Climate change is an imminent threat to human rights — a disheartening truth for low-income and marginalized people around the world. Millions already battle with a host of human-rights issues, including lack of access to safe drinking water and extreme poverty. Because climate change is exacerbating the situation, activists around the world continue to call on wealthy countries to keep their commitments under the U.N. Climate Convention and support low-income countries in adapting to climate change and helping their people live a life of dignity. The Asia Pacific Research Network (APRN), a UUSC partner, is sounding that call loud and clear.

APRN and sister organization IBON International are at the forefront of the movement for just and equitable climate-change finance that supports the full realization of all human rights. What is fair climate-change finance? For APRN, it's the idea that wealthier countries should finance climate-change adaptation in a way that takes into consideration how climate change impacts human rights — especially for the most impoverished people in the world.  

Recently, Maria Theresa Nera-Lauron, the coordinator of the Peoples' Movement for Climate Change, an organization founded by APRN and IBON International, participated in a panel convened by the U.N. Human Rights Council to address the adverse human-rights impacts of climate change. Speaking as an advocate for low- or no-income people, Nera-Lauron called on rich countries to take responsibility for financing essential climate-change measures. She drew attention to the fact that "human rights language is mostly absent in official climate finance discourse" even though "a human rights framework for climate finance is a very useful tool especially for climate justice advocacy."

Nera-Lauron also reminded the Human Rights Council that industrialized nations are failing to keep their promise to reduce greenhouse emissions, which means an exacerbation of the impacts of climate change and  deepening poverty for millions of people. In addition, countries in the Global North are not fulfilling commitments to finance climate-change mitigation and adaptation. She advocates for a climate-change finance system that "must lead to the protection, fulfillment or redress of rights that are undermined by climate change." Such a system must also be democratically governed, democratically owned, and supportive of sustainable development, and must ensure adequate, predictable, and equitable compensation for the harms of climate change.

Meanwhile, grassroots organizations around the world are leading mitigation and adaptation efforts in their communities through projects that protect the environment, ensure food security, and promote alternative sources of income for the poor. For example, UUSC supports the Hope in Crops project in Kenya, a mitigation and adaptation project that protects the environment and supports community-driven initiatives. In addition to Nera-Lauron's suggestions, the United Nations should also support models like the Hope in Crops project to make sure that climate-change finance actually reaches those who need it most.

Read Nera-Lauron's full statement. [PDF]

The ongoing famine and drought in the Horn of Africa and in East Africa has left more than 12 million people in the region in need of urgent food aid. In Somalia, where the situation is most severe, thousands have fled their homes to seek refuge in Kenya and other East African countries. According to the United Nations, the situation is not likely to abate in the coming months. Some people have asked whether the famine was preventable. Wangari Maathai, an environmentalist and winner of the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize, answers in the affirmative. In a recent interview she gave to National Public Radio (NPR), Maathai speaks candidly about the root causes of the famine, linking it with decades of environmental degradation that governments in the region knew about but failed to stop.

"This did not happen overnight," Maathai said. "We have seen a situation where rains have not come for four years, not just because of climate change, but because of the gradual environmental degradation that is influenced by the Sahara to the north."

Several reports have linked the famine, particularly in Somalia, to decades of conflicts and lack of leadership. Maathai agrees that these are important contributing factors. However, she believes that environmental degradation, made worse by unpredictable rainfall, has over time robbed the people of food security and natural protection. Lack of leadership has meant governments have failed to protect the people. Maathai gave a very poignant example of the Ewaso Nyiro River in Kenya. The river, which flows from Mount Kenya, waters the Aberdare forest and the plains, and provides water for wildlife. "Now the river has completely dried up to dead rock, because people have been allowed to move into the forest to cut wood and establish plantations in the forest," Maathai lamented. Because of this, the forest is no longer able to harvest rainwater like before, and the rains no longer come regularly. The resulting drought has made it necessary for the government to supply water in tanks to communities in the northern part of the country. This would not have happened if they acted earlier and made sure the "the rivers flow to the people," Maathai concluded.

Maathai's comments show how grassroots efforts to prevent deforestation and encourage reforestation is important. The SoilFarm Multi-Culture Group (SFMG), a UUSC partner in Kenya, is spearheading such an effort in Kakamega through the Hope in Crops project. The goal is to protect the Kakamega Rain Forest in western Kenya from degradation and, by so doing, protect the watershed of Lake Victoria from drying up. SFMG works with schoolchildren, women, and farmers to plant indigenous trees, which help to retain water in the soil. In addition, they grow indigenous food crops that can withstand drought and adapt to changing weather patterns. Trees planted by the banks of the rivers that form part of Lake Victoria watershed purify the waters and help them maintain their natural flow.

