Skewed State Priorities thwarting Climate Action

A deeply-rooted modus operandi of how the world has so far attempted to deal with the climate crisis overbearingly involves a discussion amongst the States as stakeholders. Quite naturally, whilst dealing with a transnational issue, countries emerge as an immediately relevant stakeholders. Assumptively, these countries will be better placed to align their domestic and international commitments to resolve the problem. However, this model has consistently failed, given that climate change has attained tags indicative of an exacerbated form: climate crisis, climate emergency and climate breakdown. And this argument does not merely rest on narratives but on events where State Institutions have averred a pernicious tendency of thwarting progress in pursuance of mitigating the crisis. The past month saw reporting on two events which strengthens the proposition that state machineries may often become a hindrance in achieving key international cooperation for climate change mitigation and adaptation.

First, the Swiss Council of States superseded perhaps one of the constituent cases of progressive rights-based climate litigation, Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland. Tagging the court’s decision on holding the State accountable for threatening impact of climate change-induced heatwaves on vulnerable groups, particularly old women, as “inadmissible and disproportionate judicial activism”, the Parliament disapproved of the ruling. Second, a paper assessed the impact of post-war reconstruction in Gaza on the climate crisis and forecasted carbon emissions of around 60 million tonnes CO₂ equivalent. This is distinctive from the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions that have already been released as a result of the ongoing war. More glaringly, the scales of share in emissions disproportionately inclines towards the Israeli onslaught vis-à-vis Gaza’s retaliation.

At a slight glance, the background of these events distinguishes them significantly. In Switzerland, the Parliament responded to a judicial pronouncement which would have had the effect of asserting State responsibility to mitigate the climate crisis for at least the vulnerable sections of citizenry (such as old-aged people and women, among others). In Gaza, however, perhaps a larger nationalism-based principle has been fuelling the war for the last nine months. In this regard, it will not be shocking to assume that no actor involved in the Gaza war considered aggravation of climate change as a deterring factor.

But there is an undercurrent of subordinating climate crisis in both the events by contestably prioritising other principles and concerns. In the Swiss case, preserving separation of powers and keeping a vigil on judicial activism trumped the need for developing a combination of rights which would significantly make the State responsible for protecting its people from the worsening impacts of the climate crisis. In Gaza, war based on nationalism and “State-preservation” seems to have easily justified all the other repercussions. Hierarchisation of State priorities has unjustifiably always placed climate action at the bottom of the pile. Paradoxically, this emerges as an unsurprising but equally shocking manner of reacting to the climate crisis because while these countries are already reeling under the deadly exhibitions of the climate crisis, there seems to be no awakening from the slumber of ignorance and short-sightedness.

And this points to the larger pattern of State action when it comes to climate change mitigation and adaptation. CoPs to the UNFCCC often fail to create State obligations which at least meet the pace (outdoing is already out of the window) of exacerbating climate change because of sheer reluctance to commit to overhauling the lucrative and deeply entrenched fossil-fuel based system, and assuming the forum as an opportune platform to exchange rhetorical blames. Consistency in this pattern of non-ambitious State effort leads to the conclusion that the manner of not switching our priorities has been skewed and wrong all along. And when there are some actors intervening to correct that course, such as the ECtHR in the Swiss case, our conventional priorities may take unjustifiable precedence over transformation and change.

Sue the State for Heatwaves- A Case for Violation of Right against Adverse Effects of Climate Change

During my time in Delhi for the last one month, I have been taking auto/ electric rickshaws for commuting to metro stations or directly to the destinations if reaching the metro station was an insurmountable task due to traffics (blockades for VIP passage is a common occurrence in the locality I live in). In an entirely black uniform, I am exposed to an extremely hot and burning wind, a manifestation of the deadly heatwave that has grasped the Indo-Gangetic plains for at least the last one month. While people with private vehicles line around my rickshaw at a traffic signal and enjoy the luxury of their ACs, I and the rickshaw driver get the punishment of being exposed to the heatwave and burning exhaust of these vehicles. And the prognosis of this intensifying or remaining the same in June makes me wonder this: if majority of the people can’t afford to get AC vehicles, and if a large section of the citizenry relies on non-AC workplace but perhaps more essential livelihoods (farming, transportation, construction, among others), is it a fait accompli for the economically marginalised? Or do they have a right to sue the government for inapt action in enhancing climate adaptation and mitigation plans?

When the Supreme Court introduced the right against adverse effects of climate change in M K Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, the reasoning fundamentally relied on Article 14, apart from Article 21, of the Constitution. One paragraph (Paragraph no. 26, 2024 INSC 280) specifically elaborated on this aspect by documenting instances of how different communities are impacted by climate change variably based on their economic, social and cultural background. Indubitably, the observation was significant in defining the scope of this newfound right, signifying a progressive acknowledgment of intersectional impact of climate change. The fact that Supreme Court has constitutionalised this right avers that the government has a crucial responsibility to protect the citizens from climate change, with special attention to the intersectional and varying impacts on different communities. Otherwise, the government is culpable of violating the rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. On the face of it, the repercussions and responsibilities imposed in the garb of this right are unprecedented and arguably, at this nascent stage since this right has been materialised, the violations vis-à-vis its fulfilments exceed tremendously.

Exploring this hypothesis through the occurrence of heatwaves and state’s track record for ensuring preservation of right to life (specifically, right to health) of every section of the society, one can identify a palpable void of inaction and abandonment. With the offices of primary lawmakers fully air-conditioned, certain offices of the state themselves are reeling under the impact of this inaction with inapt infrastructure. Unsurprisingly, the general public is undoubtedly on its own, with capitalist empowerment sponsoring ACs in some dwellings whilst capitalist retardment exposing the majority of the citizenry to the former’s exhausts exacerbating the already life-snatching heat. This intersectionality has not been compensated by the state through establishment of appropriate climate change adaptation mechanisms.

An analysis of the approach framed for addressing heatwave concerns reveals a lackadaisical approach of the state in actively taking on the responsibility of establishing infrastructure which protects marginalised communities which are unable to afford private adaptation measures, namely ACs. To the state’s credit, NDMA’s ‘Beating the Heat: how India successfully reduced mortality due to heatwaves’ perhaps encapsulates the approach taken by the state in fulfilling their responsibility to protect the citizens. Formulation of national guidelines to enable Heat-wave Action Plans, conducting workshops, research, advisories, community sensitisation, heat-wave warnings- these form the crux of the state’s approach. Evident is a reductionist approach to the issue at hand where at the end of the tunnel, the actual protection of communities from heatwaves through establishment of requisite infrastructure still remains a far-fetched accomplishment. In simple terms, what does one do with the advisories, research, warnings and community sensitisation, when one is not aided by requisite adaptation facility and equipment? Establishment of heat shelters, water cooling capacities, greening of crowded public areas, among other measures, remain an intervention far too absent, even when at least 23 Heat Action Plans (HAPs) have been formulated.

And this where the newly-founded right in M K Ranjitsinh can possibly come into action. With this right, primarily the vulnerable communities, can seek urgent government action to protect them in view of the fact that they are responsible to ensure their survival and well-being. The mere fact that mortalities have reduced does not aver that this right is not being violated; heat stress itself, which retards one in efficiently performing their livelihood or miscellaneous activities, should be construed as a clear violation of one’s right to life under Article 14 and 21. This perhaps can also become a litmus test about the contours of this newly-founded right and the future of climate litigation in India.