Authoritative statements and language from recent human rights expert reports

MEDIA BRIEF
September 11, 2023

Geoengineering technologies – carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar geoengineering or solar radiation modification (SRM technologies) – pose significant, unprecedented risks to a wide range of human rights. These risks disproportionately affect vulnerable and marginalized communities, and the technologies remain largely unproven and infeasible at scale. Understanding these human rights implications is crucial for any informed discussion on geoengineering research or governance. 

This short briefing highlights language from recent reports and expert statements in the field of human rights as they concern geoengineering technologies. This document features language from the following documents and statements:

Human Rights Advisory Committee: Impact of new technologies intended for climate protection (NTCP) on the enjoyment of human rights

Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations

Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights: The toxic impacts of some proposed climate change solutions

Committee on the Rights of the Child: General comment No. 26 (2023) on children’s rights and the environment with a special focus on climate change

 

Human Rights Advisory Committee: Impact of new technologies intended for climate protection (NTCP) on the enjoyment of human rights

The Human Rights Advisory Committee conducted this study as mandated by the Human Rights Council in resolution 48/14. The report Impact of new technologies intended for climate protection on the enjoyment of human rights (UN doc A/HRC/54/47) draws on scientific knowledge, interviews with stakeholders and rights-holders, and inputs from various organizations and institutions. The Committee presented the report for the first time during its 30th session and has submitted it to the Human Rights Council, which will consider it at its 54th session in September. 

Key language:

4. «In successive reports, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made it clear that phasing out fossil fuels is imperative to mitigate climate change and minimize its future negative human rights impact on people. The Panel emphasizes that rights-based approaches, by employing readily available renewable energy technologies and conserving and restoring the earth’s natural systems, which serve as carbon sinks, offer a sustainable pathway to keep climate change below 1.5°C. On the other hand, climate engineering solutions pose risks, including moral hazard and delayed action, and are not presently feasible in terms of their accessibility and scalability».  (A/HRC/54/47 p.2) 

10. «At the current stage of their development, NTCPs cannot be considered viable mitigation or adaptation measures. Most geoengineering technologies remain unproven, unavailable and unfeasible at scale. Since the hypothetical benefits of such technologies are still to be practically and scientifically proven, they are considered speculative. NTCPs, as is the case of all other geoengineering technologies with the possible exception of some nature- based solutions, currently do not lower emissions, as they all increase carbon dioxide in the system if the overall emissions produced by constructing and operating the relevant facilities are taken into account». (A/HRC/54/47 p.3) 

12. «One of the gravest risks that geoengineering technologies pose is that they act as a deterrent to cutting emissions (sometimes called “moral hazard risk”), which makes disastrous future scenarios more probable. A number of civil society organizations, Indigenous Peoples and researchers underscore that counting on the technological removal of carbon dioxide slows down reforms to cut emissions, including investing in renewables and the circular economy, and diverts public attention away from the primary goal, giving the false promise of a hypothetical future solution to a problem that requires immediate action. They recall that real, fundamental, long-term solutions to climate change are already available, but a major obstacle to their implementation is the lack of influence of frontline communities, small-scale food producers, Indigenous Peoples and others compared with that of polluting industries». (A/HRC/54/47 p.4) 

22. «Deterrence to cut emissions may be amplified in the near future by a public debate increasingly focused on the topic of carbon removal rather than carbon cuts, and research path dependencie». (A/HRC/54/47 p.6) 

25. «If climate change is a socially created problem, it may not be solvable technologically». (A/HRC/54/47 p.7) 

29. «The current focus of climate action should be on deploying existing, tested and safe measures and technologies using a rights-based approach in line with the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change». (A/HRC/54/47 p.8) 

33. «The governing bodies of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention, 1972) and its Protocol (1996) have also called for extreme precaution and are currently evaluating several marine geoengineering technologies, having already agreed to prohibit ocean fertilization». (A/HRC/54/47 p.9) 

36. «The precautionary principle has been and should be applied to geoengineering […] Because the restoration of the situation that existed before environmental damage occurred is often impossible, prevention is the main approach to be followed by policymakers». (A/HRC/54/47 p.10) 

37. «Any technology to mitigate climate change, despite the scientific uncertainty regarding its impacts, must be evaluated against alternative options, including those about which there is more scientific certainty […] From that perspective, a moratorium on fossil fuel extraction could be the least potentially harmful option. Other existing proposals and low-cost technologies, such as peatland and forest management, address climate change and its drivers, many of which have been tested and involve little or no risk, but provide benefits for people and the planet. A human rights-based approach to climate action, interpreted in accordance with the Paris Agreement, primarily requires prevention of further emissions by stopping excessive levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Failure to take measures to prevent foreseeable harm to human rights caused by climate change, or to regulate activities contributing to such harm, could thus constitute a violation». (A/HRC/54/47 p.10) 

46. «Because NTPCs are meant to be applied on a global scale, they have the potential to affect everyone indiscriminately. They could seriously interfere with the enjoyment of human rights for millions and perhaps billions of people. The magnitude of the potential negative socioeconomic and human rights impacts is currently incommensurable with any hypothetical benefits». (A/HRC/54/47p.12) 