Maathai pointed out how governments tacitly supported environmental degradation through inaction. The Kakamega Rain Forest where SFMG works provides a great example. In the 1980s, the government wanted to convert the forest into a tea plantation. Thanks to resistance by the local peoples, only portions of the forest were converted. However, a tea plantation within the rain forest is an aberration, which disrupts the magnificence of the forest and reduces the protection it provides in the environment. With UUSC's support, SFMG is working to protect the forest from further encroachment by tea plantations.

Maathai calls for grassroots efforts like her own and those of SFMG to be supported by governments and international agencies. By supporting SFMG, UUSC has already assumed leadership in this area, helping to make sure the rivers flow to the people and conserve the environment — and helping to ensure food security for local peoples.

UUSC is also working to support marginalized groups in Somalia and East Africa through its Rights in Humanitarian Crises Program. UUSC has opened an emergency fund that will help the people of East Africa and the Horn of Africa — you can help by donating to the fund. However, we hope that, going forward, policy and decision makers will listen to esteemed environmentalists like Maathai and develop preventive strategies that will support efforts by grassroots organizations already working on the ground.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) [PDF] passed the House of Representatives while we were at UUA General Assembly 2009, in Utah.

The day before it passed, the UU Ministry for Earth told attendees to call their representatives to urge them to support strong climate change legislation. On Friday, we got word that the bill had passed.

ACES — known as the Waxman-Markey bill — is a measure to "create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy," all 1,427 pages of it.

The week before, UUSC staff heard from Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan about the need to lift up human rights in the climate change agenda, a perspective that is not adequately addressed in ACES.

As it happens at momentous and uncertain times, when decisions are made that you know are not that great, your mind jumps to all that lies ahead. As we were in Utah, I remembered Hotter and Drier: The West's Changed Climate, a Natural Resources Defense Council report. Among its findings, Utah's temperature has increased by 1.76 degrees over century averages from 2000-2007.

As I passed by the UU Ministry for Earth's GA booth, UUSC Volunteer Network National Co-Chair Irene Keim spoke to me about the vote. She put it like this, "At least we finally have something we can fix."

I thought of the climate change impact on water resources and human rights, in particular the human right to water.

While we were in Utah, the U.S. State Department submitted its June 2009 Report to Congress on the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act [PDF]. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton points out what lies ahead for climate change and water.

I also thought of the IPCC Report on Climate Change and Water and how much further we have to go. I thought of the work of the UN Human Rights Council on Human Rights and Climate Change and its worrying January 2009 report.

I have to admit, tears rolled down my cheeks. It was not relief, not joy, but not despair. There is so much to do. It was at that moment that I saw across the huge exhibition hall some of the youth who had adopted La Gotita, the mascot of one of our partners, FENTAP. People were hugging La Gotita and taking pictures with it.

Many of the UUs asked during the week what it was, as the water drop danced around the conference center. A tear drop, a water drop? What?

Indeed. Both. La Gotita made everyone smile, lifted up their hearts, piqued their curiosity. I allowed my heart to lift and thought that La Gotita should be joined by a big sun and a rainbow...and many people in parade holding hands.

The work of human rights is the work of many joining hands. Sometimes we can laugh, sometimes we have to cry. But we keep joining hands, and we keep going.

A poll published by Rasmussen Reports last week reveals the American public's knowledge (or lack there of) of cap-and-trade rules.

Their poll shows that only 24 percent of voters could identify that cap-and-trade had something to do with environmental issues, when given a choice of three options. Almost a third (29 percent) believed it had something to do with regulating Wall Street, while 17 percent thought it applied to health care reform. Another 30 percent had no idea what the term referred to.

If these findings are not disturbing enough, after The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 [PDF], a cap-and-trade bill, was debated and nearly passed by the 110th Congress, the fact that such legislation is not understood is downright scary.

The basic overview of the cap-and-trade model is as follows: The amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions is capped, and companies or other groups are issued emission permits. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less, thereby creating a trade in allowances.

While there are many in the world who do not believe that global warming is a result of human activity, those who believe in climate change will most likely applaud the capping of emissions and the pollutants that lead to global warming, thereby mitigating the effects of climate change.

No — the issue is not the cap; the issue is about who will benefit from the trade.

There is a cost to the buying and selling of these "allowances." Estimates by the Congressional Budget Office suggest that a cap-and-trade program would generate $50 billion a year and could reach upwards of $300 billion. This money would be used to offset the rising energy costs of "greening" our energy system. Who would not like a break on their energy bills, especially in this economic climate? The resounding answer to that question would be everyone, the same standard that should be used to judge the "fairness" of any cap-and-trade legislation. But will it benefit everyone?

