The United Nations and Human Rights do not necessarily go hand in hand these days. After all, it is run by people from countries where Human Rights violations are a part of daily life and they have changed little in their own countries.

At the recent COP 15, Rudd has just agreed to provide lots of money to the Robert Mugabes of the world to "halt global warming". He's probably buying rocket launchers with the promised money this minute, maybe ones with low emissions after all that is what is really important isn't it?

The UN is currently only interested in wealth redistribution, with their associated organisations, spin-off companies and individuals being the major beneficiaries along with assigned African nations.

I imagine that a Human Rights violation or drop in living standards in the Western world particularly, is not very interesting to the UN, as we are seen as those who've already had it too good for too long.

Our living standards are designed to drop to accommodate the new eco order which, as we have now learned, is above the rights of the individual. We now live in a world where a protecting a plant species is more important than the provision of water supply to humans and our money is given to psychopathic dictators to be eco friendly through our government and the UN COP15. Human Rights is only a catchphrase these days and applies only to some of the world's inhabitants.

Stephen,

Both your article and the paper on which it is based concentrate on processes for making decisions, but have little to say about what the content of the decisions should be. Yet the two are linked.

It might be useful to concentrate on the plight of Pacific Islanders if the attempts to halt climate change fail. After their countries are submerged, they will have a right to have somewhere to live, but there is nowhere where they will have a right to live. They will be like refugees who have been processed by the UN authorities and await somewhere to go.
It will be unreasonable to expect them to wait indefinitely in camps or detention centres, especially if the centres are as bad as those in Indonesia or the camps like those in Pakistan. Indeed, it will be contrary to their rights.

But equally, it will be unreasonable to expect any single country to automatically take them all.

How do you think that a concentration on their rights would resolve this? There would need to be specific correlative duties—i.e., it would have to be clear that country X was obliged to take Islander N.

At last, an article from someone who understands both the law and public policy. Many of the posts on this issue 'shoot from the hip' - my favourite Ruddism - when they have nothing intelligent to say.

There are many vectors of analysis but basically, the extreme ends of the pro-environment lobby believe that human rights are not apriori but only exist when we include the environment, such as trees, rabbits, foxes and bears.

This is curious and odd and quite weird as human rights are Human. So it's hard to legislate and mandate on behalf of the hares and the lillies of the field, as much as some of the ferals here would like.

The other side of the coin is to adopt the socio-biologist focus and talk about closed systems, slow death by cooking, and quoting John Donne, about 'no man being an island'.

The law seperates us and binds us. Rights are human rights, although in my warm and fuzzy moments I think my dog would like to talk about global politics with me over a crisp white wine.

And she'd make a darn more sense than the loose cannons that rocket around the decks whenever the whacko greenies talk about human rights and the environment.

Human Right needs to be left, right and centre of Climate Change. We need a See Change. How we get a world to address itself, I really don't know nor do I want to understand any more of the antics. Bystander apathy leads all those in a daze. To the rest of us, we are amazed.

Ozbib, your comments are invaluable. It seems those at the top of the economic platform, are lost at the bottom. They visit these Island nations as tourists and guests. Eat fruit from the their tables... but gaze down only at the level of their own comfort and wealth?

The voice of the Pacific Islanders must be validated. The Pacific Island attempts - calling the world to halt climate change, must be seriously heard.

With rising sea-levels, these Pacific islands will most probably become totally submerged. We all need to be deeply concerned that there may be no land, and nowhere for these Pacific Islanders to live! Yes - it is true. Many citizens throughout the world agree that these Pacific Islanders have a right to have somewhere to live. Who blocks their right to a future path?

What will happen?

Will - these people become refugees to be processed by the UN authorities and await somewhere to go?

Would it be not unreasonable to expect these people to wait indefinitely in camps or detention centres, especially if the centres are as bad as those in Africa, parts of Europe, Indonesia and other places like Pakistan.

Indeed, these conditions would be contrary to their human and civic rights.

What is to be done?

We need to do more than offering the 'gift wish' money. Money alone can't fix the heart of this problem.

Binding EST targets are a strategic way to formally address the problem. For this reason we must act. Prevention is our strongest tool against the impact of Climate Change.

Bottom Line: It would be smarter if we put the rights and concerns of these Pacific Island people first.

http://www.miacat.com/

Dear Miacat,

If there is any sea level rise at all - and that is doubtful, except at a rate of a couple of inches a century - it will affects all oceans more or less equally: there is no special impact on Pacific islands, as if they exist apart from the rest of the world. And Fiji is probably one of the least likely to be affected, in spite of tears. If sea levels are rising, all coastal cities, large and small, will be affected, more or less equally. Of course, taking out too much ground-water, tectonic submergence and extreme weather events will all have catastrophic effects on low-lying islands and coasts, but these are issues apart from sea level rise.

Show me I'm wrong, and I'll become a believer again :)

Joe

Senator Penny Wong has said the big problems in the talks were not only the targets, but how to verify that countries made good on their promises,how to finance poorer countries and a binding enforceable treaty.Clearly these are human rights issues.

Well, nice try, …to get Nations together again after the Treaty of Versailles and the war to end all wars in 1918, then the U.N.after another war to end all wars in 1945. History has clearly shown that there is no such thing as obtuse Nations doing anything together for the common good, least of all in good faith.

More so when rising population with rising affluence become consumers of manufactured goods from polluting processes. The U.N. says another 2.9 billion by 2040, an increase of one third. Therein lies the problem of trying to create a new World Order.

If the causes of climate change,are indeed man made and this is unproven,then the answer is unclear, has become political and requires the sacrifice of vested interests. Already the Government has put the cart before the horse in announcing specific amounts of compensation to half of the 3.6 million middle income folks and pensioners up to $600 plus a year,funded " by forcing the emitters to pay for their emissions"

Legislating the ETS is Australia’s example to force such payments, but if it is the forever changing elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun that is on a path closer to the heat before its orbit changes to cool, according to Josh my 12 year old, then the answer is clear,adapt to it as all other life on Earth has adapted over the millenniums. But the melting of the Ice Caps raising the sea levels before they begin to freeze again create a problem for some of the Pacific Nations and the Mayor of Glenelg. This is the area to prepare for a different future on higher ground. In the meantime it appears that Copenhagen is all about money while the NASA Earth Resources Satellite cuurently orbiting the Poles has recorded huge depositions of snow in the Arctic