.com with your written request.

Welcome

whether because they’re “too young” or part of marginalized identity groups.

Shane Szarkowski Managing Editor

In the broader global affairs space— whether we’re talking about the future of education, gender and LGBTQ+, peace building, or climate change—it’s old hat by now that young people need to have a more prominent place in conversations about how to do better. But I’ve seen it myself, again and again. At summits and other multilateral gatherings there’s talk of listening to the next generation, and maybe some token inclusion, but it’s always felt a bit hollow. Of course, it’s tricky to radically disrupt how we make big decisions.

On the other hand, today’s young people are better equipped than any previous generation to learn and make impact. They’re also more engaged and curious than previous generations. Add to that the recognition that the challenges we face today aren’t short-term. The solutions we arrive upon today will have repercussions not only for this younger generation, but for the one(s) that follow. Right now, young people are stakeholders but not partners. That’s a problem.

Among the greatest things about working with Diplomatic Courier and World in 2050 is that our mission has, deeply embedded within, the drive to amplify voices that are marginalized—

Late last year, our Publisher and CEO Ana Rold met Jessica Antonisse, one of a group of ten young Europeans who had been chosen by the NGO Young European Leadership (YEL) to attend last year’s COP27 as youth delegates. YEL has a great mission—getting young people involved in these big gatherings and finding ways to develop their potential and amplify their voice. But the old challenges persist. Ana introduced me to Jessica, and we very quickly came up with a plan to work together that, frankly, we were all maybe just a bit too excited about.

We’ve spent the past several months working together. Diplomatic Courier’s editorial team worked with the YEL youth delegates to craft the most impactful articulation of their individual messages possible. Ultimately, eight of the ten delegates chose to work with us on an online special series and, ultimately, this digital bookazine. This publication will act as a tool to make these perspectives more visible—whether it is YEL and youth delegates using it as advocacy material or whether it is Diplomatic Courier and our partners using it to show how many powerful insights young people have to offer.

On a more personal note, this is one of the more rewarding projects I’ve taken on during my time at Diplomatic Courier. We talk a lot about being good ancestors here, and we talk a lot about being intentionally optimistic about prospects for the future. All of this is about generational thinking, and working with the YEL cohort has done a lot to bolster my faith that the generations following mine will do far more far better than my generation managed.

We hope that when you read this, you’ll feel the same. The future of humanity is in good hands, we just need to do a better job of making today’s young people—the stewards of that future—meaningful partners.

22 I Paying the Bill for Climate Change

By: Jessica Antonisse

24 I Private Sector, Youth Activists, and a Failure of Collective Action

By: Noemie Viterale

28 I End the Dash for Gas

By: Rosalind Skillen

30 I Reassessing Earth’s Place in Space

By: Lauryn Lee Hallet

32 I Courts Take Center Stage in Climate Action Amid COP Critiques

By: Tara Grace Connolly

Illustration by Adobe Stock.

Young European Leaders Reflect on COP27

By Jessica Antonisse

People under the age of thirty make up half of the world’s population. Yet, we are severely underrepresented on a political level. Globally, only 2.6% of parliamentarians are under thirty and young people have limited access to political spaces. The European Parliament shows similar trends. Last year, the European Youth Forum published a report showing there are as many Martins in the European Parliament as MEPs under thirty: six each. The same report showed that in the 2019 European elections the average age of elected MEPs dropped to 49, four years younger than the average in the 2014 elections. This was mainly attributed to the increase in voter turnout of young Europeans, which was the largest since 1994.

The underrepresentation of young voices in the political arena is not matched with the level of real political participation of young people all over the world. We work tirelessly to raise our voices on the issues we care about and that will affect our future. This becomes especially apparent when you look at youth climate movements. Climate change marks the top priority of concern for young people. We have taken to the streets, founded organizations, and kickstarted projects that raise awareness or contribute to climate mitigation and adaptation. While a large part of our demographic is actively participating in the conversation about climate change, the group is by no means homogeneous. Each person comes with their own set of experiences and expertise.

Photo by Devin Avery via Unsplash.

The vast number of young people (half the world!), as well as the individual experiences we have had, make for countless unique perspectives. But in political and international spaces we are often lumped together as a singular “youth voice.” Young people do an excellent job representing their generations and the generations to come. Still, we are often invited to talk about “the youth perspective” as if they are all the same. Additionally, the request for input often does not go beyond a surface level, with questions about why we are motivated to contribute and whether we still have hope for the future dominating the conversation. Most of the time, we are not asked about concrete policy ideas. Additionally, we are often not compensated for our work, expected to participate on a voluntary basis, and sometimes even making costs to ensure we are in the right spaces. Organizers however seem to think they have ticked the box by providing a seat, and don’t make an effort to go beyond this exercise. Youth participants struggle with this tokenism, a lack of resources, and limited access to political spaces, and it often results in a one-dimensional and surface perspective of our ideas.

The annual UNFCCC Conference of the Parties is notoriously inaccessible, expensive, and intransparent. The yearly climate conferences attempt to figure out a global response to the international climate crisis. We have an especially great stake in these discussions, as we will have to live with the decisions and (lack of) action the longest. This year’s climate conference hosted a youth pavilion for the first time, giving young people a space to showcase their ideas. Despite these efforts we are often missing from the decision making tables and the spaces the actual negotiations take place. It is also a huge financial burden to attend such a conference, creating further hurdles that especially apply to young people coming from lower income countries.

COPs are a hard place for young people to make their real ideas heard—yet it is the international fora countries use to deter-

mine our future. Young European Leadership (YEL) is one of the Brussels based organizations that aims to increase European youth participation at such international fora. Through these activities YEL aims to inspire and enable leaders from all backgrounds to shape their future and the future of Europe. Last November YEL had the chance to send ten young leaders to COP27 with the support of Schneider Electric Foundation, an opportunity we look back to gratefully.