One of the counterpoints to the Lieberman-Warner Bill was that it lacked a provision for low-income families who couldn't afford rate hikes resulting from the implementation of the bill. What was left out of the discussion completely is how a cap-and-trade bill would affect the most vulnerable outside of the United States.

The United States currently sits at the top of the list of global CO2 emitters. We are responsible for 22.2 percent, followed closely by China, which is closing in at 18.4 percent. If one follows the logic that CO2 is responsible for global warming, then the United States is responsible for 22.2 percent of climate change affecting the world.

As we mitigate the affects of our CO2 emissions, should we not look at the effects that our emissions have already had on the world, and take responsibility for 22.2 percent of the resulting adapatation needs?

The Economic Times published a May 18, 2009, article titled, "Poorest countries unprepared for impacts of climate change." It highlights the lack of assessments on how climate change will affect food security, access to water, flood risks, and diseases like malaria in the future.

One of the countries named is Zambia, which recently completed a report on Climate Change and health concerns. On the same list that marks the United States as the top emitter out of 207 countries, Zambia is listed as 135, contributing less than 0.1 percent to total global emissions.

In a country with control of less than 0.1 percent, Zambia is facing a 400 percent rise in disease levels, as a result of the ever-increasing cycle of floods and droughts, exacerbated by climate change. Commenting in the article about the general lack of preparedness, Saleemul Huq, senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development, says:

"[The vulnerability of these countries] in part reflects a failure of wealthy nations to meet promises to help the poorer nations adapt to climate change."

In 2001, many of the richest nations in the world promised funding to the poorest for adaption efforts. This money has not yet been delivered.

As voters, industries, and political representatives in the United States debate climate change legislation, including cap-and-trade, those who believe in justice need to lend their voice and stand in solidarity with people in the world who are being affected by our emissions. We need to ensure that there is fairness in the funding mechanism of any legislation we pass, not only to protect our own pockets, but to help those who are most vulnerable around the world adapt to the circumstance we have helped to create.

Update: Just days after this blog was posted, on May 21, 2009, the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 33-25 to approve the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES). Introduced by Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey (D-MA), this national climate and energy legislation calls for an economy-wide cap-and-trade system to help address climate change and build a clean energy economy. 

ACES does include language about adaptation and the responsibility of the United States to assist developing countries as they adapt to the effects of climate change. This is an important step toward the United States meeting its responsibilities to help the most vulnerable nations adapt to a world where the climate is changing, in part, as a result of our actions. Under Article 4 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992), "developed country parties," including the United States, committed to "assist the developing country parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting costs of adaptation to those adverse effects." In order to fulfill these obligations, we will need to attach monetary values and ensure that they are delivered. 

Scroll to page 912 of ACES to read more about the International Climate Change Adaptation Program.

Read more about the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

ENS today mentioned a new report on climate change impacts to the U.S. Northeast, done by a collaboration of scientists in the region. The report is called Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: Science, Impacts, and Solutions.

According to the report, "The first scenario assumes an increase in global warming emissions from continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels, and the second assumes substantially lower emissions due to an increased reliance on clean energy sources. Global sea level is 'conservatively' projected to rise 10 to 23 inches under the higher-emissions scenario and 7 to 14 inches under the lower-emissions scenario. Using these estimates, cities such as Boston and Atlantic City can expect a coastal flood equivalent to today's 100-year flood every two to four years on average by mid-century and almost annually by the end of the century under either scenario."

The website has state summaries that project changes under two scenarios -- high emissions (business as usual) and lower emissions. For Massachusetts alone, the difference between the high and low emissions projections indicate we can avoid endemic droughts. The report says we can have an impact with reduction in emissions from the Northeast -- significant. Most of the northeastern states have legislation in place, and are debating more, that will require reductions. We each have responsibility for, and an impact on, the ability of each of us to enjoy our right to water by reducing our environmental impact, if we act now.

The Natural Resources Defense Council released a report today on the impact of climate change on water resources in the western United States: In Hot Water - Water Management Strategies to Weather the Effects of Global Warming. The report guides water resource managers through analyzing water vulnerabilities, and putting into place policies and practices that will mitigate the impact of climate change to the extent possible.

The report is an excellent resource and required reading for communities as well. Learn about your water! We now need the social scientists and social justice advocates to look at this issue and report on how to ensure that each person have access to sufficient water to meet daily human needs. The right to water, in times of scarcity, should be a starting point for planning -- not a tag-on when the problems become acute in the midst of a crisis.

