In response to escalating climate threats, the recognition of the human right to resilience emerges as a critical imperative. Pope Francis, through his Planetary Call to Action for Climate Change Resilience, underscores this necessity.[1] This article advocates for framing resilience as a human right, urging its integration into policy frameworks and investment strategies to address climate change.
The evolving interpretation of human rights treaties must now encompass the existential threat posed by the climate emergency, recognizing the human right to resilience as a derivative of the right to life.
By recognizing resilience as a human right, this article contends that we can transcend the current paradigm of voluntary approaches to address the climate emergency. It calls for clear legal obligations guided by scientific evidence to mitigate, adapt, and restore – the core obligations of the right to resilience. These obligations are pivotal to ensure human rights for present and future generations. This approach challenges the discretion of States, international financial institutions, and the private sector to determine whether or not to pursue effective actions to address the climate emergency.
The human right to resilience, grounded in science and ethics, emerges as a North Star to keep our mitigation, adaptation, and restoration efforts on track to deliver effective climate action.
1. The Era of Resilience
Humanity has entered an era of unprecedented climate instability. The familiar climate conditions that have nurtured human civilization are rapidly changing. Scientific evidence indicates that we are already in a state of planetary emergency.[2]
At today’s 1.2°C of warming,[3] we are already experiencing significant human and economic impacts. The risk of triggering non-linear, abrupt, and potentially irreversible tipping points increases dramatically as we approach 1.5°C to 2°C of warming.[4] Earth system models project six abrupt shifts between 1°C and 1.5°C warming and another eleven shifts between 1.5°C and 2°C,[5] consistent with two IPCC Special Reports.[6] This science is pivotal to understand the realities we face and the actions we must take.
We now find ourselves in the Era of Resilience, facing an unparalleled challenge: the imperative to stabilize our climate system to ensure the collective survival of humankind, without leaving anyone behind. This era demands a mandatory and immediate effective response to build and maintain resilience for present and future generations.
The climate emergency is not an ordinary crisis: it is an existential threat to humankind. As unnatural extreme weather events become more frequent and intense, people are questioning the ability of States and democratic governments to protect them from what seems to be an apocalyptic future.
The challenge is to protect present generations from ongoing climate impacts, prevent irreversible harm to future generations, and shift from today’s largely voluntary climate actions to stronger, mandatory measures.
In essence, we need to ensure that our policies and financial decisions build climate change resilience and protect everyone’s human rights.
2. Defining Resilience
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences follows the IPCC definition of resilience as the capacity of social, economic systems and ecosystems to cope with a hazardous event, trend, or disturbance, responding or reorganizing in ways that maintain their essential function, identity, and structure while also maintaining the capacity for adaptation, learning, and transformation.[7]
The IPCC states that “climate resilient development” is the process of implementing greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation measures to support sustainable development for all.[8] The Paris Agreement states that “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels” would “significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.”[9] In addition, the Parties agreed to increase “the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development” and to make “finance flows consistent with a pathway” towards such development.[10]
With the planet already too hot at 1.2°C, we have very little time to deploy necessary measures to ensure the resilience of present and future generations is not compromised. Building resilience requires strategic and focused measures to ensure that current efforts to address climate change are not rendered futile by the planet crossing critical climate tipping points. To avoid this fate our actions must simultaneously address the near-term rate of warming as well as stabilize the climate system in the long term.
3. The Human Right to Resilience as a North Star to Inform Policies and Investments
Throughout history, human rights law has served as both a beacon of hope and a North Star, guiding humanity from the darkest atrocities towards a world where peace and solidarity are attainable.
Human rights treaties are living instruments that evolve to respond to changing times and conditions. The existential threat that the climate emergency poses to humankind warrants an evolutive interpretation of human rights law to recognize the human right to resilience as a derivative of the human right to life.
The human right to resilience in the context of climate refers to the right of every individual and group to access, develop, and maintain the capacity to withstand, adapt to, and recover from the adverse impacts of climate change.
This right ensures that both present and future generations can sustain their essential functions, identity, and structure in the face of climate-related stresses and shocks. It requires that policies, investments, and actions by states, international institutions, and private entities prioritize climate adaptation, mitigation, and restoration efforts that bolster the resilience of individuals and communities against the escalating threats of climate change.
