This year in Zambia, Chambishi residents saw the Kafue River die before their eyes. Millions of liters of acidic, contaminated water containing toxic mining chemicals burst from a dam in February. Crops and animals died as residents suffered the effects of careless mining practices. This incident raises questions about environmental concerns regarding current mining practices in Zambia, as well as how to address cleanup and compensation for affected communities whose human rights were violated by this event.
Dam Failure and Toxic Water Spill
On February 18, a dam at the Sino-Metals Leach Zambia mining site collapsed, releasing a reported 50 million liters of contaminated water that flooded into the Chambishi Copper Belt region. Toxic spillage, containing heavy metals and high levels of acidity, flowed at least 60 miles down the Kafue River, a major river in Zambia used by many locals for fishing, irrigation, and water.
Image of the Kafue River Source: Olympian Xeus, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
The immediate effects on the region were apparent in the devastation to local wildlife. The head of a Zambian monitoring group, Nsama Rusonda, reported the aftermath of the acid spill was shocking, saying, “It was a horror to see maize, bean crops that were green the night before, just turn brown. Tonnes of dead fish were floating in local riverways.” The environmental devastation was one of the first things to catch locals’ attention, but as time goes on, more and more effects of the toxic spill are becoming apparent.
Initial Reports and Health Concerns of Residents
The Kafue River is one of the largest rivers in Zambia, and many locals use it as a source of water for drinking, washing, and for their animals and crops. In the days after the spill, people ingested toxins through contaminated water and food, leading to “headaches, coughs, diarrhea, muscle cramps, and even sores on their legs.” Zambia’s reliance on the Kafue also exacerbates the seriousness of the crisis. 21 million people live in Zambia, and more than half rely on the river for water. For example, health concerns led to the water being turned off in the city of Kitwe, leaving 700,000 people without access to water. To drive home the magnitude of this catastrophe, Kitwe is Zambia’s second-largest city, and cutting off water to 700,000 people would be like cutting off the water to all of Washington, DC.
Officials from the Sino-Metal mining company expressed their regret for the incident shortly after it occurred, stating their intent to assist both with environmental cleanup efforts and to re-establish the economic means of affected individuals. To determine the scope of the damage, Sino-Metals needed to conduct an ecological study. South African company Drizit found that 1.5 million tonnes of hazardous waste were released during the dam collapse, 30 times the 50,000 tonnes initially reported by Sino-Metal. The need for outside observers during environmental disasters is crucial. It’s necessary to provide an objective report on the damage that communities and nations, particularly developing ones, have suffered, so they can respond appropriately, warn their residents, and hold parties accountable for human rights violations.
Official Response
In the days after the spill, the Zambian government worked to reverse the environmental damage. Hundreds of tons of lime were dumped into affected waterways in an effort to combat acidity from the spill. Zambian officials faced the challenge of finding an appropriate response that balanced harm to residents with environmental concerns, while also working with foreign powers and important infrastructure investments in their country. When Sino-Metals gave a $580,000 payout, Zambian Vice-President Nalumango remarked that this must be coupled with neutral environmental analysis to ensure proper reparations. Nalumango further said, “If the damage to the land and livelihoods proves to be more extensive or long-lasting than initially understood, then further compensation will be necessary and it will be pursued.” This approach will allow flexibility in Zambia’s approach, enabling it to assess whether additional negative effects arise for residents over time and then pursue more compensation accordingly.
Vice-President of Zambia Mutale Nalumango Source: Chellah Tukuta Rancen, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Despite the words promising accountability and help from Sino-Metal, Zambia’s ability to force them into meaningful action remains limited. In direct response to the acid spill, Zambia fined Sino-Metals $50,000. This fine is not enough for restoration efforts and is an insignificant amount compared to the widespread damage to Zambia and the harm done to communities. Differences in political and economic power between countries may create additional difficulties when a smaller country is seeking recourse against a larger one. This may especially true for Zambia, a country heavily dependent on copper production, which has received $3.5 billion in investments from China in the past two decades associated with mining and metal in Zambia. Such dependence on economic support from larger countries may dissuade countries from taking action against foreign players in order to continue receiving funding.
Recent Analysis
While bureaucracy and legal proceedings may take months, residents face daily struggles in the aftermath of the disaster. Conditions from the spill persist in their toxicity to such a degree that Finland issued a travel advisory regarding high levels of toxic heavy metals in the water, and the US embassy issued an evacuation order for all officials from the area, citing health concerns related to the environmental state. In light of such serious concerns raised by other countries, Zambia was thrust into the international spotlight.
With global attention, Zambia seemed to dismiss concerns and assure that harms had been dealt with. A spokesperson from Zambia reported, “pH levels have returned to normal and concentrations of heavy metals are steadily decreasing, which means that the immediate danger to human, animal and plant life has been averted.”
Conveyor systems, often used in mining operations. Source: pkproject via Adobe Stock Images, Licensed for Educational Use
Residents affected by the pollution continue to complain of many physical ailments, including headaches and diarrhea, but the Zambian government’s dismissive attitudes towards concerns seems as though they are prioritizing their appearance and foreign investors over their citizens’ right to health.
While the mining sector is crucial for much of Zambia’s economic activity, it is, from a human rights standpoint, unacceptable for the government to not protect its citizens and to ignore or hide obvious and continued harms. A government’s duty to the wellbeing of its citizens should be foremost in its response during a crisis.
Chinese Influences and Zambia’s Future
This is not the only time mining activities have concerned residents in Zambia. In the past, residents have contracted lead poisoning from pollution incidents and mining operations, while schools have been shut down due to noise and hazardous chemicals.
Balancing China’s interests in minerals with protecting Zambia’s environment and communities is a difficult task for Zambia, especially when they have received billions in funding from China and are over $4 billion in debt to China. These power imbalances can lead to struggles for accountability and justice at both the community and national levels.
This toxic spill is only one event in a disturbing pattern of environmental devastation in Zambia. Access to clean water, secure livelihoods, and environmental justice are crucial to the survival and well-being of many residents. The Zambian response to this latest disaster will set expectations for future interactions and shape the fate of thousands of Zambians, and it is to be hoped that Zambia prioritizes its citizens’ human rights over all other concerns.
An expansion to a natural gas pipeline is slated to begin construction in the fourth quarter of 2026, a project that the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) has called a “fossil fuel superhighway.” The proposed South System Expansion 4 project is a $3.5 billion pipeline expansion that would span 291 miles across Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. It has been proposed to upgrade the Southeastern United States’ energy grid, providing an additional 1.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas capacity per day. Kinder Morgan, the company presiding over the project, touts the market-driven demand for natural gas and the sustainable growth that the expansion will bring to the region. The SELC cites environmental and economic concerns, urging the federal government to take careful consideration of the adverse impacts that this pipeline expansion could have on the communities through which it passes.
The project is currently under review by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which must issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct any interstate natural gas pipeline. FERC accepted public comments that address potential hazards, externalities, alternatives, and relevant information regarding the project until October 6th. In a joint statement of protest, several organizations, including Alabama Rivers Alliance, Blackbelt Women Rising, and Energy Alabama, pointed out potential issues with the pipeline for FERC’s consideration. NYU Policy Integrity also urged FERC to consider environmental concerns in its decision.