55. «The potential deployment of NTCPs would have a massive and disproportionate impact on Indigenous Peoples whose traditional lands and territories are particularly exposed and at risk of experimental uses. NTCPs may expose them to forced displacement and deprivation of their lands, culture and traditional livelihoods through changes in land use, agriculture or weather patterns». (A/HRC/54/47 p.14) 

56. «Due to their special dependency and attachment to land, peasants, fisherfolk and other persons living in rural areas also risk being disproportionately affected by NTCPs». (A/HRC/54/47 p.15) 

62. «The concentration of patent and geoengineering technology among a few individuals or corporate actors is the breeding ground for corruptive lobbying or influence in buying practices». (A/HRC/54/47 p.16) 

66. «At this stage of their development, given the lack of sufficient knowledge of their risks and adverse impacts, it might be better to presume that all NTCPs are generally harmful to human rights and that their deployment would be contrary to the existing obligations of States. Because of the moral hazard risk, they limit emission cuts and systemic changes». (A/HRC/54/47 p.17) 

67. «Restrictive regulations, including potentially a moratorium, should be adopted and implemented when large and foreseeable negative impacts can be reasonably expected. Such regulations should remain in force for as long as the claims about the risks and negative impact of each technology have not been shown to be false. […] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned against overreliance on unproven technologies that could disrupt natural systems and disproportionately harm the communities of the global South and underscored the central role of the principle of transparency in climate action. Human rights bodies and mechanisms have expressed concerns about large-scale projects that may have a massive impact on human rights, severely disrupting ocean and terrestrial ecosystems, interfering with food production and harming biodiversity. Calls from experts, scientists and civil society for a complete ban on certain large-scale geoengineering projects – in relation to solar radiation modification, specifically stratospheric aerosol injection, which can endanger human rights in the most extensive and unimaginable way – cannot be ignored. Solar radiation modification is ungovernable, which warrants a ban on its development and implementation, as well as regulation of related research». (A/HRC/54/47 p.17) 

70. «The existence of such proven low-risk approaches should make the use of NTCPs untenable under human rights and environmental law, including the rigorous application of the precautionary principle».(A/HRC/54/47 p.18) 

 

Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations

The Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations offer a comprehensive framework for understanding how international law applies to the human rights of future generations, including a specific call for the regulation of high-risk activities like geoengineering. Developed over six years and drawing from the expertise of legal scholars, human rights practitioners, Indigenous communities, and civil society, the Principles set forth binding international and human rights obligations for States.

Key language:

19. «Violations of obligations to protect the human rights of future generations by States include, but are not limited to […] (f) The failure to effectively regulate, and where appropriate prohibit, scientific research and activities that pose a reasonably foreseeable and substantial risk to the human rights of future generations, including genetic engineering and geo-engineering». (Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future Generations, 2023 p.11) 

 

Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights: The toxic impacts of some proposed climate change solutions 

Special Rapporteur Marcos Orellana’s annual thematic report on The toxic impacts of some proposed climate change solutions (UN Doc A/HRC/54/25) addresses the toxic impacts of various climate solutions, and touches upon the human rights implications of geoengineering technologies. The report emphasizes the urgency of decarbonization in line with the Paris Agreement goals, while warning against unproven technological approaches that could exacerbate existing harms.

Key language:

 

2. «Pursuing the necessary decarbonization, States and companies are rallying to build new technologies and innovations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and remove carbon from the atmosphere. Yet proposals for, and applications of, climate mitigation technologies are emerging that can exacerbate toxic pollution. This is particularly problematic given the human rights infringements resulting from intolerable levels of pollution around the world». (A/HRC/54/25 p.2) 

71. «Climate engineering is “large-scale, deliberate intervention in the Earth system to counteract climate change”. Such interventions are primarily considered as options to compensate for lagging international efforts to mitigate climate change. There is a lack of scientific certainty about the efficiency of climate-altering engineering technologies, such as solar radiation modification, and they can have a wide range of potential impacts on the effective enjoyment of human rights. Pinning humanity’s hopes on future technologies should not be used to justify insufficient action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and phase out fossil fuels». (A/HRC/54/25 p.15) 

 

Committee on the Rights of the Child: General comment No. 26 (2023) on children’s rights and the environment with a special focus on climate change

 

The General Comment on Children’s Rights and the Environment with a Special Focus on Climate Change (General Comment No. 26) unpacks States’ obligations towards children in the context of the environment, and establishes that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is implicit in the Convention. The General Comment also addresses States’ obligations under the Convention to prevent, mitigate, and remediate climate-related harms.

Key language:

98. «[…] (d)Short-term mitigation measures should take into consideration the fact that delaying a rapid phase out of fossil fuels will result in higher cumulative emissions and thereby greater foreseeable harm to children’s rights; (e)Mitigation measures cannot rely on removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere in the future through unproven technologies. States should prioritize rapid and effective emissions reductions now in order to support children’s full enjoyment of their rights in the shortest possible period of time and to avoid irreversible damage to nature». (CRC/C/GC/26 p. 18)

 

CONTACT FOR MEMBERS OF THE PRESS

CIEL Media Relations team: press@ciel.org