11–20 of 152 posts
If you declare too many things to a "human right" it removes wiggle room for good policy making. Also, the US already has stronger rules against vehicle pollution than the EU (in terms of pollution that directly damage health like NOx and PM). If it's going to become a "human right" then countries who propose it should be leading it in the first place.
The whole US or only same states?
> Washington also referred to legal concerns as well as worries that recognising new rights could dilute traditional civil and political rights, according to sources following the talks. Totally makes sense to me really. It's just enables genocidal dictatorships to go full "what about" when called out for their crimes. Yes, we just exterminated a small nation, but look how much U.S. companies pollute!
Because you know the exact thing you're afraid of has actually been done in the name of civil liberties and political rights, how many small nations have been crushed in the name of freedom and democracy in the last half century?
The US and Britain aren't saying no to a clean environment - BP, Chevron, and Exxon are.
> Washington also referred to legal concerns as well as worries that recognising new rights could dilute traditional civil and political rights, according to sources following the talks. Totally makes sense to me really. It's just enables genocidal dictatorships to go full "what about" when called out for their crimes. Yes, we just exterminated a small nation, but look how much U.S. companies pollute!
I mean this as an honest question: why does that matter? Diplomatically, why would any other country care about a genocidal dictatorships pronouncements of hypocrisy? That already happens, and it already doesn’t stop sanctions and other consequences, from my limited understanding of geopolitics.
That is, for example, the Beijing smog, well those countries own a fair percentage of that. Off-shoring manufacturing isn't only about cost of labour. It's also about less (environmental) regulation.
The USA is fond of highlighting it's progress on the environment, but it consistently fails to mention the problem wasn't solved, but most often simply off-shore'd. We also love to present as taking the high road on human rights. Something like this would ruin that (false*) narrative.
* The USA's incarceration rate comes to mind.
> Washington also referred to legal concerns as well as worries that recognising new rights could dilute traditional civil and political rights, according to sources following the talks. Totally makes sense to me really. It's just enables genocidal dictatorships to go full "what about" when called out for their crimes. Yes, we just exterminated a small nation, but look how much U.S. companies pollute!
I’m also very confused about this line about halfway down the article:
> The United States is not currently a Council member but is vying for a seat and can still join debates as an observer.
Are they saying that the US isn’t even a voting member of the council making the decision? It seems like a huge exaggeration to say the US is interfering with the resolution when they’re not even voting yes or no on it.
The US and Britain aren't saying no to a clean environment - BP, Chevron, and Exxon are.
If you declare too many things to a "human right" it removes wiggle room for good policy making. Also, the US already has stronger rules against vehicle pollution than the EU (in terms of pollution that directly damage health like NOx and PM). If it's going to become a "human right" then countries who propose it should be leading it in the first place.
>US already has stronger rules against vehicle pollution The whole US or only same states?
China has been denying people human rights daily, what does the UN do to them?
China is a disgusting bully. They’re intentionally rattling people in Taiwan by flying war planes at them to “stress them out”. The UN is a joke. Something should be done.
That is the way the UN was originally set up. The UN has no instruments of its own to enforce anything.