ƒmodiSSE4 Environmental Impact Statement
Under the National Environmental Policy Act, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) outlining the potential externalities of any project under FERC’s jurisdiction is required. The joint protest issued by Alabama Rivers Alliance, Blackbelt Women Rising, Energy Alabama, and others urges FERC to fully consider the effects of 14 new natural gas pipeline loops on water quality, endangered species, air quality, and marginalized communities in its EIS. In an outline of the project, Kinder Morgan addressed environmental concerns; they claim that the project is “committed to protecting significant cultural sites and environmentally sensitive areas.” The overview explains the environmental considerations they will make before, during, and after the project’s conclusion. It states that the field surveys will be conducted to avoid sensitive areas, environmental inspectors will monitor the project as it progresses, and land will be re-seeded and restored after completion.
The joint protest raises additional concerns. Crossing rivers and streams using open-cut methods can increase the water’s total suspended solids and damage local ecosystems. Horizontal directional drilling causes erosion. The project would require 130 million gallons of water, which would require extraction that can cause “water-shed wide ecological stress.” It also mentions that “[o]ut of the 14 compressor stations being modified as part of this Project, only one compressor unit is slated to be electric.” These non-electric compressor stations produce harmful pollutants like nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compounds. The pipeline will also run across Alabama’s Blackbelt region, which already deals with toxic coal ash, industrial wastewater, and other environmental injustices.
As NYU Policy Integrity mentions, under a recent memorandum released by the Council on Environmental Quality, FERC is not required to examine environmental justice issues when considering a project’s potential harm and impact. This memorandum is in accordance with the January 2025 executive order Unleashing American Energy, signed by President Trump, which directs federal agencies to “expedite permitting approvals.” The memorandum adds that agencies “must prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other policy objectives.” However, FERC is still required to examine potential harms to the public, and the effects of the pipeline construction cannot be divorced from the local situation of the pipeline’s immediate impact area. The pipeline will cross through areas with higher concentrations of particulate matter than the national average. According to data collected from County Health Rankings and Roadmaps, the eleven Alabama counties that the project is projected to cross have an average of 8.9 micrograms per cubic meter of fine particulate matter in the air; the US average is 7.3. The prevalence of asthma among adults was also higher than the national average in each of the Alabama counties, according to 2022 CDC PLACES data. NYU Policy Integrity also lists elevated economic indicators of social vulnerability, including higher rates of poverty, near planned compressor stations. Given that the local populations already face health challenges linked to the environment, FERC’s consideration of the potential harms from the pipeline expansion should include the compounding effects of the pipeline’s construction in an area already impacted by environmental degradation.
FERC and Procedural Rights
FERC’s upcoming Environmental Impact Statement on the effects of the pipeline expansion represents environmental rights in action. Procedural rights, or the rights of people to participate in processes, are a cornerstone of environmental rights. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) defines procedural rights as “access to information, public participation, and access to justice.” These rights are important for protecting the environment and upholding the rule of law. The UN’s 2019 Environmental Rule of Law report found that civic participation in environmental decisions in the US led to innovative, cost-effective solutions by adding information to analyses and reframing issues. The basis for these rights in international law comes from the 1992 Rio Declaration and the 1998 Aarhus Convention. The US is not a signatory to the Aarhus Convention, but the National Environmental Policy Act enshrines some of the same ideals in US law. The Environmental Impact Statement promotes public access to information, while the Joint Protest statement and NYU Policy Integrity’s report are examples of public participation. Access to justice is upheld when agencies like FERC take into consideration environmental injustices and hold companies to account.
Deregulation
Procedural and environmental rights at large may be in danger, as recent developments in US policy are clearing the path for the oil and gas industry at any cost. President Trump has championed a deregulatory agenda, notably withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and attempting to overturn the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding. The Paris Agreement, adopted by 195 countries in 2015, set goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Methane, a greenhouse gas, has a much higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide, and a recent review of scientific literature suggests that natural gas pipelines’ emission impacts have been underestimated. The EPA’s endangerment finding, released in response to the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA ruling, found that under the Clean Air Act, the agency is required to place limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The endangerment finding treats greenhouse gases like other harmful chemical pollutants because they also endanger public health, though on a broader scale than localized pollutants.
The Southern Environmental Law Center opposes the South System Expansion 4 project in part because of the immediate effects on the communities located in its path, but also because it expands the reliance on natural gas while increasing energy bills for regular people. Executive director of Energy Alabama Daniel Tait claims, “Alabamians will be stuck with the bill for decades while utilities invest in fossil fuels instead of cheaper, cleaner alternatives.” However, Kinder Morgan’s vice president of public affairs, Allen Fore, argues that Alabama Power and the Southeast will benefit from the additional natural gas capacity.
As with any project on this scale, the South System Expansion 4 pipeline is controversial. It raises questions about sustainable development, corporate responsibility, and the federal regulatory process. Central to all energy developments should be the right of impacted communities to their health and well-being. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlines the right to an adequate standard of living, which the SSE4 puts at risk by polluting the surrounding area. FERC should listen to public comments and ensure that the project proceeds with the best interests–and the human rights–of the communities and the environment in mind.
Secretary-General António Guterres (right) meets with King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia of Sweden. UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe.
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.
Secretary-General António Guterres at the Climate Summit 2025, a high-Level special event on Climate Action. “The science demands action. The law commands it. The economics compel it. And people are calling for it.” UN Photo/Manuel Elías.
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.
A view of pamphlets during the event “International Day of Sport for Development and Peace 2023: Scoring for People and the Planet”. UN Photo/Mark Garten.
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.
These disruptions carry broader consequences. Public frustration grows as outages stretch beyond twelve hours in some regions, eroding confidence in the government’s ability to provide basic services. The crisis also raises business costs, discourages investment, and accelerates emigration, particularly among younger professionals. The electricity problem is therefore not only technical but also social and economic, shaping the choices individuals and communities make about their futures. Access to reliable electricity is a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and Cuba’s constrained ability to ensure it reflects broader limitations on the state’s capacity to fulfill economic and social rights.
The limitations of these measures are clear. Rolling blackouts maintain control but do not solve underlying shortages. Floating plants and small generators provide relief but do not modernize the system. Renewable projects point to a better future but require resources the government struggles to secure. Without broader structural reform, both technological and financial, Cuba will remain locked in a cycle of temporary fixes and recurring blackouts. Blackouts deepen inequalities, disproportionately affecting lower-income and rural communities, which often lack resources for backup generators.
Future Scenarios
Several scenarios emerge from the evidence. The most realistic short-term path is stabilization, which would entail combining emergency repairs, modest new generation, and incremental renewable growth. This could reduce, though not eliminate, the severity of outages. A more ambitious scenario involves accelerated renewable deployment, supported by international financing and partnerships. This path could reduce reliance on imported fuel and create long-term resilience, but only if Cuba can overcome significant investment and logistical barriers. The least optimistic scenario is continuity: erratic fuel deliveries, aging plants, and insufficient investment sustaining a cycle of crisis for years to come.