The human right to resilience has significant implications for State and private sector responsibility, delineated by three core obligations grounded in climate science, due diligence, and the duty of care:
- The obligation of effective mitigation.
- The obligation of effective adaptation.
- The obligation of effective restoration.
3.1 The Obligation of Effective Mitigation
Limiting the increase in global temperature is essential to build and maintain resilience. At the current rate of warming, we are compromising the resilience of present and future generations. We need more time to ensure that we can adapt to and manage climate risks effectively.
The only way to give us this time is to reduce the rate and amount of warming in the near term. This is because extreme climate impacts depend both on the rate of warming as well as the total amount of warming, and the sustained rate of increases in CO2 and emissions of other climate pollutants is especially dangerous.[11] Critically, slowing the rate of warming will also make it possible to postpone exceeding critical climate tipping points.[12]
As the IPCC has emphasized, it is crucial to understand that adaptation has its limits;[13] certain warming scenarios with limited mitigation will render some adaptation impossible. This means that we cannot only invest in adaptation, we must also urgently mitigate. Some climate impacts, once manifested, will leave behind an altered world that cannot be reversed by just bringing the temperature down.[14]
Grounded in the best available science, the obligation of effective mitigation requires implementing measures to reduce the rate of warming in the near term and limit global temperature increases to 1.5°C with limited overshoot.
Science indicates that only actions aimed at mitigating non-CO2 pollutants – the short-lived climate pollutants – especially methane, can reduce temperature in the short term,[15] but these measures must be deployed at scale within the next few years. Specifically, the scientific evidence identifies the following targets for non-CO2 climate pollutants to keep 1.5°C within reach:
- reducing global methane emissions by 40-45% by 2030 relative to 2030 projected levels;[16]
- reducing emissions of fluorinated gases, including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) by 85% by 2050 relative to 2019 levels;[17]
- reducing nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions 20% by 2050 relative to 2019 levels;[18] and
- reducing black carbon emissions by 35% by 2050 relative to 2010 levels.[19]
While many cost-effective technologies already exist to reduce these emissions – and while their deployment would create jobs, local health benefits, and increase food security – mandatory obligations under international law to achieve these reductions are largely lacking, with the notable exception of HFCs. The reduction of HFCs is mandated by the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol.[20] As a consequence, the deployment of these measures remains largely at the discretion of states. The human right to resilience, however, seeks to limit this excessive voluntarism and discretion, by imposing specific obligations that are science focused.
The obligation of effective mitigation also takes into account the right of future generations to resilience. Therefore, it also entails adopting all necessary measures to ensure the resilience of key elements of the climate system that are essential to avoid activating tipping points and feedback loops that could compromise resilience for all life on Earth. These key elements of the climate system include the Arctic sea ice and land-based snow and ice, the Antarctic ice sheet, the Amazon, coral reefs, and the global ocean circulation.
Achieving the 2050 net zero CO2 target is essential for stabilizing the climate, but it cannot by itself prevent global temperatures from exceeding 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.[21]
The obligation of effective mitigation to protect the human right to resilience requires implementing strategies both to reduce short lived climate pollutants by 2040 and to achieve net-zero CO2 by 2050. Both CO2 and non-CO2 climate pollutant strategies must be mandatory, complementary, and not exchangeable. The obligation of effective mitigation also entails refraining from any action that can affect the resilience of key elements of the climate system, including for example the Amazon and other forests that draw CO2 from the atmosphere and help stabilize the climate.
The test for compliance with the effective mitigation obligation would be whether the action is adequate and timely to reduce the rate of warming in the near term and keep the temperature below 1.5°C with limited overshoot in the future. National plans focusing solely on CO2 reductions without addressing methane by 2030, for example, would fail this test. Similarly, international financial institutions and major polluting private sector entities that do not implement concrete methane mitigation targets alongside their CO2 reductions targets would also fail this test.
3.2 The Obligation of Effective Adaptation
The obligation to ensure effective adaptation requires States, international financial institutions, and private actors to take all necessary actions to enable present and future generations to adapt to climate impacts.
