Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Clean environment could become U.N. human right

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 152 posts

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

#141

Post by caoilte »

z3ncyberpunk wrote: post #46
caoilte wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, you should confront and fix both problems. You're argument is entirely dismissive of China's actions.

No, you should confront and fix child prostitution. Your argument is entirely dismissive of the huge problem with trafficking of children. Why are China and the environment the only things you you care about? /s

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

#142

Post by rtkwe »

chki wrote: post #49
rtkwe wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any resolution from the UN has to get approval from the security council iirc so if the US or UK object it'll never be formally adopted by the UN. > They mention legal concerns from Washington but don’t explain them for some reason. Odds are they haven't actually been spelled out because they amount to "it'll cause huge disruptions to business because they'll all suddenly be suable for their decades of environmental…

> Any resolution from the UN has to get approval from the security council iirc so if the US or UK object it'll never be formally adopted by the UN. That's not correct. The general assembly can adopt resolutions and is meant to adopt resolutions by itself. Those resolutions are non-binding however. The security council needs to agree if the resolution touches on security relevant topics. And the security council is t…

My bad, so they don't do anything because the only source of a resolution with any actual teeth China has power over. That's on top of the other stuff like the economic reliance on China for a lot of manufactured goods around the world.

China has also spent a lot of time pouring loans and projects (often extractive) into small poor countries through Belt and Roads giving them a fair amount of power in the general assembly because each country gets a single vote in the GA.

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

#143

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

mcdonje wrote: post #134
refurb wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracies criticize authoritarian country for torture which violates human rights. Authoritarian country criticizes democracies for environmental “crimes” which violates human rights. Says they have no right to criticize since they also violate human rights. Massive whatsboutism that detracts from the important issues.

Do you have an example of this? I mean, there's a pretty good case to be made that the US and the companies it supports and enables are guilty of some serious environmental crimes that majorly contribute to climate change and negatively impact people's health. Climate change is an existential issue. How do we decide that other countries are engaging in whataboutism by bringing things like that up as opposed to us eng…

You complain to the authorities about your (poor) neighbor because he beats his children in the front yard.

He complains to the authorities that you fly on a jet a few times a year, contributing to climate change. He never flies, you see (because he can't afford it).

He promises to stop beating his children once you stop flying.

The authorities are forced to admit that this is a fair proposal, as both beating children and flying on jets are violations of human rights. No deal is struck, you continue flying on jets, he continues beating his children, knowing that what little leverage the neighborhood had over him has been lost.

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

#144

Post by mcdonje »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #143
mcdonje wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have an example of this? I mean, there's a pretty good case to be made that the US and the companies it supports and enables are guilty of some serious environmental crimes that majorly contribute to climate change and negatively impact people's health. Climate change is an existential issue. How do we decide that other countries are engaging in whataboutism by bringing things like that up as opposed to us eng…

You complain to the authorities about your (poor) neighbor because he beats his children in the front yard. He complains to the authorities that you fly on a jet a few times a year, contributing to climate change. He never flies, you see (because he can't afford it). He promises to stop beating his children once you stop flying. The authorities are forced to admit that this is a fair proposal, as both beating childre…

It'd be a better analogy to say he complains about you flooding his yard or setting trees in the park on fire. The way you worded it diminished the US' contribution, which is almost 4x the global avg per capita.

That aside, whoever speaks second appears to be the one accused of engaging in whataboutism. Just make the neighbor complain first, and then you're the one doing a whataboutism.

Both of those aside, the authorities aren't forced to conflate two separate issues and begrudgingly support the status quo. Both can and should have consequences.

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

#145

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

shock-value wrote: post #101
mgbmtl wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

As in this case, the "right" to clean water (or any other exhaustible resource) makes no sense -- at least if described in such blunt terms. Hypothetically, what happens in a drought, when there is no water for anyone? Have your rights been violated? If so, by whom? If it's rather described as a right to nondiscrimination in the distribution of clean water (with respect to some set of properties, which could include…

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I know this isn't part of the Bill of Rights, but the idea that humans have a right to life isn't very controversial. If there were a situation where the water ran out in an isolated town, and the local government had a big water tower with enough clean drinking water for everyone, we'd absolutely say the people have a "right" to that water.

There are fringe cases, sure, but if people are going to literally die without a thing, and the government has the capacity to provide it, and the government is actually "by the people, of the, people for the people," I think the people have a right to that thing by extension.

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

#147

Post by shock-value »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #145
shock-value wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As in this case, the "right" to clean water (or any other exhaustible resource) makes no sense -- at least if described in such blunt terms. Hypothetically, what happens in a drought, when there is no water for anyone? Have your rights been violated? If so, by whom? If it's rather described as a right to nondiscrimination in the distribution of clean water (with respect to some set of properties, which could include…

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I know this isn't part of the Bill of Rights, but the idea that humans have a right to life isn't very controversial. If there were a situation where the water ran out in an isolated town, and the local gover…

What you are describing falls under what I described in my last paragraph.

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

#148

Post by chinathrow »

a_diplomat wrote: post #128
chinathrow wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue at hand here is not this resolution in itself. Is this a joke? If there is no issue with the resolution itself, then we for sure should accept it.

There are horizontal issues to every resolution, and every resolution is written in a context. If you open up for environmental crimes, then some country will want to open up for "illegal speech" directed towards the state.

I see where this is going, are there no incentives for countries to stop engaging in whataboutism?

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

#149

Post by abduhl »

puglr wrote: post #137
abduhl wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take the right you just proposed. Why is it limited to a “who”? Why is it linked to sex or gender? Is this a singular love or is polygamy a human right? Does love need to be reciprocated? What’s the fundamental human right? Shouldn’t we be worried that these so-called human rights are being newly discovered relatively recently?

> Why is it limited to a “who”? "Who" implies a human. The topic is human rights. I'm not sure I follow what this particular question is trying to get at. > Why is it linked to sex or gender? Pro answer: It isn't. We've known this since prehistoric times. Con answer: Because only a man and a woman can create a new human life on their own. > Is this a singular love or is polygamy a human right? Age differences would h…

You’ve missed the point of my post: the right you proposed has arbitrary limits which don’t seem to be justifiable under any logical framework and defending the position is untenable. Why are these limits here? If an authoritarian regime prefers to say take away or add a limit (“well the real human right is a right to love and I want to love as many people as I can with or without their consent”) then how do we morally justify denying their interpretation of a poorly developed human right while trying to advance our own interpretation?

We should be worried about certain societies “discovering” new rights and attempting to impose them on the rest of the world who may or may not share that viewpoint. This is true of “enlightened” societies like in the West just as much as other societies.

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

#150

Post by burkaman »

FredPret wrote: post #146
burkaman wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is to provide your right to life?

It’s been mostly me to be honest

Yeah, it's a right that others cannot infringe, but no single person can provide. The same is true of your right to a safe and healthy environment.
Post reply on HN