During the summit we had a chance to speak with decision makers, listen to other experts and present our ideas to a large audience. This piece serves as the introduction to a series of articles that showcase the wide range of individual expertise, solutions and bold ideas for real climate action coming from our delegation after attending the conference in Egypt that we hope you will take the time to read and interact with.

About the author: Jessica Antonisse works as a policy and project officer for the ONE Campaign.

Climate change marks the top priority of concern for young people. We have taken to the streets, founded organizations, and kickstarted projects that raise awareness or contribute to climate mitigation and adaptation.

Put the Last Ones First to Align Climate Policy with SDGs

By Sara Grambs

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

Photo by Sophia Valkova via Unsplash.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), outlines 17 global goals dedicated to ending poverty, protecting the planet, and ensuring peace and prosperity for all by 2030. Built on the overarching principle of “leave no one behind,” the SDGs draw on lessons learned from the implementation of previous development agendas with respect to social, environmental, economic, and governance dimensions.

SDG Progress Remains Slow, Uneven

Despite the noble aspirations of the SDGs, progress towards achieving these goals has been slow and uneven, with the most vulnerable and marginalized communities often left behind. This is particularly evident in the current climate debate, where the needs and concerns of these communities are often given low priority, or even ignored. Indeed, the climate crisis is a global problem that affects everyone—but it is not experienced equally. The devastating effects of climate disasters are already inflicting damage on the most vulnerable communities around the world, and both slow and rapidonset climate events are only expected to worsen in the upcoming years. Practitioners and activists are pushing for climate justice, reminding us that the most vulnerable communities–including Small Island Developing States, low-income countries, and Least Developed Countries–are those that are most affected by the climate crisis.

Additionally, indigenous groups and local communities comprised of those who depend on natural resources and steady climatic conditions for their livelihoods–such as peasants, agrarians, and pastoralists–will be affected the worst despite their historically small contribution to global warming, especially compared to developed countries and the Global North. Even more concerning, these communities have the smallest number of resources to adapt and cope with the changing climate, leaving them in a state of chronic vulnerability. Therefore, the special levels of protection these communities require must be taken into account, and that

stakeholders’ attention be brought to these vulnerable populations in an effort to help them regain their agency through financial and technical resources.

Ultimately, representatives from Small Island Developing State countries, climate justice activists and other affected people have been raising powerful public awareness and political attention to bring this urgent matter to the top of the agenda.

Using “Loss and Damage” to Support those Most Impacted by Climate Change

“Loss and Damage” is a term used to describe the devastating and irreversible impact of climate change on communities, economies, and ecosystems around the world. Climate change-related Loss and Damage is not only about the physical destruction of property and infrastructure, but also about the profound injustices that result in the loss of livelihoods, cultural heritage, and development opportunities. These latter “non-economic” Losses and Damages demonstrate how psychological effects can lead to climate trauma, as well as explain why adaptation measures alone are insufficient. Indeed, at the end of COP27, the negotiating parties finally agreed to a compromise—but only under the condition that high-income countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states would be among the pay-

political considerations must overcome the perception that Loss and Damage is a bargaining game between the Global South and North. This means acknowledging the reality of the situation and committing to supporting the communities most affected by climate change.

ers, rather than the recipients, of financial reparations.

By the next COP28, it is expected that the technical details for this financial support will be finalized, and discussions will be held around who will need to pay into a Loss and Damage financing fund—and who will receive money from it in the event of climate disasters. This outcome is a historic breakthrough, as a financial scheme for Loss and Damage has been in talks since 1992, particularly by low-income and developing countries. Therefore, it is both long overdue and essential for the future that nations most vulnerable to climate change begin to rely less on the goodwill of rich nations. Luckily, a mandatory Loss and Damage fund would be able to provide financial aid after every disaster and thus help those affected by the crisis more effectively and quickly. However, this raises the question of whether countries in the Global North will agree to allocate a new budget, or if already existing financial commitments will be re-labeled or re-allocated.

To date, responsible states have attempted to focus on basic needs and rely on the architecture of market mechanisms already in place, thus creating yet another bureaucracy responsible for solving sustainable financial problems. However, viewing “Loss and Damage” not only as a financial mechanism designed to replace economic losses but also as a turning point in development policy opens up the ability to scrutinize the underlying causes of vulnerability as well as create ethical, equitable, meaningful, and productive engagement at multiple scales. Hence, the politics of “Loss and Damage” goes hand-in-hand with the premise of putting those most vulnerable first.

To unlock the potential of a Loss and Damage fund, political considerations must overcome the perception that Loss and Damage is a bargaining game between the Global South and North. This means acknowledging the reality of the situation and committing to supporting the communities most affected by climate change. It requires a shift in perspective, from seeing Loss and Dam-

age as an abstract concept to recognizing it as a humanitarian crisis that demands immediate attention and action. Addressing Loss and Damage also requires a more compassionate and cooperative approach to climate policy—rather than viewing climate change as a political or economic problem to be solved, it must be seen as a moral obligation to support those who are suffering as a result of our collective failure to act. Ultimately, this translates into breaking down the barriers between nations and communities and working together to find solutions that prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable. In addition, there are demands to include guidelines to promote human rights and intergenerational equity, and to combat economic and gender inequality as well. After all, the goal is to have fewer rambling declarations and more policies and regulation mechanisms in place that hold the polluters accountable.

In conclusion, the climate crisis is a global problem that requires a global solution. If we are to meet the aspirations of the SDGs and leave no one behind, we must shift away from the current amoral “climate game” and move towards a commitment to compassion and cooperation at all levels. It is possible for us to build a more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable future for all, but it requires a commitment from all actors—including governments, international organizations, civil society, and the private sector—to work together to put the needs of the most vulnerable communities at the forefront of all policy-making decisions. The way forward is clear: climate policy requires a new approach that places compassion and cooperation at the center of all policy decisions, making sure that the last ones are, indeed, put first.

About the author: Sara Grambs works as a data analyst and researcher in an interdisciplinary climate change and fossil fuels research project.

