Threats to human security, political stability, and sustainable prosperity are spreading; the possibility of a rights-focused climate-resilient economy provides important leverage for reversing that trend.

A combination of armed conflict, political extremism, deepening income inequality, and background degradation of climate and nature conditions, is creating increasing threats to human security, around the world. Major institutions are struggling to keep up with the rising level of risk, harm, and destabilization, and progress toward sustainable development is faltering.

Climate-related disaster costs are rising rapidly, affecting infrastructure, food supplies, the viability of local economies, and the stability of entire regions. One analysis suggests recently announced cuts to US foreign aid could lead to 25 million deaths, globally, in the next 15 years.

That level of devastation cannot be allowed to play out. Such loss of life is morally unacceptable by any standard, and it will create destabilizing ripple effects throughout all societies, even as debt burdens are rising, fiscal space is shrinking, and the need for urgent local and regional responses is rising.

Last month, the International Court of Justice issued a landmark opinion, holding that all governments have a legal obligation to act to reduce climate risk and harm. The Court found that this obligation is rooted not only in the UN Climate Convention, the Paris Agreement, and other treaties, but also in customary international law and in fundamental human rights.

The rights to climate protection and a clean, healthy environment, are inherent in other human rights. This means the legitimacy of governments, as such, rests on their ability to deliver, among other things, climate safety and environmental protection.

There is hope in this:

• hope that legal institutions will uphold the primacy of human rights over the appetites of those who seek to accumulate wealth and power by harming others;
• hope that legal leverage to compel governments to do the right thing will become distributed across the whole population of all countries;
• hope that we might respond to the threats of this moment with a new and reinvigorated sense of our reciprocal obligations and the power of cooperative problem solving;
• hope that we will pay attention to the hidden harm done by powerful institutions, and design systems that put a price on that harm and provide real alternatives;
• hope that we might see the liberation of humankind from a flawed, primitive form of industry, in which resource depletion is the only path to prosperity.

What that hope looks like varies from place to place. Even in one climate-vulnerable community, there are many variations on the nature of that vulnerability. A person who has access to well-designed structures, elevated above flood levels, and to private evacuation options, like chartered helicopters, has a very different risk profile from that of neighbors who live in poorly-built dwellings, at ground level, and have no resources to finance private-sector emergency solutions.

Public services in places with that kind of inequality are often insufficient to reach all affected people before disaster strikes, so a core climate preparedness and resilience (CPR) priority must be the funding and establishment of improved public services, including:

• Improved weather forecasting and early warning systems;
• improved physical and informational infrastructure;
• coordinated evacuation support and emergency services;
• disaster response and relief;
• public insurance, to support private insurance and reconstruction.

The climate crisis is a result of the unique capability of human systems to effect change at industrial scale; solving it requires we establish and sustain humanizing institutions, such as courts of law that reduce the risk of violence, counter corruption, and materially uphold basic human rights.

One quarter of the way through the 21st century, we are seeing the risk of a world where lawlessness replaces responsible governance. Such a world will be roiled by chaos and harder to manage, and will be far less capable of responding to the worsening risks and costs of a planetary-scale disruption.

The rights-based approach to climate-resilient development provides a number of vital improvements over the historical status quo:

1. It recognizes the transcendent reality that all people have a right to be shielded from injustice.
2. It refocuses the role of institutions, in the public and private sectors, on the creation of real value for real people—not just the securing and expanding of financial wealth.
3. By doing this, it creates a foundation for evidence-based, cooperative problem-solving, as a mainstream concern.
4. That means society can better organize to leverage the ingenuity and ability of everyone, rather than the narrower imagination of those who seek only profit.
5. It allows us to measure, track, and quantify variables other than financial balance sheets, so value considerations are more comprehensive and more accurate.
6. It invites participatory civics to play a crucial role, so we can better counter risks with advance warning.

The Climate Civics perspective on the right to climate protection is that:

• The ICJ has reopened for all nations the possibility of a livable, climate-resilient future.
• Nations that consider stakeholders’ rights and needs, and assertively act to reduce climate risk and harm, will naturally set the terms for negotiation in all areas.
• And, citizens and communities engaging public officials can rescue their societies from pointless and preventable compounding climate costs.

Reducing risk for the most vulnerable improves everyone’s chances of thriving in a secure and sustainable way. Emerging data technologies will make it easier for everyone to track real-world climate contributions; as that practice takes root, it will be major investors, even the sovereign wealth funds of oil-dependent states, that demand better climate performance from their portfolios. 

It is healthy to recognize that high-level power-holders do not have absolute power and cannot be the sole responsible actors for steering national progress. Where national leaders are getting it wrong, subnational jurisdictions and private industry should take the lead.

---

Written for Climate Civics, published August 11, 2025.