Author
Abstract
Since ratification of the Paris Agreement in 2015, the development of policy aimed at building climate resilience has largely focussed on holding the increase in global temperature average whilst making finance flow consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development; with buzzwords such as ‘ESG’, ‘net zero’, ‘climate-smart’ and ‘natural capital’ now common in day-to-day vernacular. Whilst the emergence of these terms has coincided with statutory obligations to report on sustainability initiatives or climate risks, as well as investment opportunities in renewable energy projects or alternative food production technologies, it is arguable that such terminology demonstrates a continued focus by government and business to value natural assets and food security through a numerical lens of economic growth and development. Although placing a numerical value on nature and food production can help promote innovation or incentivise environmental protection; it is a little-known fact that the Paris Agreement was entered into in pursuit of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which both reiterate that: • increasing our ability to adapt to climate change, foster climate resilience, and reducing greenhouse gas development must be done in a manner that does not threaten food production, and • when taking action to address climate change, parties must consider: • their respective obligations on human rights, and • the fundamental priority of safeguarding food security, food production systems, and Mother Earth. Furthermore, few decision-makers are aware that courts of law across multiple jurisdictions are now scrutinizing the alleged failures by government or business to consider the aesthetic and spiritual value of nature in the context of human rights through climate litigation; in a real-time convergence demonstrating the importance of returning to the first principles of ecologically sustainable development.
Suggested Citation
Handle:
RePEc:ags:cfcp25:391425
DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.391425
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:cfcp25:391425. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.crawfordfund.org/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.