UN declares access to a clean environment a human right:
GENEVA, Oct 8 (Reuters) - The U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday recognised access to a clean and healthy environment as a fundamental right, formally adding its weight to the global fight against climate change and its devastating consequences.
The vote passed with overwhelming support, despite criticism in the lead-up from some countries, notably the United States and Britain. read more
The resolution, first discussed in the 1990s, is not legally binding but has the potential to shape global standards. Lawyers involved in climate litigation say it could help them build arguments in cases involving the environment and human rights.
"This has life-changing potential in a world where the global environmental crisis causes more than nine million premature deaths every year," said David Boyd, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, who called the decision a "historic breakthrough".
The text, proposed by Costa Rica, the Maldives, Morocco, Slovenia and Switzerland, was passed with 43 votes in favour and 4 abstentions from Russia, India, China and Japan, prompting a rare burst of applause in the Geneva forum.
[...] Critics had raised various objections, saying the Council was not the appropriate forum and citing legal concerns.
Environmental defenders had said Britain's earlier critical stance was undermining its pledges ahead of the global climate conference it is hosting in Glasgow next month.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 17 2021, @04:16AM
Like the freedom to speak your mind comes with the responsibility to heartily agree with the latest government propaganda? To the contrary, there is no such responsibility because it would be gamed.
What responsibilities do you so vaguely speak of? For example, the alleged right to "access to a clean and healthy environment". What happens if you choose to live somewhere that doesn't have a clean and healthy environment? Shouldn't that create a responsibility on your part to fix your own rights rather than have a poor choice subsidized by the public or some hapless businesses?