The Dangerous Absence of Health Talk at COP27

By Giacomo Di Capua

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

Photo by Umit Yildirim via Unsplash.

At the 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP27), negotiators had an opportunity to spearhead conversations on public health resilience and mitigation ambition–both being fundamental ingredients for success in what is known as ‘Planetary Health’. Yet despite extensive talks on climate finance and implementation, this opportunity was squandered as, in the words of European MEP Peter Liese, “health, unfortunately, was not a big issue.” Incorporating “health talk” in the agenda of climate conferences emerges as the only way forward to prevent paying the price of institutional delay in addressing this policy issue–a price that will run in the billions of healthcare dollars but, more importantly, human lives.

COPs Remain Weak on Intersecting Climate, Health

The Egyptian COP epitomized an historically inconsistent and weak approach of COP talks on the topic of climate and health. UNFCCC Conferences have had a clear mandate to engage with climate-related health hazards, as the Framework Convention itself includes the disposition for Parties to minimize the adverse effects on public health in their climate change considerations (Article 4.f).

However, this mandate has been insufficiently fulfilled by Parties throughout the years, the health community being a latecomer to the negotiating table. The international community saw the first UNFCCCsponsored summit on climate and health coming to life only at COP17, where the first tangible set of health-related recommendations to climate negotiators was published. Despite repeated calls from a joint UNFCCCWHO panel to “step up” efforts to incorporate health considerations in climate agreements, meaningful progress was limited until COP26. The Glasgow-based summit indeed featured the establishment of an Health Programme aimed at galvanizing multi-stakeholder health action, with multiple ministries committing to concrete climate action in the health sector.

COP27 interrupted the path of emergence of health talks at the UNFCCC by not featuring the policy among the core eleven themes of the Egyptian Conference. The World Health Organization (WHO), for one, participated in the negotiations as UN Observer and only in a supporting capacity, with clear spill-over effects for policy advancements on planetary health. As a recent WHO study indicates, to date “no UNFCCC decision [...] explicitly recognizes in its principles that stabilization and reduction of greenhouse gases will promote positive health outcomes for people and the planet.”

Although some optimism for progress at COP28 lingers, the current climate governance system clearly features structural shortcomings that are allowing Parties to backslide in addressing climate-related health issues at the scale and pace needed. “In current form, the UNFCCC is fighting a losing battle and spending public money over holding grand meetings that don’t yield results, essentially because they don’t address climate change as a global health emergency,” commented Dr. Edmond Fernandez, founder of the Climate Health and Development Group.

Considering that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) first warned of climate-related impacts on human health as

COP27 interrupted the path of emergence of health talks at the UNFCCC by not featuring the policy among the core eleven themes of the Egyptian Conference. The World Health Organization (WHO), for one, participated in the negotiations as UN Observer and only in a supporting capacity.

early as in 1990, the global healthcare community too has its responsibility for the institutional delay in addressing climate-related health issues. Despite having a sizable carbon footprint equivalent to over 4% of net global emissions, the health sector started to engage only recently with decarbonization commitments, and experts believe that – in turn – its climate inaction to date reflects poorly on the sector’s credibility to table proposals at climate conferences.

Global Mitigation Strategy Wanted

While these conferences have been taking place for over three decades, the lack of an effective global mitigation strategy is already burdening human health worldwide. The latest IPCC report estimates indeed indicate that the forecasted climate change resulting from current policies will cause some 250,000 yearly additional deaths per year by 2050, whilst less conservative scenarios project more than 9 million additional yearly deaths by the end of the century. Beyond mortality, the current evidence-base in fact indicates that the already present climate change-related events will further degrade both physical and psychological health worldwide, especially in more susceptible communities “including indigenous peoples, [...] emergency responders, women and minority groups.”

Backsliding to coal due to the current energy crisis, paired with poor progress on halting fossil fuel proliferation at COP27, further calls for an international response to prevent a significant deterioration of climate-related health scenarios. Mitigation efforts remain beyond inadequate to prevent cataclysmal global warming as the carbon intensity of the energy sector has decreased by only 1% globally since the signing of the UNFCCC back in 1992, and 15 of the largest oil and gas companies are threatening to make the Paris Agreement goal to limit climate change to 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels unattainable due to their current fossil fuel production strategy, a Lancet study found. Unfortunately, COP27 failed to counterbalance this trend by omitting any reference to fossil fuels or their phasedown in its Cover Decision, also

missing out on the health co-benefit of reducing the 1.2 million yearly deaths arising from exposure to fossil fuel-derived air pollution (PM2.5) alone.

At the same time, the lack of conversations on climate finance for building resilience against climate-related events and diseases might–once again–increase mortality and morbidity among the most vulnerable groups, including children.

Inadequate funding and the long-term infrastructural effects of COVID-19 position the healthcare sector in a particularly vulnerable position to respond efficiently to these climate emergencies. Despite growing public and political engagement, “pace and scale of climate change adaptation, planning, and resilience is far from what is necessary to reduce the health impacts of climate change” especially considering insufficient funding to support climate health adaptation, according to the 2022 Lancet Countdown report.

The current inadequacy of climate health finance raises issues of intergenerational equity and Loss and Damage (L&D)–both prominent discussion items at the Egyptian COP. Most of the world’s 2.2 billion children are disproportionately affected by changes in their local environment, and the climatecaused flooding in Pakistan alone impacted over 16 million children–causing over 400 fatalities and limiting healthcare resources for affected infants. Furthermore, countries

Backsliding to coal due to the current energy crisis, paired with poor progress on halting fossil fuel proliferation at COP27, further calls for an international response to prevent a significant deterioration of climate-related health scenarios.

suffering from multidimensional poverty are reportedly overly-exposed to non-economic losses arising from climate change such as “wellbeing losses”, which for natural hazards are estimated to average between $350 and $500 billion per year. Current shortcomings in climate finance as presented at COP27 may impact the future welfare of countries and communities already experiencing economic hardships or health inequality, compounding their vulnerabilities.