New Jersey enacted into legislation the Global Warming Response Act, becoming the third state to enact law that will require a reduction in green house gas emissions, after California and Hawaii. All three laws require the state to reduce its emissions to below 1990 levels by 2020. ENS reports that eight other states are debating similar legislation: Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin.

It took the tremendous efforts of community, faith-based, and union activists winning passage of minimum wage laws in six states for Congress to debate the federal minimum wage. How many states must pass this type of legislation for Congress to enact strict green house gas reductions targets? These emission reduction targets are critical in addressing the climate change crisis. The impacts wrought by climate change have begun and will severely impact water resources.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will publish a technical paper in November on water and climate change. Mitigating climate change with efforts like New Jersey's is essential -- 2 billion people know it. According to former Vice President Al Gore, more than 2 billion people participated in the LIVE EARTH concerts this past weekend. How many will it take? And how many more to enact legislation to enforce the right to water to ensure that even with climate change, everyone has access to safe, sufficient, affordable water for their daily needs? How many?

The United Nations Enviornment Program (UNEP) released a new report to honor World Environment Day on June 5, about the impact of climate change on ice and snow and what that means for our everyday life.

What does melting ice have to do with water? How about in China, where "highland glaciers are shrinking each year by an amount equivalent to all the water in the Yellow River. The Chinese Academy of Sciences says that 7 percent of the country’s glaciers are vanishing annually. By 2050, as many as 64 percent of China’s glaciers will have disappeared. An estimated 300 million people live in China’s arid west and depend on water from glaciers for their survival."

The reports released early in the spring on climate change from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), especially the 2nd Report Policy Summary (the full report will be published later this year) on impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability confirms what we know -- that the poor are the least able to "adapt" and the most likely to be affected.

In Africa, "by 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to an increase of water stress due to climate change. If coupled with increased demand, this will adversely affect livelihoods and exacerbate water-related problems."

The IPPC has released a draft of its technical study on water and climate change to governments for comment. It is due out to the public in December. In North America, "warming in western mountains is projected to cause decreased snowpack, more winter flooding, and reduced summer flows, exacerbating competition for over-allocated water resources."

Water for fisheries and agriculture -- which poor people depend upon for survival -- will also be highly compromised. In the face of what we know will be increased competition for this vital and scarce resource, making sure the human right to water is fully implemented is even more important.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights will report to the U.N. Human Rights Council this September on its study into the right to water. If the "debate" about whether there is a right to water or not -- and what it is -- comes out in favor of a strong right, the implementation will be the next hurdle.

This year, UUSC program partner Mass Global Action is gearing up a campaign for a human right to water in the greater Metro Boston area. In the face of what can be overwhelming statistics and incomprehensible impending disaster, groups are taking up the challenge to make something real happen.

ENS reported today that the U.S. Department of Commerce has issued a gag order on government scientists. Federal government climate, weather, and marine scientists will be able to "give out only their name, rank, serial number, and the temperature," according to Jeff Ruch, director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. A response to Monday's Supreme Court decision on EPA regulating global green house gases?

According to ENS, "The new administrative order on 'Public Communications' covers the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, which includes the National Weather Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Ocean Service, and the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service. It forbids NOAA scientists from communicating any relevant information, even if prepared and delivered on their own time as private citizens, which has not been approved by the official chain-of-command."

This regressive policy not only gags their work environment, but also their private lives. ENS reports, ". . . these federal scientists must obtain agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty, concerning any scientific topic deemed 'of official interest'."

First Amendment challenge, anyone?

As announced yesterday by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, the EPA has to reconsider its regulation of green house gases. Why? Because Massachusetts and other states are likely to be harmed by climate change.

Justice Stephens wrote the majority opinion, which concluded that "given EPA’s failure to dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, its refusal to regulate such emissions, at a minimum, 'contributes' to Massachusetts’ injuries. "

According to the Environmental News Service, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said: "EPA can no longer hide behind the fiction that it lacks any regulatory authority to address the problem of global warming. . . .The agency cannot refuse to use its existing authority to regulate dangerous substances simply because it disagrees that such regulation would be a good idea."

The decision will undoubtedly have significant implications on related cases. Sheila Watt-Cloutier and 62 other Inuit petitioners were heard earlier in March in the hearings before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on their petition against the United States on climate change impacts to the Arctic peoples. The Center for International Environmental Law, one of the NGOs supporting the Inuits in their human rights litigation, has links to the case documents and interviews with the petitioners.

A temporary injunction against California's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions may be reviewed in light of the decision. For an interesting, if controversial, documentary on the California controversy, see "Who killed the Electric Car?"

This decision brings us a step closer to ensuring the rights of Inuits to life, livelihood, and a healthy environment -- including access to water -- and our human right to a healthy environment.