--> The Governance of Solar Geoengineering and Human Rights – Jesse Reynolds / scholar of international environmental policy
List

Originally published at Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program’s blog.

Human rights are often invoked for guiding policy development, especially internationally. Although this occurs in the case of solar geoengineering, it is uncommon to see much beyond a few vague phrases, such as pointing to the need to proceed consistently with human rights. How might human rights help shape the governance of solar geoengineering?

The phrase “human rights” means different things to different people. Here I focus on international human rights law. Countries have made commitments in binding and nonbinding agreements regarding how they will treat their citizens, residents, and others. International human rights law is found primarily in three leading global agreements (the nonbinding Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) and supplemented by topical agreements concerning the rights of childrenwomen, and persons with disabilities as well as regional conventions.

I suggest four general ways in which international human rights law could shape solar geoengineering governance. First, it has provisions for scientific research, which includes current solar geoengineering activities. Scientists have a right to the protection of their “moral and material interests” from their research, which refers primarily to the enforcement of patents. International law also provides for a human right to enjoy the benefits of scientific research. Experts have interpted this to include rights to access science’s benefits without discrimination; to have an opportunity to contribute to scientific research; to participate in science-related decision-making; and to the conservation, development, and diffusion of science and technology.

The second way in which human rights law can inform the governance of solar geoengineering concerns protections for human research subjects. If scientists scale up outdoor activities, and especially if these would have climatic impacts, then the human rights regarding the protection of research subjects could be salient. Here, one central principle is protecting research subjects’ autonomy, in which they must give their prior informed consent in order to participate in an experiment. Yet the traditional notion of consent may not be applicable in nonmedical activities that would affect large groups of people. And even if it were to apply, how to obtain consent for a large group of diverse individuals presents a challenge. The other central principle of research subjects’ human rights is the protection of vulnerable people and groups. At the least, any outdoors solar geoengineering experiment should be based on the best available evidence and methodology, be consistent with widely accepted scientific norms and best practices, and minimize its risks — especially to vulnerable people and groups — relative to potential benefits. Furthermore, because research can provide benefits to its subjects, vulnerable groups should also have equitable access to participate in solar geoengineering research.

The third set of implications of international human rights law for solar geoengineering governance is states’ procedural duties. People have three such general rights: to seek information from their government, to participate in public affairs, and to access legal remedies if their human rights have been violated. In the case of solar geoengineering, these are perhaps the most relevant and enforceable within international human rights law. Here, states must allow their citizens and residents to request relevant information and to participate in some way in related affairs, as well as offer legal recourse if they have not done so. However, these procedural rights remain vague and, in the environmental context, more expansive versions have been agreed upon by states: rights to have access to information, to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect them, and to access legal remedies if they have been harmed. Nevertheless, because these are given in the non-binding Rio Declaration [PDF], such claims’ legal status is uncertain.

Fourth and finally, the international law of substantive human rights may inform the governance of solar geoengineering. These are claims that the state should ensure the provision of certain things of economic, social, and cultural value. These include rights to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, to be free from hunger, to education, and to take part in cultural life. Importantly, the actual provision of such “positive rights” is difficult for states to guarantee because doing so is costly, while states have limited resources. Regardless, could solar geoengineering help protect people’s substantive human rights from climate change’s impacts, or might it undermine these rights? If the former, should they research, develop, and even implement solar geoengineering? If the latter, should states cooperate to prevent the activities? Currently, such talk largely remains speculation. Models indicate that the judicious implementation of solar geoengineering could greatly reduce climate change impacts. Solar geoengineering might thus offer a means to protect substantive human rights. Models also indicate that, under other scenarios, it would pose risks of its own to humans. Furthermore, whether and how solar geoengineering would affect human rights depends not only on expected climatic and environmental impacts but also on associated decision-making, particularly by states.

The relationship between the governance of solar geoengineering and human rights is complex. In a chapter in my recent book The Governance of Solar Geoengineering: Managing Climate Change in the Anthropocene I provide some more detail. Yet even this is constrained because of international human rights law’s vagueness, of challenges to human rights’ enforcement in general and their interpretation in the climate change context, and because of lingering uncertainty concerning solar geoengineering.

  Posts

1 2 3 7
October 26th, 2021

A Proposal to Link Solar Geoengineering and Mitigation

Solar geoengineering–long feared to undermine emissions cuts–may be able to enhance them The leading concern about solar geoengineering–proposed technologies to […]

August 24th, 2021

What If Someone Just Does It?

A scenario exercise on unauthorized use of solar geoengineering This post is co-authored with Edward A. Parson, and also published […]

July 13th, 2021

Earth System Interventions for Sustainability

We actively shape major Earth systems, with increasingly powerful technologies. We should face up to it. Also published at Legal […]

June 4th, 2021

Another Historic Climate Court Ruling in the Netherlands

A court orders Shell to cut its emissions, including of its consumers. But will this stand after appeal? Originally posted […]

May 5th, 2021

Genetically Modifying Wild Species: Could We? Should We?

Originally published in Trends (the electronic newsletter of the Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources of the American Bar Association) […]

April 22nd, 2021

Offering “Carrots” to Protect the Amazon

Brazil asks for a billion dollars to slow deforestation. Would this be cooperation or extortion? Originally posted at Legal Planet. […]

April 6th, 2021

The US National Academies on Solar Geoengineering Research and Governance

Originally published at Legal Planet as “Four Emmett Institute scholars react to an important new report“ The US National Academies […]

March 16th, 2021

“NIABYs” Obstruct Important Climate Change Research

Some activists say “not in my backyard,” but strident opponents of solar geoengineering argue “not in anyone’s backyard.” Originally posted […]

December 15th, 2020

We Cannot Keep Global Warming within 1.5°C without Geoengineering

A new report from German green left groups heroically try do so, but fails Originally published at Legal Planet I […]

December 2nd, 2020

Is the Paris Agreement’s Ambitious 1.5°C within Striking Distance?

A new analysis highlights the dangerous seduction of long-term targets Originally posted at Legal Planet. A new briefing (and PDF) […]