Structural Reforms to Move Forward

Considering the current pace of UNFCCCsponsored progress on climate health and the dangerous trajectories of healthcare adaptation efforts, a swift and structural reform of how climate-related health is addressed at climate conferences is urgently required.

On the one hand, establishing an integrated governance system on climate health could overcome backsliding and reluctance of future COP Presidencies to address the topic. The fact that 86% of current Nationally Determined Contributions now explicitly reference health indicates a growing political engagement with climate-related health, which could be capitalized by enabling multisectoral approaches and formally including a variety of healthcare stakeholders to inform UNFCCC negotiations. This approach would further align with the proposal to position the global health community to “rais[e] climate action front and center” and “integrate climate actions into its own agenda” as a result

of increased public scrutiny thanks to the formal incorporation in UNFCCC processes.

On the other, by making climate-related health a standing item in the agenda of future COPs, progress on climate health would not only be publicly monitored, but also iteratively encouraged. The benefits of a structural ‘health’ item in UNFCCC proceedings synergistically align with climate policy aspirations as well as with WHO and IPCC recommendations. Making ‘Health’ a domain under which to evaluate the success of each Conference would encourage Parties to integrate health considerations with other policy developments.

For instance, Parties may consider promoting measures to minimize irreversible noneconomic L&D and leverage existing platforms to strengthen responses to immediate and long-term climate-related health L&D, such as the Santiago Network and the Warsaw International Mechanism. Furthermore, health-related vulnerability and adaptation assessments might inform fundamental UNFCCC tools such as the Global Goal on Adaptation, NDCs and National Adaptation Plans–thus connecting evidence from IPCC and Parties’ observed vulnerabilities to policy practice in UNFCCC. “If we truly wish to bring climate action, we need to table global health as priority one on the climate mandate,” commented Dr. Edmond Fernandez.

The absence of “health talk” at COP27 despite promising premises to the conference, combined with the displayed hesitancy to halt fossil fuel proliferation, constitutes a material threat to both current and future generations’ welfare. Future COPs will necessarily need to catch up on health-centered efforts if the global population is not only to survive, but to thrive in the era of climate change. *****

About the author: Giacomo is a postgraduate researcher in Climate Health Economics at the Environmental Sustainability and Health Institute at the Technological University Dublin, Ireland.

The absence of “health talk” at COP27 despite promising premises to the conference, combined with the displayed hesitancy to halt fossil fuel proliferation, constitutes a material threat to both current and future generations’ welfare.

Fight the Climate War to Prevent Climate Wars

By Jakob Gomolka

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

Photo by Matthew Tenbruggencate via Unsplash.

Attending the climate COP27 in Sharm-al-Sheikh, Egypt, again demonstrated that the UNFCCC format is not fit for purpose. Instead of placing our hope on policies the international forum cannot deliver, we should be realistic about what COPs can achieve. A more productive role for the climate conferences would be to herald a state of global emergency, highlighting climate risks and guiding the shift towards ‘war economy’ planning underfed by financial reform.

There is something uniquely disappointing about going to COP. Granted, the climate conference is a particularly depressing farce when held in an unsustainable Las Vegas-style resort in the desert in a fossil-fuel powered military regime. (Or when planned in an extractivist autocracy under the auspices of an oil company executive.) But the disappointment is more intrinsic still: COP is fundamentally a convention of well-meaning people from all around the globe with the collective hopes of the world pinned upon them. And yet the UNFCCC meetings fail, over and over again–the last major agreement on mitigation was reached 2015 in Paris (subsequently not honored in policy) and virtually no agreements have been made since.

This disappointment is inevitable because we have placed altogether too great of expectations on the COP meetings. International negotiations between states, none of which are able to achieve net-zero emissions on time without significant reform at home, on principle cannot solve our conundrum. Even in the very best case, we should not expect more than a signal of mutual commitment to mitigation.

No matter how powerful, national leaders are still bound by hard economic constraints. The green transition is no longer the goldilocks scenario it once was. To meet the 1.5 °C or even 2 °C goal, we now need to decarbonize so rapidly that the transition will come with hardship. Even though renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, reducing emissions for the en-

tire economy is difficult. Europe has just felt the energy squeeze. In the developing world, there are real trade-offs between increasing living standards and reducing emissions as the ultimately better but more costly path. And those few states that possess the economic might to make a difference, the United States first among them, see themselves bound by other hard constraints such as great power competition for world order. Thus all actors see preciously little room to maneuver within their own climate policies. In a consensusbased process such as UNFCCC meetings, this is enough to stall any progress.

Rather than hoping for COPs to beat on against this current, perhaps we should focus on making the meetings a platform for international coordination on the state of our climate emergency. A focus on risks and adaptation cannot replace mitigation, but at the UNFCCC level it might prove more useful to encourage mitigation further downstream. For the UNFCCC to focus on risks is also in the interest of national actors, as it does not interfere with their responsibility and constraints but adds genuine value. We already know that climate chaos can render parts of the globe inhabitable, disrupt our food supply, and inflame conflict. Unlike empty and nonforthcoming promises on mitigation, the consequences of climate change can and need to be tackled internationally.

When we consider the stakes, it becomes clear that the closest analogy we have for climate change is war. In this analogy, COPs are to be the ‘high command’ in our

Rather than hoping for COPs to beat on against this current, perhaps we should focus on making the meetings a platform for international coordination on the state of our climate emergency.

effort against climate change. They can be responsible for forecasting and tracking, insuring against, and responding to the existentially threatening risks to planetary security. The establishment of a joint L&D fund is a crucial step in this direction. When set up, it will institutionalize financial transfers and incentivize states to take preventive action. Likewise the UN Climate Security Mechanism is an important foundation for a focus on conflict. For the UNFCCC to focus on these damages will be, going forward, both more necessary and more feasible than a constant mitigation stalemate.