Which path materializes will depend on both internal capacity and external conditions, from global fuel markets to the willingness of partners to invest in Cuba’s infrastructure. The government’s ability to manage projects and prioritize reform will also be decisive.
Conclusion
Cuba’s electricity troubles have weighed heavily on daily life, the economy, and the country’s outlook. Still, the crisis isn’t only a story of hardship. It’s also a story of people adjusting, of small acts of resilience, and of steps toward a different energy future. The government’s renewable projects may be slow, but they point to possibilities beyond the current struggles. In the meantime, families, neighborhoods, and businesses continue to adapt as best they can, holding onto the hope that the lights will stay on more often in the years ahead.
This summer, I worked with a few different advocacy organizations during Louisiana’s 2025 Congressional Session. The amount of policy issues flying around was mind-spinning, but a constant murmur about the new Meta data center popping up in Richland Parish always seemed to pierce through the chaos. I couldn’t help but think, “Of all the state issues we could be debating, what could be so provocative about a data center?”
Data centers are nothing new; ever since the birth of the Internet, they have been used for the large-scale computing that comes with ever-advancing technology. With the rapid expansion of generative AI, our country is seeing more and more of these processing centers pop up, especially in rural areas. Governments, researchers, and communities alike have been forced to face the glaring reality that comes with the construction and maintenance of new AI data centers: where there are new data centers, there are human lives directly impacted by their creation. Debate on whether these effects are a net positive or negative to these communities has prompted closer examination on the human impact of data centers. Only through a thorough analysis of this ongoing research can we determine the nature and scope of these impacts and explore proper policy responses.
Source: Adobe Express, Sepia100, #566722487
WATER
We rely on water; it’s as simple as that. We need water to drink, bathe, flush the toilet, wash our hands and dishes, and water our crops; it’s a necessity to life, and an officially recognized human right. As much as we need water, data centers are even thirstier. It takes a lot of water to cool down all of the computing that takes place in these buildings. In 2021, just one of Google’s data centers in Oregon used up 355 million gallons of water. In 2023, all of Meta’s data centers worldwide guzzled around 1.4 billion gallons of water. Where is this water coming from? Of Meta’s 1.4 billion gallons, about 672 million gallons came from local water sources. The extraction process is permanent, meaning data centers deplete millions of gallons of water from communities’ local water supply yearly, and with the industry’s rapid expansion, its water consumption will only grow. Some residents living nearby these new data centers, such as Beverley Morris in Mansfield, Georgia, believe that these centers are draining wells and aquifers, leaving locals without drinkable or fully functional running water in their homes. For communities in the Southwest, this could pose an especially pressing threat during droughts as the scarce water supply is divided between industrial and civilian use.
Landon Marston, a professor in environmental and water resources engineering at Virginia Tech University, points out that since companies like Meta and Google tend to choose areas outside of cities to construct these data centers, the surge in water demand could also necessitate water infrastructure updates, the costs of which could fall partly on local ratepayers.
ENERGY
AI data centers require tons of energy. We’re talking 200 trillion watts an hour, and that was only in 2016. The power usage of these data centers is projected to rise to nearly 2967 trillion watts an hour by 2030. The previously flatlined demand for electricity has been increasing nationally since 2023 partly due to the energy-intensive operations of growing data centers. The majority of data centers’ energy relies on fossil fuels and power plants, putting pressure on local energy grids. This increased pressure poses the threat of more frequent, long-lasting, and expensive blackouts for the communities surrounding these energy-hungry data centers.
More pressure on the grid naturally means more pressure to update the grid. Local belief and research alike contend that the cost of these grid updates, as well as the price tag of the extra energy demand, will show up in locals’ energy bills. A Harvard study provides evidence that under-the-table agreements between utilities and Big Tech consumers could be partly responsible for increased rates on everyday residents’ bills. Additionally, in places like Louisiana, the combination of prolonged need for air conditioning and damage to energy infrastructure due to storms drive energy bills up as it is; the intense energy demands of the new data center will serve only to exacerbate the steep cost of energy and amenities in nearby homes and businesses. Utilities are essential to decent quality of life and even employment, tying their accessibility directly to human rights.
Source: Adobe Express, Anna, #529027855
PUBLIC HEALTH
Since AI data centers rely heavily on the fossil-fuel energy of power plants, they run the risk of increasing local pollution and threatening public health in already vulnerable rural locations. AI centers, on top of their energy use from the grid, also employ backup generators in case of grid failure; these diesel generators can release 200 to 600 times more nitrous oxides (NOx) than a natural gas plant while producing the same amount of energy. NOx pollution can cause irritation in the eyes, throat, and nose, as well as more severe cases of respiratory infection, reduced metabolism, and even death. According to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE, data centers caused about $6 billion in public health damages due to this type of air pollution in 2023. That being said, location matters. Often, these data centers choose rural areas, and in cases like that of Bessemer, Alabama, these areas are often home to a large Black population. Black Americans already suffer disproportionately from air pollution and other environmental injustices; in fact, low-income Black Americans have the highest mortality rate due to fine particulate matter air pollution. The emergence of data centers in rural Black communities only serves to exacerbate this phenomenon. This can be directly traced to industrial zoning policies, which often result in the sacrifice of poor, rural, often Black areas to attract business and wealth to cities. The result? Higher rates of asthma, respiratory issues, even pollution-related death, and a direct violation of the human right to clean air.
Source: Adobe Express, Jaroslav Pachý Sr., #175217425
ECONOMY
While industrial zoning and property value are the most important location factors, choosing a lower income, rural area also poses possible economic advantage for the communities. The construction of processing centers can require thousands of workers, offering steady employment opportunities for locals. After construction, companies like Meta, Google, and Microsoft will have to hire employees to keep their data centers managed and running properly, another new job opening for those in the surrounding area. Some locals have expressed excitement over the new economic growth data centers will bring, especially in areas with dwindling industries like coal and timber. Working in data centers is an attractive alternative to the low-paying, dangerous agricultural jobs some of these areas rely on. Others have raised concerns that while many jobs will certainly appear during the construction period of the centers, employment opportunities from data centers seem to fall off afterwards. Depending on the size, each data center building could operate with as little as fifty employees, according to Microsoft. Larger ones like the one developing in Louisiana are required to employ 500 locals, but even that opportunity seems small to some residents in comparison to the harm the center could bring to their community. Members of communities impacted by the development of data centers have also expressed concerns about land usage, pointing out that the extensive land taken up by these new data centers had potential to be used for farming or other less health-damaging economic development. The right to employment good working conditions are outlined directly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and these economic impacts could very well jeopardize them for those living in surrounding areas.
What Now?
Artificial Intelligence isn’t going away; in fact, we can expect its rapid expansion in the coming years, including the construction of dozens of new data centers. Behind AI’s captivating technologies, there are human lives impacted by the processes it takes to power its functions. Considering the damage data centers can do to local resources, it certainly seems like measures need to be taken to ensure the escalating growth of AI doesn’t come at the expense of communities, especially those that already face disadvantage. First and foremost, companies establishing these centers should focus on using renewable energy for much of their power, thereby decreasing their environmental impact on local communities. In addition, companies should adopt initiatives to maintain the local water supply’s integrity, recycle water when possible, and ultimately, improve the efficiency of their computing to save resources like water and electricity. Local governments must ensure that the price of increased pressure on electricity and water infrastructure does not end up on ratepayers’ bills; this means more transparency from large companies and their agreements with local utility providers and governments regarding the construction and maintenance of these centers and the impacts on local residents’ well-being. These centers, if built sustainably and with people in mind, could ultimately have a positive impact on industry and economy within these communities. The development of data centers must not concentrate solely on maximum profit and computing power but also on the adverse effects the center has on utility bills, air quality, water demands, the power grid, and public health as a whole.
