There are those at the COPs who see the glass as half full on principle, an almost automatic exercise in institutional optimism. And then there is Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who sees the glass as empty, or nearly so. The speech with which he commented on the results of Cop30 in Belém is a clear j’accuse.
The conference, we know, ended with minimal agreement and, above all, a major absence: no explicit reference to fossil fuels. An outcome that some wanted to read as proof of the resilience of multilateralism; according to Türk, it is more confirmation of the opposite, a picture of a negotiating machine trudging along as the planet races towards the abyss.
The heart of his reasoning is simple and disturbing: what we call political prudence today could tomorrow be judged as complicity in a global disaster. Türk says it openly, without the diplomacy that usually characterises UN statements: the “fatal inaction” of leaders could one day be considered “a crime against humanity,” and the inadequate response to the climate crisis could amount to “ecocide.” Coming from someone who represents the highest international human rights body, this is no small thing.
Two verdicts
To reinforce his warning, Türk cites two judicial decisions that sound like formal warnings to governments and businesses. The International Court of Justice has ruled that states must prevent any serious climate damage, including by acting on corporate regulation. And the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has recognised the human right to a stable climate, requiring states to impose duties of care and reparations for climate damage on businesses. In other words: climate protection has become a legal obligation.
There is no missing passage about the real winners of the conference: not the most vulnerable countries, not the citizens suffering from climate impacts, but the fossil fuel giants. Türk puts it bluntly: the fossil fuel industry “generates colossal profits by devastating some of the world’s poorest communities and countries” and must be held accountable for the damage it causes. Here the finger is unhesitatingly pointed at the structural link between economic power and political paralysis.
An uncomfortable question
The final meaning of his speech is condensed in the question he asks—and asks us—looking ahead half a century: how will future generations judge what we are (not) doing today? The answer, if emissions continue to rise and negotiations continue to go in circles, is likely to be harsher than any UN declaration.