By shifting attention to the climate emergency rather than annually repeating the same platitudes about measures everyone knows to be inadequate, COPs could prepare the ground for suitable measures. Giving more attention to the existential risks of climate change could alter the Overton windows in member states, making it easier to domestically argue for exceptional measures to cut emissions and transition to a green, resilient society.

Even more crucial is the need for COPs to ensure that nations’ financial resources are proportionate to the effort needed. In times of war, states are willing to invest enormous sums to accelerate production because they know it to be essential for their survival. Guaranteeing green development finance is the “logistics” responsibility of the climate “high command.” More finance for development is the only way to ease the economic constraints limiting climate action. Massive state investments and industrial policy will be necessary to incentivise the transformation towards green economies where the private sector is too slow to adapt. Just at this crucial moment, U.S. monetary responses to inflation have caused a debt crisis for the developing world, most of whose debt is high-interest private debt. As proposals like the Bridgetown Initiative have shown, luckily we can still conjure up the financial resources necessary for transformation. Instead of crippling the developing world with high-interest private loans, we can reform the international financial regime

and offer low-interest finance based on, for instance, the developed world’s special drawing rights at the IMF. With a great Keynesian New Deal on the global scale, we can finally create the room for state actors to decarbonise.

Without a doubt, this will require breaking many taboos of how politics have hitherto been conducted. COPs focussed on the climate emergency could help us advance towards these necessary changes. Rather than pitting states against each other in mitigation negotiations in which none can really make concessions, UNFCCC can provide the outline of a common mission. Monitoring risks and damages of climate change could help guide policy towards allowing resources adequate enough for the challenge. By recognizing the exceptional risks humanity faces in climate chaos, we will be more likely to take the exceptional measures needed to still prevent this catastrophe. *****

About the author: Jakob Gomolka is a climate security analyst as well as MA student of political theory. He works for Berlin-based sustainability think tank adelphi. This piece expresses private views only.

Instead of crippling the developing world with high-interest private loans, we can reform the international financial regime and offer low-interest finance based on, for instance, the developed world’s special drawing rights at the IMF.

The global fight against climate change is impossible without climate finance, yet little progress has been made under the current agreements when it comes to international climate finance. While the climate crisis impacts everyone, it hits vulnerable and lower income countries harder. These countries have often contributed very little to global warming but are dealing with the majority of impact in terms of extreme weather events and slow onset effects. Moreover, they don’t have the resources to adequately respond, adapt, or to implement the necessary measures to mitigate the worst effects of the climate crisis. This concept is well established within the formal international climate negotiations under the United Nations Framework of

Paying the Bill for Climate Change

By Jessica Antonisse

the Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as “the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities.” This lies at the core of international climate justice.

This inequity is especially evident when looking at African countries. The entire African continent has contributed less than 4% to total greenhouse gas emissions, but it’s home to the ten most climate vulnerable countries in the world. The Paris Agreement includes an article in which developed countries agreed to mobilize $100 billion in international climate finance each year between 2020 and 2025 for developing parties. This was a follow up to commitments made as early as 2009, namely to raise up to $100 billion a year by 2020.

Photo by Devin Avery via Unsplash.

Based on OECD estimates, climate finance only reached $83.3 billion in 2020 and has never reached the promised $100 billion a year. Without blinking, parties reconfirmed this commitment to the goal at COP27 saying they would reach it in 2023, with negotiations for a New and Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) post 2025 already kicking off.

Not only was the target never reached, but the target itself is insufficient and not based on a calculation of the actual needs, which are much higher. The costs for African Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs, plans that outline country specific activities and expected investments to stay below 1.5 degrees global warming) are estimated to go up to $45.5 billion per year alone. The finance target therefore served mostly to signify the duty of high polluting, high income countries to supply the means for vulnerable countries to adapt to the climate crisis—and they failed miserably to comply. Without increased investment in climate action we cannot expect to reach the Paris goals. All the while, governments keep investing in industries that are not compatible with the 1.5 degree goal: the total fossil fuel subsidies in fifty-one major countries were 40% higher than the total global investment in climate finance between 2011-2020. Public investments can incentivize the private sector to get on board for the right projects, or put entire countries on the wrong path. Continued fossil fuel support remains a barrier to achieve the climate goals.

African countries received around a quarter of the provided international climate finance between 2016-2019, amounting to $18.3 billion a year. Almost 55% of Africa’s climate finance is in the form of debt, with the private sector accounting for no more than 14% of total climate finance and 3% of adaptation finance. This brings us to another huge challenge African countries face: debt crises. Of the 38 sub-Saharan countries covered in the World Bank and International Monetary Fund’s debt sustainability analysis, seven are already in

debt distress, eighteen are at high risk, and thirteen are at moderate risk.

The UNFCCC needs to agree on a definition of climate finance that clarifies what contributions can truly be counted as international climate finance. The true costs to tackle this crisis are much higher than the set target, and to that extent we do need multiple sources of finance and innovative ways to fund these efforts. Private finance on a large scale and low-interest loans should be part of that push, and so should new initiatives such as the Bridgetown agenda and proposed reforms of the IMF and World Bank, which are needed to bring climate finance from billions to trillions—but high income, high polluting countries should also be obliged to deliver on their promises as to restore trust in this international process. International climate finance, the $100 billion target and any new target that is set based on the principles of equity cannot count loans as contributions.

The true costs to tackle this crisis are much higher than the set target, and to that extent we do need multiple sources of finance and innovative ways to fund these efforts.

About the author: Jessica Antonisse works as a policy and project officer for the ONE Campaign.

Private Sector, Youth Activists, and a Failure of Collective Action

By Noemie Viterale

Photo by Markus Spiske via Unsplash.