So, really, it’s no wonder advocates, lobbyists, and policymakers couldn’t stop talking about Richland Parish’s new data center. It’s nearly as big as Manhattan, and its effects on the surrounding community may end up being just as sizable.
If someone offered to pay you to keep trees thriving in your backyard, would you take the deal? This is the new idea proposed by Brazil to tackle climate change, starting with trees.
Prioritizing environmental sustainability has been a challenge in Brazil over the past few years. In contrast to its predecessor, the new administration has expressed its desire to restore sustainability efforts and implement stronger tree protection policies.
Image 1: Within the Amazon. 27/02/2016. Photo: Valdemir Cunha/Greenpeace. Source: Yahoo Images
Background on the Amazon
Looking back at history, the reasons for implementing financial incentives to protect trees date back to the 1970s. Under a military dictatorship then, Brazil had clear plans to develop and integrate the Amazon into the national economy by increasing agriculture and cattle breeding in the region. To achieve this, the government incentivized people to move and start their own agricultural villages deep within the forest. Following the dream of expanding land and conquering the Amazon, Brazil continued to utilize the forest for economic development by building highways, allowing farmers to settle and work their way into the forest.
The rhetoric of using the Amazon for nationaleconomic profit was put on hold when President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva took office in 2003. Then, several steps were taken to protect the Amazon. Little by little, legal protections were put in place, with the help ofMarina Silva, whowas appointed to the environment ministry in 2003 to set up a plan to deal with deforestation. At the time,only 28% of the forest was protected. Therefore, the government expanded protections by demarcating Indigenous territories, adding reserves where business activity was banned, and increasing the land where nut harvesting and rubber-tapping took place because of their low contamination and impact on the forest. To find a balance between economic profit and sustainability, the environment ministry stretchedlaw protections to 47%of the Amazon. What’s more, the budget for the Brazilian Institute of Environmental and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA)—a police agency that investigates people committing illegal deforestation—also increased.
By 2012, Brazil made significant progress towards sustainable solutions. What once was a call of worry by world news over the rapid deforestation shifted to optimism about the Amazon’s recovery.As awareness of the rainforest’s significance grew, so did the public uproar. Luciana Gatti, senior researcher at Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, emphasized the Amazon’s critical rolein absorbing CO2. However, due to deforestation, the Amazon isreaching a turning point where it will emit more carbon than it absorbs. Unfortunately, whenJair Bolsonarotook officein 2019, his policies revived the development-focused rhetoric of the 1970s. Bolsonaro,known forbeing a critic of environmental protection, rejected the idea that the Amazon is the heritage of humanity, insisting that it belongs to Brazil and to Brazil only.
During the 2018 campaign, Bolsonaro vowed not to designate “one more centimeter” of Indigenous territory.Human Rights Watch puts Bolsonaro’s agenda in perspective. With 241 Indigenous territories awaiting demarcation, illegal logging, mining, and land grabbing in Indigenous lands increased by 137 percent in 2020 compared with 2018. The non-profit Socio-Environmental Institute (ISA) reported that deforestation in Indigenous territories during Bolsonaro’s first three years in office increased by 138 percent compared to 2016-2018. What’s more,the Report Violence Against Indigenous Peoples in Brazil linked high COVID-19 deaths to the government’s poor response and lack of monitoring in the Amazon. As a result of government negligence, invaders committing illegal activities in the area spread the virus through Indigenous villages.
In addition, Bolsonaro’s administration reversed several environmental policies, weakening IBAMA. The agency experienced budget cuts of up to 30percentfrom 2019 to 2020 and decreased staff by 55percent during the same year.
Image 2: The Amazon rainforest burning from increased deforestation. Source: Yahoo Images
Overall, indigenous territories became more vulnerable thanks to weakening agencies and relaxed environmental regulations.
The Secretary for Indigenous Peoples Acre State Government, Francisca Arara, continues to emphasize how critical Indigenous people are to preserving the forest and to guard and provide protection services that benefit everyone. Arara also explains that among the helpful laws that have pushed the improvement in deforestation are the jurisdictional programs such as the REDD+ program, the SISA law, and the demarcation of territories, all of which promote sustainable use of land and natural resources, and give Indigenous people autonomy and over spaces they know how to take care of best.
What is the plan?
After a change in leadership, Brazilproposes a fund of $125 billion to pay developing countries for the trees they protect. In other words, it is an incentive to stop deforestation. The Tropical Forests Forever Facility or T.F.F.F would be an investment-based fund, not financed by donations per se. The plan is to follow a bank’s framework: get deposits and reinvest them for a profit.It would look like this: Rich nations and big philanthropieswould loan $25 billionto T.F.F.F, which would be repaid with interest.
The money invested would help attract$100 billion from private investors. Then, the fund would reinvest the $125 billion in a portfolio that could generate enough returns to repay investors. The excess would be used to pay for about 70 developing countries based on how much healthy tropical forest they still have. The countries that receive funds would be paid $4 per hectare of land with old-growth or restored trees and would incur a $400 fee for each hectare of forest lost.
Some of the controversies or pushbackssurrounding the project are part of figuring out the program’s logistics: the risk of subjecting the funds to the swings of financial markets, thecontrols and regulations of how the money will be spent, etc.
The environment as a human right
Recognizing a healthy environment as a human right is a relatively recent development. International agreements, such as the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, acknowledge the importance of a clean and healthy environment for a good standard of living. These agreements emphasize the government’s responsibility to take action against environmental pollution and its risks. According to the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the right to health should be extended to those factors that determine good health, such as access to safe drinking water and sanitation.
However, debates continue regarding how to define and codify into law the rights of nature, as well as challenges of jurisdiction and resource availability and allocation at the local and international levels.
In 2022, the UN declared a healthy environment a human right. While this declaration is not legally binding, it reinforces the notion that a clean and sustainable environment is essential to a dignified standard of living.
A promising approach to addressing environmental degradation is using financial incentives to combat deforestation. This model means hope for developing countriesthat face a difficult choice between economic growth and ecologicalconservation.To the greediest,making money over some treesmay be tempting. Initiatives like the T.F.F.F seem to be a forward-thinking funding mechanism that could be applied to fund programs and organizations worldwide to solve human rights issues. Encouraging global collaboration on environmental protection promotes the recognition of a healthy environment as a fundamental human right.
Greenland, home to the world’s second-largest ice sheet, is rapidly losing its ice. This isn’t just a faraway problem for scientists to worry about—it’s a global issue that affects all of us. But why is this happening, and what does it mean? Let’s break it down.
Image 1: The snowless, changing landscape of Greenland. Source: Yahoo Images.
