TANZANIA – The U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to support strong action to limit climate change despite recent diplomatic efforts by the United States to have the measure withdrawn.
The 193-member world body approved a nonbinding resolution endorsing the landmark advisory opinion by the U.N.’s top court last July that called failure by countries to protect the planet from climate change a violation of international law.
“The world’s highest court has spoken. Today, the General Assembly has answered,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement. “This is a powerful affirmation of international law, climate justice, science, and the responsibility of states to protect people from the escalating climate crisis.”
The vote was 141-8 with 28 abstentions. The U.S., Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia — some of the highest oil-producing nations and major greenhouse gas emitters — opposed the measure. Climate change is caused mainly by the burning of coal, oil and gas.
The text includes adopting a national climate action plan to limit global temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit); phasing out subsidies for fossil fuel exploration, production and exploitation; and urging those in violation to provide “full reparation” for damage.
The Paris climate agreement in 2015 set a goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times, or the mid-1800s, giving rise to the mantra “1.5 to stay alive,” but now scientists say even their best-case scenario still shoots past that signature temperature mark.
The U.N. resolution had initially included stronger language from the International Court of Justice opinion that called for establishing an “International Register of Damage” to record evidence and claims, but it was removed after nearly a dozen consultations in order to receive more support.
The adoption came despite reporting by The Associated Press in February that the Trump administration had been urging other nations to press the small island country of Vanuatu — the draft's original sponsor — to withdraw it from consideration.
In guidance issued to all U.S. embassies and consulates, the State Department had said it “strongly objects” to the proposal and that its adoption “could pose a major threat to U.S. industry.”
On Wednesday, Tammy Bruce, the deputy U.S. ambassador to the U.N., blasted the measure once again, calling it “highly problematic” and maintaining that Washington has serious legal and policy concerns despite changes to the draft.
“The resolution includes inappropriate political demands relating to fossil fuels and on other climate topics,” Bruce told the assembly before the vote.
But representatives from Vanuatu and other island nations, who fear for their survival because of the impact of climate change, said it was important for the General Assembly to back the court opinion, which was hailed as a turning point in international climate law.
“We should be honest with one another about why this matters,” Odo Tevi, the Vanuatu ambassador to the U.N., said before the vote. “It matters because the harm is real and it is already here, along our islands and coastlines, for communities facing drought and failed harvests.”
He added, “The states and peoples bearing the heaviest burden are very often those who contributed least to the problem.”
The action by the world body follows decades of frustration for Pacific nations that are watching their homelands disappear.
In Tuvalu, where the average elevation is just 2 meters (6.6 feet) above sea level, more than a third of the population has applied for a climate migration visa to Australia, although only a limited number are accepted each year. By 2100, much of the country is projected to be underwater at high tide.
In Nauru, the government has begun selling passports to wealthy foreigners — offering visa-free access to dozens of countries — in a bid to generate revenue for possible relocation efforts.
Louis Charbonneau, U.N. director of Human Rights Watch, said in a statement Wednesday that by endorsing the court ruling, the U.N. “reaffirmed the global commitment to protect human rights.” He noted that it came “despite efforts by the U.S. and other oil-producing states to stifle attempts to combat climate change.”