At the 2022 COP27 climate conference, held in Sharm el Sheikh Egypt, there was an obvious separation between the private sector representatives and youth activists. Representatives of the private sector participated in official negotiations in private conference rooms and focused on business-oriented solutions to climate change, while youth activists staged protests outside the venue and organised press conferences that were rarely frequented by the governments and corporations to whom they were addressed. Adding onto this physical separation, there was an overwhelming sense of distrust and impatience emanating from both groups which ultimately resulted in a lacklustre call to action at the end of the conference to recognize the importance of collaboration in addressing the global challenge of climate change. The divide highlights the differing priorities and approaches of the private sector and youth activists in tackling the issue, and the need for more dialogue and cooperation to find common ground and achieve tangible results.

At the COP27 climate conference, there was an obvious separation between the private sector representatives and youth activists. Representatives of the private sector participated in official negotiations in private conference rooms and focused on business-oriented solutions to climate change, while youth activists staged protests outside the venue and organised press conferences that were rarely frequented by the governments and corporations to whom they were addressed. Adding onto this physical separation, there was an overwhelming sense of distrust and impatience emanating from both groups which ultimately resulted in a lacklustre call to action at the end of the conference to recognize the importance of collaboration in addressing the global challenge of climate change. The divide highlights the differing priorities and approaches of the private sector and youth activists in tackling the issue, and the need for more dialogue and cooperation to find common ground and achieve tangible results.

Climate change is arguably the most pressing issue of our time and requires a collective effort from all sectors of society to mitigate its impacts. While youth activists have played a crucial role in raising awareness and advocating for action on climate change, the private sector, with its resources and expertise, can significantly contribute to the efforts to combat the issue as well.

Some people argue that climate youth activists are too entrenched in their own ideologies and are not doing enough to work with the private sector to combat climate change. During a speech at the 2020 World Economic Forum, youth activist and journalist Natasha Mwansa, who is originally from Zambia, emphasised the importance of cooperation between climate youth activists and the private sector. In her speech, she stated, “We don’t want to intimidate them too much... we can ride on [their] power, foster our agenda, but then partner. We’re not just going to tell you what we want to happen, we want to be involved from the start to the end.” While it’s understandable for youth activists to feel frustrated and angry about the lack of progress on climate issues, Mwansa recognizes that being too aggressive in their approach can potentially alienate potential allies in the private sector. While others argue that the private sector’s lack of commitment, short-term thinking and resistance to change has led to the failure to take significant and meaningful steps to reduce their carbon emissions and contribute to the global effort to address the issue. Notably back in 2013, the Climate

While youth activists have played a crucial role in raising awareness and advocating for action on climate change, the private sector, with its resources and expertise, can significantly contribute to the efforts to combat the issue as well.

Action Network Europe released a report concluding that while the private sector accounts for the majority of global climate finance flows, most private investment activity is unevenly distributed and is failing to meet the needs of low-carbon development and adaptation to climate change.

Together, these beliefs have forged a significant divide between the two of the most powerful groups in this fight for urgent climate action.

Activism and advocacy are necessary for raising public awareness and pressuring decision-makers to act, however it is also crucial for activists to engage with the private sector and understand the potential for business to drive positive change. Without collaboration and understanding of each other’s perspectives, the private sector and youth activists may miss opportunities for joint action and miss out on the benefits that come from working together. It is important for youth activists to be open to collaboration and willing to engage with the private sector, and for the private sector to be willing to listen and respond to the concerns and demands of activists. By finding common ground and working together, both groups can make a bigger impact in addressing the challenge of climate change.

Collaboration between climate youth activists and the private sector has the potential to result in innovative solutions and significant progress in addressing climate change. In general, companies should leverage their influence and resources, while activists should focus on raising public awareness about the importance of these efforts. Here are some practical ways in which these roles could take shape:

1. Joint advocacy: Youth activists should join forces with companies to advocate for government policies that support the transition to a low-carbon economy.

2. Sustainable practices: Companies should share expertise and resources to transition to a sustainable busi-

ness model and empower youth activists to raise awareness about the importance of such sustainable practices.

3. Green initiatives: Youth activists and companies should partner to launch green initiatives and projects aimed at reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainability.

4. Education and awareness: Companies should collaborate with youth activists to create and distribute educational materials, organise events and workshops and leverage social media to raise public awareness and promote behavioural change towards sustainability.

5. Research and development: Companies and youth activists should work together to support research and development of new technologies and solutions to mitigate the impacts of climate change. This collaboration can accelerate the development of new technologies and solutions to address the challenges of the climate crisis.

In conclusion, collaboration between climate youth activists and the private sector is essential to combat climate change and create a sustainable future. Companies can leverage their resources and expertise, while activists can bring public attention and mobilize support. Joint efforts can result in innovative solutions and significant progress in addressing this global issue. *****

About the author: Noemie Viterale is currently a Climate Justice Project Officer at Generation Climate Europe and is in her penultimate year of a Dual Degree in Law and International Relations at IE University in Madrid.

THE WORLD MEETS AT THE WILLARD.

D.C’s landmark hotel combines a sense of history and contemporary luxury with worldclass hospitality. Discerning guests from around the world enjoy the legendary Round Robin Bar, classic French fare at Café du Parc and the Willard’s elegant guest rooms and meeting spaces. This hotel was built to impress.

For more details or to make a reservation, please call 202.628.9100 or visit washington.intercontinental.com

Energy is an indispensable part of social, environmental, and economic development, as it is the basis for much human activity. Energy access has also been crucial to the international agenda, with 20142024 being the UN Decade of Sustainable Energy for all. It has generally held to be true since the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg that for Africa to reach its development goals, the whole continent will need affordable access to clean energy.

At present, the proposed energy solutions from the EU to deliver energy access in Africa fall short. EU institutions and governments have continued to finance ongoing and new fossil fuel projects since the implementation of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

End the Dash for Gas

By Rosalind Skillen

These projects, under the guise of ‘development’, mainly serve interests outside of Africa, doing little to meet the present and future energy needs of African communities. Instead, they lock those communities into a high-carbon future.