Why Is Greenland’s Ice Melting?
Greenland’s ice sheet covers about 80% of the country. It’s so big that if it melted completely, sea levels around the world would rise by about 7.4 meters (24 feet). Over the last few decades, temperatures in the Arctic have been rising twice as fast as the global average. Warmer air melts the ice from above, while warmer ocean water melts it from below. These processes are speeding up, causing Greenland to lose billions of tons of ice yearly.
One key concept in understanding the melting ice is albedo. Albedo is a measure of how much sunlight a surface reflects. Think about it this way:
Ice and snow are bright and white, reflecting most sunlight back into space and cooling the planet.
Darker surfaces like ocean water or bare ground absorb more sunlight, causing them to heat up.
Image 2: The merciless albedo feedback loop. Source: Yahoo Images.
The formation of an ice sheet isn’t random; it depends on Earth’s geography and climate. The movement of Earth’s continents, known as continental drift, plays a key role in ice sheet formation. Continents near the poles (like Greenland and Antarctica) are ideal because they receive less sunlight, creating cooler conditions.The most essential requirement for an ice sheet to grow is cool summer temperatures. Snow that falls during winter must not melt entirely during the summer. Instead, it compacts and builds up over thousands of years, forming thick layers of ice.
Rising Sea Levels. When ice sheets melt, water flows into the ocean, significantly elevating sea levels. This poses a direct threat to coastal communities worldwide, putting them at risk of flooding and erosion.
Disrupted Ocean Currents. Melting ice adds massive amounts of freshwater to the salty ocean, disrupting critical ocean currents like the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which helps regulate the Earth’s climate. If these currents slow down, they could lead to more extreme weather patterns, such as harsher winters in some places and stronger hurricanes in others.
More Greenhouse Gases. Melting ice can release trapped greenhouse gases, like methane, from the frozen ground beneath it (called permafrost). These gases contribute to further warming, making the problem even worse.
The melting of Greenland’s ice sheet is not just an environmental issue—it’s a human rights issue. Climate change, driven by the loss of ice sheets and rising global temperatures, threatens people’s right to life, health, food, water, and security. Communities around the world, particularly those in coastal and marginalized areas, are already experiencing the devastating consequences.
The United Nations recognizes climate change as a human rights issue because it disproportionately affects vulnerable populations. As the ice melts, coastal communities are being swallowed by the sea. Small island nations like Tuvalu and the Maldives are at risk of disappearing. Millions of people in low-lying regions (Bangladesh, Florida, Louisiana) could be displaced, creating climate refugees who have nowhere to go.
Even with ambitious climate change policies like the Paris Agreement, sea levels are projected to rise between 20 to 60 cm (7.8 to 23.6 inches) by 2100. This rise poses a significant threat to coastal communities, as up to 216 million people (2.6% of the earth’s population) currently live on land that will be below sea level or experience regular flooding by the end of the century.
Greenhouse gases trap heat and keep the planet warm. The most common are carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Ozone (O3), and water. Without them, Earth would be too cold for humans and most life to survive, but with too much, we are slowly roasting the planet. This raises an ethical dilemma: Are we morally obligated to rehome climate refugees? If giving up air conditioning could save thousands of lives, should people’s basic needs for food and shelter outweigh our desire for convenience?
Wealthy countries and corporations have contributed the most to climate change, yet poorer nations are more likely to bear the brunt of the damage. Those with fewer resources—marginalized communities, Indigenous groups, and low-income families—struggle the most to adapt and recover.
The biggest contributors to global emissions are China, the United States, and India, together responsible for 42.6% of total greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. alone accounts for 13.5% of global emissions, making it the world’s second-largest carbon emitter. If the U.S. is responsible for 13.5% of lost islander homes, should we also be 13.5% responsible for their survival? Should we take action even if no other country accepts accountability? Even if it requires more than what we are “technically” obligated to do?
Image 4: The melting ice caps. Source: Yahoo Images.
What Can We Do?
The good news is that there are solutions. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the most essential step. This means using cleaner energy sources like wind and solar, improving energy efficiency, and protecting forests. On an individual level, even small actions make a difference—using less energy, advocating for climate policies, and spreading awareness. One of the most powerful things you can do is start a conversation. Simply talking about climate change can introduce new ideas and inspire action.
Greenland’s melting ice may seem far away, but its impact is a stark reminder that we are all connected. If we act now, we can protect our planet and future generations. The question is not whether we can make a difference but whether we will.
In studying human rights, it is important to consider the factors that play a role in facilitating injustices. What makes it so easy for governments to displace thousands of people or allow its citizens to live among and ingest chemical waste for decades at a time? I have seen too many instances that could have been avoided, so let’s look at why they were not. This week, I took a deep dive into the geographical landscapes of injustice across the globe and how they play a role in facilitating nation’s violations of human rights practice.
Sudan and the Merowe Dam
My last post focused heavily on South Sudan and how the absence of positive peace practices made way for an influx of human rights violations. After further research, I found that Sudan has a history of these violations which are made more frequent by both the sociological and geographical makeup of the landscape. A study performed in 2013 by Kleinitz and Näser looks at the political narrative versus the narrative told by those on the ground, and the contradictions are astounding. The geographical landscapes in South Sudan have allowed for the government to marginalize and violate certain groups’ human rights, and despite the constant outcry for emphasis on positive change through NGOs like Amnesty International, the instances persist.
In the late 1980s, the Sudanese government devised a plan to construct the fourth of a multi-dam project, the Merowe Dam, along the Nile River meant to expand Sudan’s power grid, pushing promises of sustainability to all citizens. Despite financial issues, Sudanese officials rallied monetary support from outside countries, mainly China, and construction began in the early 2000s. Although the dam was meant to be a major technological advancement, the initiative received major pushback from locals who had been settled along the edge of the dam for decades. An effort and fight to preserve their cultural and physical heritage ensued. The government was not swayed. After years of protest met with violent and at times fatal state oppression, tens of thousands of Sudanese began to be forcibly displaced with thousands being killed in the process.
Geography cannot be ignored in this case. As the study states, those that were settled by the edge of the damn were communities of lower-class, peasants and farmers of the Sudanese society who had settled along the Nile decades before to be close to natural resources as agriculture was their main source of livelihood. As the resettlement continued, Sudanese settled along the site of the new Merowe Dam were moved to areas with little or no sanitation, the government decided what was to be salvaged and their homelands were flooded for a project that would ultimately experience several failures.
Regardless of what the reality of the situation was on the ground, the Sudanese government continued to push the Merowe Dam project as a success for the nation. Narratives of the aftermath and on the effects of the dam are strongly led by officials on the socioeconomic level that allows them to live downstream (the area of the Nile unaffected by the negative outcomes of the resettlement). The story is all too familiar and can be found in other instances of time and place across the globe.
