Clean environment could become U.N. human right • Hacker News Board

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#81

Post by zohch » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:14 PM UTC

caoilte wrote: post #30

bamboozled wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is unhelpful whataboutery. China isn't directly relevant. I could just as truthfully point out that the USA is a disgusting bully and that would be unhelpful too. We wouldn't think it reasonable if someone on trial for embezzlement asked the jury to acquit because there are other people out in the world committing murder. We only put up with it in news and politics because we have normalized and accepted propaga…

> This is unhelpful whataboutery. China isn't directly relevant.

It is. Because it is one of the biggest threats to human rights and to a clean environment. If UN can't tackle China, they are feckless, but of course we all know this. This is a stick to beat the west with while China and Russia and the new axis of evil get to keep running rough-shot over the rest of the world.

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#82

Post by mgbmtl » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:16 PM UTC

maccolgan wrote: post #63

A "clean" environment is so subjective and temporal, I don't understand how it can be a "human" right... Why does UN keep digging into this hole of irrelevancy and bs?

All rights subjective and temporal. Just take the question of freedom of speech, and how that evolves in time, how it varies between countries (even between allied countries, such as the US and Canada).

One could argue that the desire for an increased level of comfort of one set of people should not happen at the detriment of the right to clean water, for example, of another set of people. Many countries will have their own standards, or their own double-standards. I think it's a very relevant debate.

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#83

Post by Veen » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:16 PM UTC

a_diplomat wrote: post #73

Hi. Diplomat working with UN issues here. The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such. So it's basically about using one set of issues, which in substance are hard to fight,…

I'm always curious how diplomats and politicians regard the "rights" in the U.N. declaration of human rights. They don't conform to a defensible set of natural rights (even if it's agreed that such things exist), so are they considered a goal or a declaration of how the UN thinks people should live? Does it matter that few UN members conform to them? Or that they represent quite a specific ideological viewpoint in many cases. Or that some rights seem to conflict with other rights? In short, what's the point of a lengthy declaration of "rights" that almost none of the members seems committed to.

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#84

Post by tgb » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:17 PM UTC

a_diplomat wrote: post #73

Hi. Diplomat working with UN issues here. The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such. So it's basically about using one set of issues, which in substance are hard to fight,…

Interesting. Can you expand on an example of a 'new' human right that would be authoritarian in nature? I don't really understand the "right to development" example. It looks like it was adopted by the UN already in 1986 and I'm not sure if the authoritarian implications.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/righttod...

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#85

Post by zohch » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:17 PM UTC

trasz wrote: post #34

fennecfoxen wrote: post #22

> "At national level, this right has been shown to empower people, particularly those most vulnerable to environmental damage or climate change, to drive change and hold governments to account" Right, so one of the consequences would be that the US gives a bunch of activists permission to use the legal system to harass anything that they like — not just new projects, but everything that exists in the world. Perhaps w…

Except that China is building nuclear like crazy. They are definitely not ignoring the climate change.

How does china building nuclear imply that they are not ignoring climate change? They could recognize that nuclear is a better source of power than coal, which most people would, and still not give a damn about the environment and/or climate change.

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#86

Post by pueblito » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

FredPret wrote: post #65

maccolgan wrote: post #63

A "clean" environment is so subjective and temporal, I don't understand how it can be a "human" right... Why does UN keep digging into this hole of irrelevancy and bs?

Also, if it is a right, who is to provide it?

Rights are inalienable, no one provides them

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#87

Post by stooliepidgin » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:23 PM UTC

In the US, TSCA grandfathered-in thousands of chemicals without any evidence of safety for purely economic reasons. Also, new substances aren't required to be tested for safety beforehand, so it's a "closing the barn door after the cow escaped" situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_Substances_Control_Act_o...

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#88

Post by shock-value » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:24 PM UTC

gnomewascool wrote: post #80

FredPret wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, if it is a right, who is to provide it?

Who is to provide, say, "a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family", which is also a basic human right, as listed by the original (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights[0]? The fact that there's nobody to provide it, doesn't mean that it's not a basic human right. [0] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

Yes that's also a "right" that is devoid of legal, moral, or practical meaning. As is any "right" to any exhaustible resource.

The UDHR is an aspirational document that has no legal force in and of itself.

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#89

Post by realityking » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

tgb wrote: post #84

a_diplomat wrote: post #73

Hi. Diplomat working with UN issues here. The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such. So it's basically about using one set of issues, which in substance are hard to fight,…

Interesting. Can you expand on an example of a 'new' human right that would be authoritarian in nature? I don't really understand the "right to development" example. It looks like it was adopted by the UN already in 1986 and I'm not sure if the authoritarian implications. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/righttod...

There‘s an explanation, with a particular view point, here: https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/escr/pages/areescrfundamenta...

The history is that western democracies generally emphasized civil rights while poorer countries social rights. This “evened the playing field” to play off rights against each other. For example one can claim that it’s been necessary to to limit certain civil rights to improve the situation of social rights. (Take away the farms and give them to the workers).

Re: Clean environment could become U.N. human right

#90

Post by throwaways885 » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

tgb wrote: post #84

a_diplomat wrote: post #73

Hi. Diplomat working with UN issues here. The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. It's the fact that opening up human rights to "new" rights sets a precedent. And that precedent will be used by other countries to shift the language on human rights in a more authoritarian direction - or dilute human rights as such. So it's basically about using one set of issues, which in substance are hard to fight,…

Interesting. Can you expand on an example of a 'new' human right that would be authoritarian in nature? I don't really understand the "right to development" example. It looks like it was adopted by the UN already in 1986 and I'm not sure if the authoritarian implications. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/righttod...

The Right to Freedom from Misinformation.