Decoupling Fossil Fuels From Development

At COP27, there was much concern over the European ‘Dash for Gas’ in Africa, with European leaders announcing multiple deals with countries like Egypt and Angola to increase gas production and exports. Despite Germany signing a pledge at COP26 to end foreign fossil fuel financing by the end of 2022, the German government has forged ahead with a gas project in Senegal. In addition, Italy signed an $8 billion

Photo by Toro Tseleng via Unsplash.

gas deal with Libya at the start of 2023. Following Russia’s war against Ukraine and European reliance on Russian gas, it’s understandable that Europe is now considering alternative sources of energy; however, turning to Africa to meet European energy supply is not the answer. Any new gas infrastructure in Africa will take too long to build to meet short-term energy access needs in Europe. This would leave African countries with stranded assets, render their economies dependent on fossil fuels, and saddle their governments with debts for export-oriented gas production.

Europe’s ‘Dash for Gas’ has raised fundamental questions about who benefits from or is burdened by European environmental policy. These questions should be at the forefront of energy considerations, especially in the case of former colonies. For instance, in response to criticism that oil and gas production in Africa would mean a death sentence for climate targets, African leaders have pointed out the hypocrisy of western nations who have used fossil fuels as a catalyst for economic growth in their own countries. Is it fair that rich nations can burn whatever fuel they like while poorer nations have no say in the matter? Of course not. A just transition would mean European countries moving faster to renewables and decarbonising their energy supply (as they have the wealth and resources to do so) whilst also providing financial aid for African countries to increase their renewable infrastructure too.

The idea that fossil fuels and development go hand in hand is a myth. If Europe is truly committed to helping grow African economies and putting those countries on a more sustainable pathway, it must step up investments in renewable energy–not fossil fuels. The EU should pursue renewable energy policies and partnerships in Africa that promote long-term stability and tackle energy poverty while acknowledging the continent’s great clean energy potential. For example, Africa has some of the best solar and wind resources in the world, yet the continent currently receives just 2% of clean energy investments.

Examples like the Just and Green Recovery Team Europe Initiative with South Africa illustrate the path forward, laying down a renewable roadmap to decarbonise the energy sector in Africa in a sustainable and inclusive way. It is these examples which enable transgressive knowledge production and contribute to a better understanding of the impacts of EU governance, ultimately helping to build and shape resilient and dynamic environmental policies and actions.

Ultimately, the ‘Polluter Pays’ Principle must be decolonial. A decolonial approach (centered around redistribution and equity) offers a critical starting point for re-imagining the future of the EU-Africa Energy Partnerships, subsequently placing EU environmental policy on a fundamentally different–and eventually transformative–trajectory. If the EU is to enact the deeper situational awareness that it claims to strive for in its 2016 Global Strategy, it must move beyond its narrow focus on dynamics between member states to consider external borders - and more critically, its responsibility to support African nations with their environmental policies and actions. *****

About the author: Rosalind Skillen works for Northern Ireland Resources Network and she is also a columnist at the Belfast Telegraph.

Europe’s ‘Dash for Gas’ has raised fundamental questions about who benefits from or is burdened by European environmental policy. These questions should be at the forefront of energy considerations, especially in the case of former colonies.

Space is often seen as a faraway void, so remote from society’s concerns that any investment in it may seem to only serve the eccentricities of billionaires. However, the reality is quite the opposite. For example, Starlink satellites, delivering internet service to multitudes of individuals, is not any physically farther from society than the island of Tristan Da Cunha located in the middle of the South Atlantic Ocean. In fact, Starlink satellites are five times closer to any point on the ground than Tristan Da Cunha is to the nearest country.

Technologies created to explore space have improved life on Earth for decades, whether it be through communicating from one side of the globe to the other, forecasting the weather, or monitoring the occurrence

Reassessing Earth’s Place in Space

By Lauryn Lee Hallet

of natural disasters amongst a plethora of other innovations. Additionally, in today’s society, the same technologies are increasingly used to support activities against climate change and to mitigate its effects.

For instance, satellite data can monitor the distributions of salinity in the ocean or map the evolution of coastlines as time progresses. Even more surprising, during COP27, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) presented its astrobotany activities in conjunction with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Together, they announced that they have sent seeds aboard the International Space Station (ISS) in order to develop “crops able to adapt to the ravages of climate change” and thereby ensure food security.

Photo by NASA.

But benefits never come without drawbacks. While space activities are increasingly regulated, their full environmental impact has only recently started to gain the attention of international fora. Tens of thousands of rockets have been launched since the beginning of humanity’s journey into space, with 8,500 rockets launched by NASA alone. In fact, successful and unsuccessful launches, combined with a wide range of trial runs, have produced a fair share of pollution in space and throughout the different atmospheric layers, including the ozone layer. Worse, from the 14,700 satellites launched, around 10,500 tons of human-made objects and space debris have been detected in our planet’s orbit. Those that do not remain in orbit end up re-entering Earth’s atmosphere and landing in the sea, never to be cleaned up. A number of countries, including the United States, India, Russia, and China, are also carrying what are called anti-satellite (ASAT) tests seeking to physically and kinetically destroy existing satellites. For instance, a test carried out by China in 2007 “increased trackable space object population[s] by 25 percent.” Similarly, one test carried out by Russia found at least 1,500 trackable fragments.