The Bhopal Gas Disaster
Another unfortunate but applicable example of geography facilitating human rights violations is the Bhopal disaster that occurred in India the night of December 2nd, 1984. This case is devastating and never receives the coverage it deserves. Bhopal, like many other cities, is divvied up geographically by caste and class, which proved to be extremely unfortunate for some on the night of December 2nd. More than 40 tons of methyl isocyanate, a deadly gas, leaked into the city of Bhopal that night from a nearby Union Carbide factory. Coincidentally, the heavy gas settled in the city and had a deadly effect on lower-class citizens living in the valleys of Bhopal while upper-class citizens literally at a higher altitude slept through the night, most unaware that anything had taken place. At first glance, the case of the Bhopal disaster looks like a simple accident, but a closer look at the socioeconomic makeup of the city and continued violations tells us a different story.
I had the opportunity to talk with a survivor of the Bhopal disaster, Bixit Di, via Zoom during a Human Rights course this semester and find out more about how families were and still are being treated on the ground all these decades later. Those who lost loved ones and experience lifelong medical issues because of the Bhopal disaster are still receiving limited healthcare or acknowledgement from the government that knowingly put them in harm’s way. During a mute effort to relocate survivors of the disaster, Indian government offered inexpensive land plots to survivors and their families, knowingly exposing them to both soil and water reservoirs contaminated by the seepage of methyl isocyanide into the surrounding area. The fight for justice is still ongoing today.
Birmingham Redlining
Now let’s look at our city. Are geographical landscapes shaping any of the rights violations we see today or in the past? Of course! I have stated that it’s a global issue, so let’s take the time to sweep in front of our own front doors for once. The history of Birmingham’s geography is quite complex and heavily racially charged. In the 1930s, the United States began the illegal practice of Redlining (a term that refers to mortgage companies denying loans for homes in lower class or POC neighborhoods). Redlining was originally put in place to keep African Americans and other minorities from home ownership, but the practice had lasting effects on the geography of our city that can still be seen today.
Map of Redlined neighborhoods in Birmingham, AL, 1930
Areas like Collegeville, Tarrant, Eastlake, Ensley and Mason City are at the heart of locations for Redlined neighborhoods during the 1930s. All these neighborhoods have a few things in common: they are majority POC, close vicinity to an industrial plant (whether active or inactive), and a recurrence of low income, marginalized households. The Environmental protection groups have issued several cases against Bluestone Coke, a company that has for years, despite inoperable ovens, been leaking toxic waste into the soil and waterways of these neighborhoods. Comparisons can be found across these cases both in the lack of attention they are receiving on a global scale as well as how geography facilitates the violation of human rights specifically as it pertains to articles 3, 6, 7, 22 and 25.
Geography and landscapes have been used in the past and are unfortunately continuing to have negative effects in the present that actively violate citizen’s rights as listed in the UDHR. Some examples I have covered from around the globe include methods of forced resettlement, environmental injustice and health hazards as well as discrimination and lack of protection from government for marginalized groups. By acknowledging both the past and present effects of these landscapes and the power that they represent, small moves can be made toward big change starting in cities like ours.
The region of West Papua has been plagued by a complex web of struggles and injustices that have left indelible marks on its society. These issues are deeply rooted in the region’s colonial past and have been compounded by ongoing struggles for self-determination, discrimination, and egregious human rights abuses. The people of West Papua continue to grapple with the multifaceted challenges posed by these historical injustices, and their struggle for justice and equality remains ongoing.
The Challenges of Self-determination
The Act of Free Choice that took place in 1969 was a significant event in the history of West Papua. At the time, the territory was under Indonesian rule, and a process was initiated to determine the status of West Papua. The process was organized under international pressure but lacked genuine representation and transparency. The participating representatives represented only 1 percent of the West Papuan population, and there were allegations of coercion. The Act of Free Choice has been a lasting source of frustration for West Papuans. It was seen as a profoundly flawed process, symbolizing a profound historical injustice. The vote was conducted in a minimal scope, with only 1,022 handpicked representatives voting. These representatives were pressured to vote in favor of Indonesian rule, and there were even allegations of torture and intimidation. The Act of Free Choice has been a contentious issue ever since. Many West Papuans believe that the process was rigged and that they were denied their right to self-determination. The vote was not conducted fairly and transparently, and the outcome was predetermined. The legacy of the Act of Free Choice continues to resonate, and it remains an important issue for West Papuans seeking justice and recognition.
The Flag of West Papua. A flag with blue and white strips with a red stripe and a star.
Marginalization and Discrimination
Indigenous Papuans have faced systematic discrimination, resulting in stark socio-economic disparities. Unequal access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities has entrenched a sense of disenfranchisement. Policies favoring non-Papuan migrants further contribute to marginalization exacerbating tensions and perpetuating historical injustices that affect the fabric of Papuan society. Al Jazeera News, reports that the government of Indonesia created a transmigration program that has been moving others from around the country to the Indigenous West Papuan lands, forcing them out of their own.
Cultural suppression in West Papua has taken various forms, and one of the most prominent ones is the restriction placed on indigenous languages and practices. The Indonesian government’s imposition of a dominant Indonesian culture over the diverse cultural landscape of West Papua is perceived as a significant threat to the rich tapestry of Papuan cultural identity. As a result, the Papuan population has been resisting attempts to assimilate them into a broader Indonesian identity for decades.
Recognizing and preserving West Papua’s unique cultural heritage cannot be overstated. The region is home to over 250 distinct indigenous groups, each with its language, customs, and traditions. The suppression of these cultures has had a severe impact on the Papuan people, leading to a loss of cultural identity and a sense of dislocation. Despite the challenges, there are ongoing efforts to preserve and promote Papuan culture. Organizations such as the Papuan Hope Language Institute are working to document endangered languages, while others are advocating for the recognition of customary laws and practices. These efforts are crucial in ensuring that the rich cultural heritage of West Papua is preserved and remembered.
A group of people holding a banner. Credit: Wikimedia Commons /Nichollas Harrison.
Exploitation and Economic Disparities
West Papuan natives argue that they have not received proportional benefits from economic activities, particularly mining and logging. Military operations that displace indigenous Papuans pave the way for extractive industries and Indonesian settlers, which exacerbates instability and makes it difficult for people to work and earn a living due to the constant threat of violence.
The United Nations human rights experts have been advocating for access to the area to investigate reports of human rights violations. The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights estimates that between 60,000 and 100,000 people have been internally displaced since 2018. West Papuans have experienced racism ranging from common insults such as “monyet,” meaning monkey, to active discrimination, limiting their business opportunities and making them feel like second-class citizens. Environmental degradation further exacerbates their struggles and negatively impacts traditional livelihoods. Addressing these economic imbalances is crucial to promoting sustainable development and redressing historical injustices in the region.
Movements and Resistance
The Indonesian government’s actions have increased military presence in the region and led to the emergence of West Papuan movements such as the National Committee for West Papua(KNPB) and the Free Papua Movement (Organisasi Papua Merdeka or OPM). The OPM advocates for independence, which has led to occasional violence and clashes between pro-independence groups and the Indonesian military.
Reports of human rights abuses by the Indonesian security forces have been persistent in West Papua. Violence, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, and restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly contribute to a climate of fear. The systematic nature of these abuses underlines the urgent need to address human rights concerns as an integral part of rectifying historical injustices in the region. Since the annexation of West Papua in the 1960’s, over 100,000 civilians have been killed in the indigenous land. The most known tragedy was the Biak Massacre in 1998, where tensions between the West Papuan people and the Indonesian military came to a boil. The total number of state forces deployed in the region remains classified. However, Papua and West Papua provinces are known to have the country’s most significant presence of Indonesian troops.
