With the increasingly devastating impacts of climate change on our planet, the law is becoming more relevant in the fight against combatting these issues. The law is a powerful mechanism that individuals and government can use to protect us. Climate change violates many human rights, including the right to life, self-determination, health, food, water and sanitation, adequate housing, and a range of cultural rights. Therefore, we can use existing laws to fight climate change to protect our rights, taking legal action against those that fail to implement strategies to reduce climate change. Similarly, new laws can be introduced, such as making emission targets from COP26 the law, to protect us and future generations.
The law can fight climate change because we can use it to fight the government. By using existing laws to defend our human rights, it can help fight climate change as it evolves into a powerful activistâ's tool. Given it [climate change] violates human rights, and the government must take some responsibility, they could be responsible for negligence. They owe a duty of care to their country which they breached through lack of action, causing a loss to our rights. Hence, individuals can use tort law and human rights against the government, demanding action. The European Convention of Human Rights questions this environmental protection through articles 2 and 8. Article 2 refers to the right to life, and Article 8 refers to the right to respect for private life, which can be inferred as the right to protection and respect for the physical and moral integrity of the individual. Even though the convention does not specifically mention climate change and environmental protection, the law can be used to support claims against corporations and governments that have damaged the environment. Through 'positive obligationâ' the state is required to take steps to protect individuals which can be pursued through a court where individuals have shown that there is specific and imminent risk to one of the rights the convention protects. This is a strong argument demonstrating how the law can fight climate change given this violation of human rights pressurizes the government into taking further action to protect our rights and the climate.
However, the biggest issue with this is that those most affected by climate change currently, are the poorest in society who have not got access to water or food etc. Here the law fails people as they do not have the money or power to take a strong claim against a government to court. Hence, as Sir James Matthew commented, 'justice is open to all, like the Ritz hotelâ' essentially only open to those that can afford it. Even those that can afford to take a strong legal position against the government tend to be people whose rights are not currently being impacted enough by climate change for them to win in court. By the time their rights are being completely violated by climate change, it would be too late. Therefore, there are issues with current laws with respect to fighting climate change. This is hardly surprising given the ECHR was written over 70 years ago so is outdated and has no mention of climate change. Whilst it can, and has been, used to challenge governments, we need stronger, more secure rights to challenge climate inaction. Hence, the law can still be used to fight climate change through the introduction of new laws.
New laws can be implemented to fight climate inaction and therefore climate change. Governments tend to place short-termism over long-term given they only have a 5-year term in office. Consequently, they often place the short-term economic gains over the long-term impact of the country which can lead to a neglect of the environment. Hence, introducing laws to change this policy, for example, formally recognizing the rights of future generations yet to be born and the rights of the youth with respect to climate change is a strong way the law could fight climate change. By re-defining rights, and implementing targets from COP26 into law, the doors would be opened for lawsuits on climate inaction, forcing governments to be accountable for failure to prevent climate change and failure to protect their citizens. As a result, everyone is more likely to make a collective effort to save the planet. With the voice of the youth, the current biggest stakeholders of the future, and their strong social movements through civil disobedience and strikes, they will be able to push through lawsuits to protect these rights. Hence, the law can fight climate change through the introduction of new environmental rights.
Whilst these arguments make a strong case for how the law can fight climate change, the law cannot succeed on its own. Yes, new laws can be implemented, and our rights can be protected, but they will only be as strong as our collective effort and desire to reverse climate change. Many people are making an effort, but many people are not. In a similar way, laws would be much more effective on an international scale, rather than individual countries deciding how they implement strategies due to the number of cross-border relationships. Nevertheless, using laws to make the first move, restricting practices, and defining rights, should be enough to make others more conscious in their efforts to help the planet. For example, implementing emission targets and restrictions would be particularly effective, such as, by providing firms the legal rights to pollute through tradeable pollution permits. This creates a market for pollution permits, incentivizing firms to reduce emissions in order to sell excess permits, hence increasing their profits. Through market forces of supply and demand, this will, in turn, reduce the demand for pollution, shifting the demand curve. However, when increased to an international scale, this may only cause a shift in pollution away from developing countries and towards developed ones, ie, those that can afford to buy more permits. Therefore, there will always be issues with laws implemented, but with a collective effort alongside using these laws to impose regulations, a conscious effort could be made to reduce climate change.
In conclusion, the law can successfully fight climate change. Individuals can use current laws to fight for their rights that have been impaled by climate inaction from the government and firms. Whilst there are weaknesses in these rights, making it challenging to push through to court, it is possible. Failing that, the law can fight climate change through the implementation of new laws, protecting our rights further, and restricting the amount of fossil fuels companies are allowed to emit.