When investing in adaptation, it is vital to consider whether the measures being implemented practically enhance or sustain the resilience of the communities impacted. The human right to resilience does this by clarifying the scope of adaptation obligations. The content of these obligations is guided by the science that tells us time is short and the risks to human life from current and future climate impacts by failing to adapt adequately are great. Adaptation measures must be deployed promptly and be capable of withstanding climate risks and impacts with minimal or negligible damage to all people, including vulnerable groups. Additionally, adaptation measures should not accelerate the climate emergency, and must consider the impact on short-term temperature rise and include compensatory measures for affected communities if necessary.
The obligation of effective adaptation also requires mandatory climate impact assessments of adaptation measures.
The test for compliance involves assessing whether the adaptation measure is timely and effective, and whether it exacerbates the current emergency or strengthens resilience. At a minimum, States, international financial institutions, and major private sector polluters should avoid actions that undermine resilience and prioritize investments that build and enhance it.
Increasing the debt of developing countries to pay for infrastructure projects that cannot withstand climate risks or that will exacerbate temperature rise will fail this test.
3.3 The Obligation of Effective Restoration
To manage risks and build effective resilience we must urgently avoid breaching critical thresholds and irreversibly altering key elements of the climate system. As the IPCC recognizes, ecosystem stewardship is a critical part of near-term climate action that builds resilience.[22]
In some cases, we can still preserve ecosystem resilience through mitigation alone. However, in other cases, mitigation alone will not suffice; we must also undertake restoration efforts to ensure ecosystem resilience.
This obligation entails urgently restoring essential elements of the climate system to enhance our collective resilience. Given the existing damage to the climate system, restoration is crucial for effective long-term mitigation and adaptation efforts.
The following examples illustrate the vulnerability of several key elements of the climate system, their importance to humanity’s collective resilience, and the need to ensure their restoration.
- Arctic ice sheets and sea ice form a “great white shield” reflecting solar radiation safely back into space. If all the Arctic sea ice were lost for the sunlit months, it would add the equivalent of 25 years of emissions at the current amount of warming.[23] If current warming trends continue, the Arctic summer sea ice will disappear by mid-century or sooner.[24] Once global warming surpasses the Greenland Ice Sheet’s tipping point (estimated at 1.5°C) for sustained periods, irreversible melting of the ice sheet is inevitable.[25] The potential consequence of complete Greenland melting could yield up to 7 meters of sea-level rise. While the loss of Arctic summer sea ice would exacerbate this risk.[26]
- At 1.5°C, coral reefs are projected to decline by a further 70-90%.[27] As coral reefs support around 25% of our ocean’s marine life, and an estimated 1 billion people benefit from coral reef ecosystems, mass die-offs of coral reefs would result in widescale food insecurity.[28]
- The Amazon rainforest is currently shifting from a critical carbon “sink” into a “source” of carbon dioxide. There is a risk that when 20-25% of the Amazon is destroyed, the forest will be committed to turning into a savanna, which would have devastating impacts for resilience efforts worldwide.[29]
Compliance with the obligation of restoration is measured by whether actions are timely, science-based, and aimed at maintaining the resilience of critical elements of the climate system.
We still have the opportunity to preserve much of what remains and to restore some of the damage already inflicted. However, this should not be seen as optional but as a legal obligation rooted in the human right to resilience.
4. Conclusion
Recognizing the human right to resilience is not only a moral imperative but a strategic necessity in the fight against climate change. It serves as a guiding principle for all actors, demanding accountability and informed, effective action. Policies and investments must be evaluated against their ability to uphold this right, ensuring that mitigation, adaptation, and restoration efforts are not only ambitious but also aligned with the urgent demands of our time. This approach will help stabilize the climate system, protect human life, and safeguard the planet for future generations.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Selena Bateman for her editorial assistance and contributions to this piece.
[1] Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Planetary Call to Action for Climate Change Resilience (May 16, 2024).
[2] E.g., Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Climate Resilience: Why, When and How? in Resilience of People and Ecosystems under Climate Stress 172 (Veerabhadran Ramanathan & Joachim von Braun eds., Scripta Varia 152, LEV, Vatican City, 2023).
[3] World Meteorological Organization, State of the Global Climate 2023, at 3 (Mar. 19, 2024).