Protestors holding flag and raising their fists . Credit: Ulet Ifansasti/Getty Images
Conclusion
The historical injustices embedded in West Papua’s past are intricate and interconnected, requiring a nuanced approach to resolution. A comprehensive strategy should acknowledge the complexities of colonial legacies, contested political processes, discrimination, human rights abuses, cultural suppression, and economic disparities. It is crucial to draw international attention, promote meaningful dialogue, and make concerted efforts to establish justice, equality, and self-determination in West Papua. This is necessary to rectify historical injustices and pave the way for a more inclusive and sustainable future in the region. The Free West Papua Campaign website is a great resource to learn about organizations actively working towards this goal, and you can even donate to support their cause.
Here are some websites offering more information about this blog post
Sustainability means a lot of things to many different people, and I view that as a positive thing. One part of sustainability that is usually highlighted is the focus on environmental sustainability, given the real-time effects of climate change. Individuals apply this to their lives in many forms, such as my grandmother, who refuses to throw away food, or my supervisor, who walks to the office.
When talking about sustainability, people are quick to bring up things like recycling or electric vehicles (EVs). In essence, this is the low-hanging fruit (not necessarily in price, but they require the smallest amount of effort or change). These are the simple things that make wealthy people feel better about unhealthy consumption habits. This blog is not intended to point fingers. I want to highlight this black-and-white perspective of sustainability, which is misguided. Still, it remains a popular view in much of the Global North due to inadequate education or pure convenience.
In 2024, we would rather feel good about ourselves for putting plastic bottles in the recycling bin than examine why we are still using single-use plastic bottles. For some, these reasons are significant, as not everyone has access to clean and safe drinking water. For others, not so much. The ultimate truth is that it is more convenient to adapt sustainability into our current habits than to change our habits to be more sustainable. Essentially, this view is a type of “convenient sustainability”—or capitalistic sustainability— and is a bit of an oxymoron, considering that capitalism thrives on maximizing profits at the expense of any consideration of long-term social or environmental sustainability.
I am not here to encourage anyone to stop recycling and refuse to buy only gas automobiles but to challenge them to think about it in a less binary way. At a basic level, most of these choices are better for the environment than the alternatives. However, they do not get to the root of the problem, which, for this blog, is a society dominated by a reliance on automobiles rather than on diverse modes of transportation.
Figure 1: Protest Sign that reads “Capitalism is the Crisis.” Painted sign that reads “Capitalism is the crisis” in black and red text.
Beyond that, the narrative that buying something new will solve climate change is not only false but reinforces the narrative that innovation under capitalism can save us from the repercussions of climate change, which is the same mentality that has gotten us here.
To get to the root of this problem, we must look at different aspects of the life cycle of products to really get at what true sustainability is—not just environmental sustainability but social and economic sustainability, too. In this blog, I will use the case of car overreliance to illustrate true sustainability. Not only is it poor for the environment, but car overreliance also has human rights concerns due to its impacts on air pollution, communities of color, and the global supply chain.
I want to be clear that I do not think it is reasonable to expect us to eradicate the use of automobiles in this country, nor is it necessary. Cars are needed in many rural areas, and the United States is a large country. But in a culture that loves to flaunt the benefits of a free-market system and increasing consumer choice and freedom, why have we accepted that cars are the only option? This acceptance benefits the automobile industry and the fossil fuel industry, even for EVs.
The Rise of the Automobile
It may be difficult to imagine, but automobiles are a relatively new technology, and they are extremely inefficient. The average American automobile spends 95 percent of its life parked, which seems like a crazy statistic at first until you actually think about the amount of time you spend in your car each day.
For the purpose of this blog, I am specifically targeting EVs because they are too often touted as the solution to climate change, especially in the Global North. What I think is most important to note is that this perspective is a privileged one. There are numerous environmental issues that are directly caused by car overreliance, and EVs will not solve most of them.
Automobiles spit out emissions at the street level, which contributes to climate change by releasing carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons by burning gas and diesel. There is also increasing awareness that automobile exhaust is a public health concern. One 2023 study linked breathing in traffic emissions to increased blood pressure of passengers. Other studies have connected air pollution from automobiles with increased rates of cardiovascular disease, asthma, lung cancer, and death. Additionally, a society focused on cars promotes a sedentary lifestyle, which puts people at risk for many of the same conditions caused by the air pollution from tailpipes.
Moreover, a world built around automobiles (and the rise of the suburb) also benefits large corporations and harms local businesses. Since smaller businesses generally operate in smaller (usually more urban) areas rather than in large commercial lots, car-centric design common throughout the suburbs makes it easier for consumers to purchase from large companies. Meanwhile, many small businesses rely on people walking/passing through, which car dependency negatively impacts.
Urban Sprawl
The rise of the automobile is connected with the rise of the suburbs and modern urban sprawl—think driving down Highway 280 in Birmingham at 5:30 PM on a Tuesday. The rise of the suburbs has increased the number of miles per trip and made it convenient to move far away from the cities. Massive amounts of land were developed, displacing wildlife and allowing the wealthy (and predominantly white) to move away from the cities. Studies have linked development with a decrease in biodiversity. While, arguably, this concerns urban and suburban areas, the suburbs take up significantly more space than urban areas (even though they contain far fewer people living in them).
It is a common misconception to think that a rural home with large, spacious fields is the most “environmentally friendly” way to live, with cities being the enemy of true sustainability, largely due to the historical implications of the Industrial Revolution on cities. While living in a rural area is not necessarily bad for the environment, cities are vastly more efficient from a space perspective, and much of that is because of the diversification of transportation (though this depends on the city).
Much of what I am describing is the ideal end result of success through the American Dream. It focuses on economic prosperity and the goal of owning property and raising a family. It’s no secret that the idea of upward mobility being accessible to all is inaccurate. Aside from that, it can take time before we think about the cost of all of this.
Figure 2: Protesters organizing against the construction of a highway. Source: Yahoo Images. A black and white photo shows individuals marching in a protest against the construction of a highway.
Connection to Human Rights Domestically
Besides the consequences of that for human health we’ve already talked about, overreliance on automobiles exacerbates the already high inequity within the United States. The US Department of Transportation estimates that the construction of the interstate system displaced over 1 million people when it was built starting in the late 1950s. The system was built to connect the United States, and it did, but it connected some groups more than others and came at a high cost to others. The bulk of the interstate system cut through black and brown communities to cater to white commuters who worked in the city but lived in the suburbs. Not only has infrastructure historically cut through communities of color and impacted the once-flourishing social centers there, but by putting a highway there, it places those same groups of people underneath the emissions pipe of people who drive through there every day.
As for the consequences of this shift on cities? There are numerous. One of the main ones that comes to mind is the issue of parking. On UAB’s (University of Alabama at Birmingham) campus, nearly everyone is dissatisfied with the parking situation. This issue goes back to the inefficiency of the automobile. As mentioned earlier, on average, a car is parked for 95 percent of the time, taking up a square of concrete nine feet wide by 18 feet long. This is problematic for urban areas like Birmingham because the density of jobs and people is so high, yet the amount of space is quite tight. It does not take a civil engineer to recognize how inefficient this is in terms of land usage. This is also problematic when you consider that the majority of the time, all the parking lots are empty—yes, they really are empty most of the time.