Similar to the concept of digital twins, there is the concept of “equally environmentallythreatened sisters”, such as the Earth and its outer atmosphere. Indeed, humans have crossed the final frontier thanks to their desire to conquer space, but unfortunately, it seems that the colonial spirit to disregard “exotic” biomes has followed. Even more concerning, the potential catastrophe of a chain collision in the congested space of earth’s outer atmosphere and beyond is one critical issue amongst others. In this regard, cleaning Earth’s outer atmosphere is just as pressing as cleaning the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

In an attempt to address some of these issues, the UN has published the Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines, a set of nonbinding recommendations to guide the conduct of States in their space endeavors. Although this is a good first step, one core

part has been skipped–space is still seen as being separate from the Earth. There is Earth and there is space. However, it is important when we are talking about the environment, we should include our nearEarth space environment. Likewise, when we are talking about taking measures to save the environment, this should include the atmosphere and what is floating around our planet. We are a part of space, and since we are all made of stardust, space is a part of us. It is only when this narrative becomes embedded into broader climate discussions will climate policies and other initiatives deliver their full impact, because any climate policy that is wide enough to encompass land, air and sea, is wide enough to include space. Ultimately, there should be a reciprocal effort made on the part of the space community to reach out to climate actors, as well as from space policymakers to work as trailblazers in asserting that the environment does not stop at 100 kilometers–and neither should climate measures.

About the author: Lauryn Lee Hallet is a cybersecurity consultant at HeadMind Partners.

successful and unsuccessful launches, combined with a wide range of trial runs, have produced a fair share of pollution in space and throughout the different atmospheric layers, including the ozone layer.

Courts Take Center Stage in Climate Action Amid COP Critiques

By Tara Grace Connolly

DIPLOMATIC COURIER

Photo by Rafael Ishkhanyan via Unsplash.

Proposed solutions to the climate crisis are wide-ranging, contentious, and often difficult to enforce. The Loss and Damage agenda which dominated COP27 led to the creation of a fund to provide support for vulnerable countries, primarily those in the Global South, that are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change. However, the success of this development was tempered by weak target setting on phasing out fossil fuels, and a lack of ambition to meet Paris Agreement targets of limiting global temperatures to an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The presence of fossil fuel representatives at successive COPs and the controversial Coca-Cola sponsorship of COP27 has invited criticism from activists, who accuse large corporations of greenwashing. The announcement that the presidency of COP28 in Dubai will be held by Sultan alJaber, the UAE special envoy for climate change and the managing director of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. has been met with intense backlash from civil society groups that believe the COP process has been hijacked by fossil fuel lobbyists.

Turning to Litigation to Further the Climate Change Cause

Consequently, activists have been turning to climate change litigation as an alternative means of tackling climate inaction by both states and corporations, and for establishing clarity and agreeing standards by which inaction can be assessed. A study by the London School of Economics found that the cumulative number of climate change related cases has more than doubled since 2015, with a total of over 2000 cases having been filed. Roughly 25% of these cases were filed between 2020 and 2022, demonstrating the increasing numbers of groups and individuals using domestic legal frameworks to hold governments and corporations accountable for breaching climate related commitments, and for inflicting environmental damage caused by fossil fuels.

Significant climate-related cases include Dooh v. Shell, which centred on the corporate liability of Netherlands-based Royal Dutch Shell and its subsidiary company, the Shell Petroleum Development Co. of Nigeria (SPDC) for an October 2004 oil spill in the Niger Delta. Despite the case against a multi-billion dollar multinational being taken by local Nigerian farmers and fisherfolk affected by the spills, the Dutch court found SPDC liable for the damages caused by the oil spill and were ordered to compensate Dooh and two others.

The success of the Dooh case was compounded by the case taken by Milieudefensie voor Veranderaars (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) against Shell. In 2021, the lower court of The Hague ruled that Royal Dutch Shell’s policies in relation to CO2 emissions were too vague, and have been ordered to reduce carbon emissions by 45% before 2030. Additionally, a case won by Climate Case Ireland in 2020 found that the Irish government’s 2017 National Mitigation Plan was inadequate to reach its set goal of a low carbon economy by 2050, and violated both Irish law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Environmental Rights as Human Rights

Among the slew of climate-related cases filed globally is an emerging trend of connecting human rights law and environmental law, and in particular a theme of seek-

a case won by Climate Case

Ireland in 2020 found that the Irish government’s 2017 National Mitigation Plan was inadequate to reach its set goal of a low carbon economy by 2050, and violated both Irish law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

ing clarity on the obligations of states and corporations in relation to climate action. Between 2015 and mid-2020, 40 cases relating to human rights and climate change were brought to national and international courts. One such case is the ongoing Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 other states, brought by six Portuguese young people to the European Court of Human Rights. The case rests on Articles 2 (the right to life), 8 (the right to privacy) and 14 (the right not to experience discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and argues that multistate inaction on climate change falls short of commitments made in the Paris Agreement, and impacts the rights of young people and of future generations. This case raises serious questions regarding the interpretation of the convention and whether climate change falls within its remit.

The issue of clarity is a crucial element of an ongoing campaign for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the obligations of states and private actors to address human rights issues created by climate change. The campaign, founded in the Pacific Islands, led by an international network of young people and supported by an alliance of over 1,500 civil society organisations in 130 countries, seeks clarity on the matter of climate change and human rights from the ICJ, the world’s highest court. Although not legally binding, an advisory opinion from the ICJ holds great legal and moral authority, and informs the decision making of both national and international courts. A draft resolution spearheaded by the government of Vanuatu and 17 other countries is proceeding to a vote by the UN General Assembly, where it will be decided whether the issue of clarity of the obligations of states regarding climate change and human rights will be referred to the ICJ.

The nexus of environmental law and human rights law is creating an interesting avenue for climate activists to explore in their work to ensure that states both understand their climate obligations through the standards imposed by international

human rights mechanisms, and that states and corporations can be held to account for climate inaction by commitments made at previous COPs and in the Paris Agreement. Using legal frameworks as tools in the fight against climate change can allow citizens and civil society organizations to enforce international human rights and climate agreements in their own states, as well as create a legal precedent for activists in other states around the world to do the same.

About the author: Tara Grace Connolly is a media researcher and campaigner. She holds an LLB in Law with Politics and a MA in International Relations from Queen’s University Belfast.

Using legal frameworks as tools in the fight against climate change can allow citizens and civil society organizations to enforce international human rights and climate agreements in their own states, as well as create a legal precedent for activists in other states around the world to do the same.