How human rights approaches can aid climate activism and litigation

Climate change, justice and human rights is a collection of ten essays, released by Amnesty International Netherlands in August 2020 (published in English). It is a thoughtful and critical discussion of the opportunities and problems of taking a human rights lens to climate change. “The language, policies and (campaigning) strategies around climate change and human rights are still in development, leading to new insights, (re) definitions, and new challenges for human rights and environmental activists.” The opening essay, “Amnesty’s approach to climate change and human rights” discusses whether Amnesty should become involved in climate change, and if so, how.  It concludes “Simply framing the crisis as a human rights crisis will by itself make only a modest difference. However, with determination, sound strategy and humility we can use our strengths to support and be guided by those who are at the front line of the climate crisis, and who have been leading the struggle for climate justice for a long time.” Specifically, when options for tactics were presented at a People’s Summit in 2019, participants voted for: Changing public opinion (25%); Civil disobedience (19%); Litigation (17%); Divestment (14%); Mass demonstrations (9%); Consumer boycotts (9%); or  something else (7%). Not all of these are tactics commonly used by Amnesty International, but the report discusses how they determine to go forward.

Besides the considerations of Amnesty’s future direction and tactics, the essays look at the concept of climate justice, and finally, at specific policies areas, in chapters such as “Climate change and the human rights responsibilities of business enterprises” by  Sara Seck, Associate Professor, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University; “The use of human rights arguments in climate change litigation and its limitations” by Annalisa Savaresi, one of two Executive Directors of Greenpeace Netherlands; “The climate crisis and new justice movements: supporting a new generation of climate activists” by Anna Schoemakers, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Law at Stirling University, UK; and “ Human rights and intergenerational climate justice “ by  Bridget Lewis, Senior Lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia.   

  

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board lags international financial community on recognition of climate change risks and stranded assets

In what the WWF has called   “a landmark moment for responsible investment in Europe” , the European Parliament voted in November 2016  to mandate that all workplace pension administrators must consider climate risk and risks “related to the depreciation of assets” -stranded assets-  in investment decisions.  It also requires greater transparency about investment policies. Individual governments of the EU now have two years to pass into national law this updated version of the  existing Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP) Directive. Currently, the directive would affect occupational pension plans affected covering approximately 20% of the EU workforce, mostly in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Germany .  A September 2016 Briefing Note from the European Parliament  details the administrative/political evolution of the Directive; a December  article from Corporate Knights  or  Go Fossil Free or Reuters  provide summaries.

In December 14, 2016, the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosure, chaired by Michael Bloomberg,  released its report and recommendations  to the Financial Stability Board, a G-20 organization chaired by Mark Carney. An article by the two men appeared in The Guardian, capturing the gist of the work:  “We believe that financial disclosure is essential to a market-based solution to climate change. …. A properly functioning market will price in the risks associated with climate change and reward firms that mitigate them. As its impact becomes more commonplace and public policy responses more active, climate change has become a material risk that isn’t properly disclosed.” The Task Force calls for companies to make voluntary disclosure of climate risks to their business,  to help  investors, lenders and insurance underwriters to manage material climate risks, and ultimately to make the global economic and financial systems more stable.   A 60-day public consultation period began with release of the report; an updated report, incorporating that input,  will be released in June 2017.  The Task Force report was summarized in   “Climate disclosure framework creates a better environment for investors” in the  Globe and Mail Bloomberg News also reported on another recommendation, “Carney Panel Urges CEO Compensation Link With Climate Risk ” , stating that the time has come for organizations to provide detailed reporting of how manager and board member pay is tied to climate risks.  (See a Dec. 1 Reuters article about Royal Dutch Shell’s moves to link CEO bonuses to GHG reduction).

In Canada, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, which administers the assets of the national public pension fund, seems to be standing on the sidelines.  A recent article in the Globe and Mail was written by the director of the CPPIB Sustainable Investment department , which is described in  more detail in their 2016 Report on Sustainable Investing . The report states (page 11)   “ CPPIB has established a cross-departmental Climate Change Working Group to consider how physical risks, as well as technological, regulatory and market developments will impact climate change-related risks, and create opportunities, in the future. …. This review, which will take some time, is being done from a long-term perspective in light of how the gradual transition to a lower-carbon global economy might unfold….  On the topic of divestment and climate change, research has shown that investors with longer horizons tend to be more engaged with the companies that they invest in, and CPPIB is a case in point. As responsible owners, we believe that in many cases selling our shares to investors who might be less active in terms of considering material risks, including climate change, would be counterproductive.”   In light of this very slow approach, Friends of the Earth (FOE) has been frustrated in its divestment campaign for the CPPIB in 2016 ;  FOE maintains a petition website, Pensions for a Green Future, which calls for the CPPIB to, among other things,  “report immediately to its 19 million members on the carbon footprint and exposure to climate solutions of our CPP investment portfolio” and “to replace climate polluting investments with those in green energy, technologies and infrastructure that support Canada’s commitment to act to avoid 1.5°C of warming.” The CPPIB discloses the companies it is invested in here  .

In contrast to the CPPIB, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ),  the second largest pension fund manager is Canada,  is highlighted in a new report by the World Economic Forum  as “ one of the most important institutional investors in wind power” for its investment of  close to $2.5 billion (US) in both onshore and offshore wind projects in Europe and North America, starting in 2013 with a tentative investment in the Invenergy , and now including the London Array wind farm in the outer Thames estuary.  The Caisse statements on environmental and social responsibility are here ; it is a signatory to the U.N.  Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), a member of the Carbon Disclosure Project and the Carbon Water Disclosure Project, and endorses the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative , which monitors the oil and gas industry .