In addition to their inefficiency, they impact different communities disproportionately. Parking lots are generally built in, near, or even over communities of color, further degrading property values (and can sometimes make those communities warmer due to the heat island effect). This is also concerning for public health because parks in nonwhite areas are generally about half the size of parks in majority-white areas.
When considering all of this, it is not difficult to see how car-centric infrastructure is a human rights issue in the US, often fueled by racist zoning laws and institutions that seek to capitalize on the manipulation of communities of color.
Figure 3:Parking covers more space than building space in downtown Houston, Texas. Source: Yahoo Images. An aerial view of downtown Houston shows that most of the space is used for parking than for buildings.
Similarly, the modern American driver is dissatisfied with the amount of traffic whenever “everyone else” is taking up all the room on the road. In the United States, there are large cities that are known to have this problem due to their almost complete reliance on automobiles. Houston and Atlanta are primary examples of this, where they have such high populations and poor public transportation to accommodate the large daily movement of people.
In Alabama and many other states, the solution is to add more lanes, which makes traffic worse due to a concept called induced demand. While it may seem that adding another lane would allow more space for people to drive and reduce traffic, adding another lane to an inefficient system makes the existing system more inefficient. Increasing roads by 10% will temporarily improve traffic, but over time, it will increase traffic by 10%, making the problem worse.
Human Rights Violations in Congo
EVs, as you may have realized, do not solve our parking or traffic problems. Beyond that, there are human rights concerns with the global supply chain that make EVs less ideal, too.
With EVs specifically, the lithium batteries require a significant amount of cobalt. The largest reserves of cobalt in the world come from mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Copper is also needed for different types of batteries, including cell phone batteries, and it is frequently mined in Congo as well. Unfortunately, families in Congo have been forcibly evicted due to the opening of new cobalt mines. Amnesty International, a global human rights NGO, has accused large companies who are opening these mines of forced evictions, threats, intimidation, and deception of the people who live there.
It is crucial to mention that ethical considerations like this have long been used by the fossil fuel industry to discredit and slow down the movement toward clean energy. It is imperative for the US to curb emissions and shift towards renewable forms of energy. Additionally, automobiles are a significant component of that, making up the largest category at about 29 percent of GHG emissions in the US. Still, it is critical that we do not continue to uphold unjust forms of labor and oppression. It is precisely these systems that have placed the United States as an economic powerhouse through the exploitation of people from other countries, damaging their health and environmental quality for our benefit.
Moving Forward
From an emissions perspective, EVs are a step in the right direction, but they do not begin to touch most of the other issues discussed in this blog, including environmental racism and public health concerns from an automobile-centered society.
EVs won’t solve the parking problem, the traffic problem, the microplastic problem, or the human rights issues associated with the global suppliers that are notoriously secretive about their practices. While they may decrease direct pollution that is linked with all the health conditions I mentioned earlier, they do not erase the damage to the people and countries that are supplying materials for their construction.
What will start to get at the problem is diversifying transportation. While automobiles are needed in many cases, it is extremely exclusive and inefficient to make them the only option, especially in our mid-size and large cities. In some countries, tax dollars fund all transportation infrastructure rather than almost solely funding infrastructure for cars and requiring bike infrastructure to be paid for by private individuals. In the US, most states spent an average of $1.50 to $3 per capita on bike infrastructure.
Improving public transportation in urban areas and between cities, such as through intercity trains, would benefit public health and the environment. It could also be a small start of changing centuries worth of racism and inequity by decreasing pollution and making it so that the people producing the most pollution cannot drive 40 miles outside the city to get away from it.
Investing in public transportation would also improve the lives of people who cannot drive or do not want to. In a car-dominated society, many disabled people and elderly people are forced to rely on others to take them places or pay for expensive Ubers. Giving them the option to travel without the assistance of others, just like everyone who drives themselves to work, is important to preserve their autonomy so they can maintain control over their own life without relying on others.
Car-centric design favors the wealthy and forces the rest of the population to keep up with car payments and insurance, which are quite expensive for the everyday family. According to the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, the average American family’s second highest expenditure (behind housing) is transportation, with 93 percent used for car payments and maintenance. It also favors the automobile companies, which is the biggest reason we do not have diversified transportation (like nearly every other developed country).
The simple truth is that the United States economy benefits from the sale of cars, and changing how we view this is difficult. Changing the infrastructure (and, in some ways, creating it) would not be easy, but it wouldcreate a more inclusive world. To change this, we must make the best decisions and push for improved public transportation, especially in urban areas like Birmingham.
What can we do?
Realistically, no person can change this system individually, and I think that is a large reason why people love talking about EVs and other ways we can individually make an impact.
Overall, wanting to make a difference is a good thing. It is important to pay attention to the companies you purchase from and ensure they are upholding high ethical and sourcing standards. I have mentioned this in previous blog posts, but the best thing to do is to refrain from purchasing unless you truly need it—and even then, try to buy secondhand.
If you do not need a new phone or laptop, do not buy a new one every year. Remember that companies, including the fossil fuel industry, benefit from the mentality that we should all have the newest thing. This is not good for your wallet, and it is especially harmful for the planet and the humans who collect the resources used in things we take for granted every day.
Another thing to consider is reducing your reliance on batteries. I am not saying to throw out all the batteries you may have at home, but to think of it from a purchasing perspective. It is becoming increasingly common for basic household appliances to be battery-powered because they are convenient. For some people, having multiple battery-powered flashlights for camping is a crucial safety measure, but if you need a new appliance for use in your home, be realistic. Batteries are convenient, but do you really need a battery-powered vacuum cleaner or handheld mixer that could be plugged into the electricity grid for use in a home? Given the questionable industries involved in battery production (and their environmental damage when they are not properly disposed of), eliminating the use of battery-powered objects in cases when they are not necessary is a great start.
A Final Note
I cannot finish this blog without mentioning that Birmingham does have a bus system, but it is mostly designed for people who do not have cars. It is designed as a last resort rather than a first choice, which means that users are often viewed negatively for not having a “better” option.
Arguments against diversifying transportation usually include comments that walking or biking is not accessible because things are so far away.
If that is what comes to mind, I’d like you to consider that most major and even mid-size cities (Birmingham included) had expansive public transportation until private car ownership increased from the 1920s to the 1950s. I cannot include them here, but you can find maps of Birmingham’s old streetcar system online.
Many of the tracks are still here, and we drive over them every day without even realizing it.
UAB is an Equal Employment/Equal Educational Opportunity Institution dedicated to providing equal opportunities and equal access to all individuals regardless of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex (including pregnancy), genetic information, age, disability, religion, and veteran’s status. As required by Title IX, UAB prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity that it operates. Individuals may report concerns or questions to UAB’s Assistant Vice President and Senior Title IX Coordinator. The Title IX notice of nondiscrimination is located at uab.edu/titleix.