[4] D.I. Armstrong McKay et al., Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points, 377 Science 6611, 7-8 (2022) (hereinafter “Armstrong McKay, Exceeding 1.5°C”); and D.I. Armstrong McKay & S. Loriani (eds.), Section 1: Earth systems tipping points, in Global Tipping Points Report 2023 12 (T.M Lenton et al. eds., 2023) (hereinafter “Earth systems tipping points”).
[5] S. Drijfhout et al., Catalogue of Abrupt Shifts in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Climate Models, 112 Proc. Nat'l Acad. Sci. E5777 (2015).
[6] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Global Warming of 1.5°C, An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [V. Masson-Delmotte et al. (eds.)], at 262 (2018) (hereinafter “IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5°C”); and N. Abram, et al., Chapter 1: Framing and Context of the Report, in The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (H.-O. Pörtner et al. eds., 2019).
[7] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 7 (H.-O. Pörtner et al. eds., 2022) at fn 12 (hereinafter “IPCC 2022, AR6 WGII”).
[8] Id. at 7 fn 20.
[9] Paris Agreement art. 2(1)(a), Dec. 12, 2015, T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104.
[10] Id. arts. 2(1)(b), (c).
[11] See E.M. Fischer, S. Sippel, & R. Knutti, Increasing probability of record-shattering climate extremes, 11 Nat. Clim. Change 689, Supp. Info. (2021).
[12] Armstrong McKay, Exceeding 1.5°C, supra note 4, at 7.
[13] IPCC, AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (P. Arias et al. eds., 2023), 8, 19, 24-26 (hereinafter “IPCC, AR6 Synthesis Report”).
[14] A. Reisinger & O. Geden, Temporary Overshoot: Origins, Prospects, and a Long Path Ahead, 6 One Earth 1631, 1634 (2023).
[15] G.B. Dreyfus, Y. Xu, D. Shindell, D. Zaelke, & V. Ramanathan, Mitigating Climate Disruption in Time: A Self-Consistent Approach for Avoiding Both Near-Term and Long-Term Global Warming, 119 Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. 1, 1-8 (2022).
[16] UNEP & CCAC, Global Methane Assessment: Benefits and Costs of Mitigating Methane Emissions, at 11 (2021); UNEP & CCAC, Global Methane Assessment: 2030 Baseline Report 6 (2022); IPCC (2022) Summary for Policymakers, in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 17 (P.R. Shukla et al. eds., 2022) (hereinafter “IPCC, 2022: AR6 WGIII”). The methane reduction percentage is broadly equivalent to the target in UNEP’s Global Methane Assessment.
[17] IPCC, 2022: AR6 WGIII, supra note 16, at 17.
[18] Id.
[19] IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5°C, supra note 6, at 12. NB: black carbon reductions rely on the IPCC’s findings in its 2018 Special Report, but this is an evolving area of research.
[20] Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol (Kigali, Rwanda, 2016).
[21] Dreyfus, supra note 15, at 5.
[22] IPCC, AR6 Synthesis Report, supra note 13, at 97, 114.
[23] K. Pistone, I. Eisenman, & V. Ramanathan, Radiative Heating of an Ice-Free Arctic Ocean, 46 Geophys. Res. Lett. 7474, 7477 (2019).
[24] IPCC 2022, AR6 WGII, supra note 6, at 2324; Y.-H Kim et al., Observationally-constrained projections of an ice-free Arctic even under a low emission scenario, 14 Nat. Commun. 3139, 1, 5 (2023).
[25] Armstrong McKay, Exceeding 1.5°C, supra note 4, at 7; and Earth Systems Tipping Points, supra note 4, at 12; and A. G. Stroeve J., & C.-F Schleussner, Only halving emissions by 2030 can minimize risks of crossing cryosphere thresholds, 13 Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 10 (2023).
[26] Earth Systems Tipping Points, supra note 4, at 101.
[27] IPCC, AR6 Synthesis Report, supra note 13, at 71.
[28] U.S. EPA, Basic Information about Coral Reefs (11 May 2023).
[29] Thomas E. Lovejoy & Carlos Nobre, Amazon’s Tipping Point, 4 Sci. Adv. 1 (2018); IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5°C, supra note 6, at 263.