Introduction
Global efforts aim to achieve net-zero CO₂ and limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2050 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018). However, current national policies remain misaligned with this goal, with trends in several high-income countries falling short of necessary reductions (Climate Action Tracker, 2023). For example, Sweden, once a leader in climate control and environmental justice, is now retreating from its commitments. The 2024 report by the Swedish Climate Policy Council shows that recent decisions reflect a de-prioritization of national climate goals (Swedish Climate Policy Council, 2024). Meanwhile, mounting pressures to accelerate the fossil fuel phase-out at the 29th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) were met with diplomatic compromises that failed to commit to a full phase-out, disappointing many climate advocates (Carlin, 2024). These are not isolated developments. They signal an increasing pattern of high-income countries placing domestic economic and geopolitical priorities over environmental rights. As climate risks escalate, these decisions reflect a strategic withdrawal from global responsibility.
Legal Foundations of Environmental Justice
The right to a healthy environment is more than an aspirational claim; it is deeply rooted in international human rights law. In 1948, Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) affirmed the right to a standard of living adequate for health and wellbeing (United Nations, 1948). Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) further codified this right in 1966, obligating states actors to seek improvement in “all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene” (United Nations, 1966). The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the World Health Organization (WHO) jointly issued General Comment No. 14 in 2008, clarifying that the right to health is directly undermined by environmental degradation and must be addressed through preventative action (OHCHR & WHO, 2008).
These legal foundations, as mirrored in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), conclusively link environmental protection to human dignity and global equity. The SDGs – specifically (3) good health and well-being, (6) clean water and sanitation, (13) climate action, and (16) peace, justice, and strong institutions – reinforce the technical and practical dimensions of environmental rights (United Nations, 2015; OHCHR, n.d.). The United Nations General Assembly added to this evolving legal architecture through Resolution 76/300, which formally recognizes the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as “crucial to the enjoyment of all human rights” (United Nations General Assembly, 2022). In combination, these mechanisms establish environmental rights as enforceable obligations, central to global equity and intergenerational justice.
Policy Shifts
Faltering climate ambition echoes across the G20, the forum of world economies that coordinate global economic policy. Their 2025 declaration failed to reaffirm the 1.5°C target, reflecting a collective failure to meet Paris Agreement goals (Joint Research Centre, 2025). Just weeks after 2024 was declared the hottest year on record, the United States formally withdrew from the Paris Agreement for a second time (Human Rights Watch, 2025). Shortly after, Argentina announced plans to exit the agreement and withdrew from COP29 negotiations (Climate Cosmos, 2025). While Argentina is not classified as a high-income country, this action still denotes a further weakening of global consensus. Several other G20 countries (Australia, Japan, Canada, Italy, and South Korea) have backed out of previous net-zero pledges and multilateral obligations through delayed climate targets, reclassified fossil fuels, and suspended mitigation policies (Climate Cosmos, 2025). The United States has also seen significant cuts to climate research and clean energy programs, discontinuing more than 100 federally funded studies (Temple, 2025).
The United Kingdom, another former leader in this field, has directed funds away from climate action and toward defense and trade priorities (United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office [UK FCDO], 2025). In April of 2025, a group of civil society organizations filed a case against the French government for failing to protect citizens from foreseeable climate harms, claiming that current adaptation plans are insufficient (Jones Day, 2025). Germany’s government, while continuing to support renewable energy, has deprioritized emissions reductions in favor of industrial competitiveness (Clean Energy Wire, 2025).
These shifts in government focus are not limited to the public sector. Many of the corporations that made net-zero pledges within the past five years have begun scaling back efforts due to political and financial pressure. Major financial institutions have classified ESG backlash as a material risk, leading companies to scale back climate commitments (Conference Board, 2025). ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) is a set of criteria historically used to evaluate corporate sustainability and ethics; however, it is now criticized by conservative lawmakers and skeptical investors as politically charged or financially burdensome (Conference Board, 2025). Ioannou (2025) notes that this new backlash reflects deeper tensions surrounding corporations in the advancement of social and environmental goals. A deeper ideological repositioning can be seen through these developments. While climate justice was once a collective imperative, it is now being treated as a negotiable interest, shaped by national politics and short-term economic goals.
Implications and Consequences
These policy shifts have tangible and far-reaching human consequences. As inaction continues, the risk of compounding impacts onto other human rights increases. The right to housing and security is threatened by rising climate-related displacement (Amnesty International, 2025). The right to food is at risk due to extreme weather events disrupting agricultural systems (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2025). Overall, health and well-being continue to be threatened by rising air pollution, heat stress, and vector-borne diseases (Romanello et al., 2025).
Low- to middle-income countries and Indigenous communities are disproportionately impacted, despite contributing less to climate change overall. For instance, aid cuts by Australia and the UK fail to support vulnerable nations and regional populations, limiting their ability to protect lives, livelihoods, and ecosystems (Lowy Institute, 2024; UK FCDO, 2025). This undermines the moral and legal obligations enshrined in UNGA Resolution 76/300 and the ICESCR, which have been ratified by both countries (United Nations, 1966; United Nations General Assembly, 2022).
With climate disasters escalating in frequency and severity, high-income countries are not immune to the consequences of their retreat. From wildfires in Australia and floods in Germany to storms and heatwaves in the United States, public infrastructure and economies have been strained, revealing critical gaps in disaster preparedness (Pengilley, 2025; Clean Energy Wire, 2025; Climate Central, 2025).
Aside from immediate and prolonged dangers, these events erode public trust in environmental governance. As citizens see governments scale back their climate commitments, they turn to litigation and civil disobedience to demand accountability. Globally, youth-led lawsuits have surged in 2025, seeing plaintiffs invoke their constitutional and human rights to challenge state action/inaction (Merner, 2025; Environmental Health News, 2025). Not only does this challenge the moral authority of high-income countries, but it undermines their credibility and weakens their capacity to lead on broader global challenges. Such a withdrawal is not only unjust from a human rights standpoint, but strategically shortsighted.
Closing Reflection
More than symbolic pledges, environmental justice requires enforceable obligations, consistent funding for climate action, and consideration for the most impacted communities. High-income countries must stop viewing climate action as a zero-sum trade-off and reframe it through a shared, rights-based infrastructure of resilience. The consequences from previous retreats, from displacement to institutional erosion, must be urgently addressed. Rebuilding public trust must begin with global recommitments, inclusive governance, and transparent financing. Meeting today’s demands will require high-income countries to abandon performative pragmatism for principled action. Climate justice is not a luxury, but a prerequisite for global survival.
