Even while Asia is now contributing to carbon emissions at the same per capita rate as the global average, climate change exposes the region to unique public health and economic risks. Fossil fuels bring air pollution in addition to excess carbon. According to a 2019 study, in India, airborne impurities kill more than 1.5m people each year, accounting for nearly a fifth of all fatalities¹⁸ while the WHO reports that a similar number of Chinese nationals die annually from ambient air pollution.¹⁹

Deadly levels of heat have also tripled worldwide since the 1980s, and now affect nearly a quarter of the world’s population.²⁰ The issue is at its most extreme heat in South Asia.²¹ Though affluent populations can shield themselves from the problem, in a heatwave “the economically insecure are pushed to the front lines”,²² according to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). And with around 600m people in Asia living in informal settlements,²³ not to mention hundreds of millions more in low-income formal settings, the toll from heatwave-induced public health crises may be significant.

Asian economies equate to two-thirds of global GDP vulnerable to productivity losses from excess heat and humidity.²⁴Agricultural workers are expected to account for 60% of working hours lost globally to heat stress.²⁵ Those in the least developed countries - including many in Asia - are among the most impacted by exposure to extreme temperatures, already bearing almost half of the estimated 295bn work hours lost due to heat in 2020.²⁶

Flooding will take its toll on the region as well. Nearly 600m people in Asia live in low-lying coastal regions, with Asia home to 11 of the 15 most endangered cities worldwide.²⁸ According to Greenpeace²⁹ rising sea levels could inflict US$724bn in economic damage on seven of Asia’s major cities this decade. By 2050, the Asia-Pacific region may lose about US$1.2trn each year in capital stock (factory plants, equipment, and other assets) due to climate-change-induced flooding alone. Some industries will be disrupted more than others. For example, by 2030, many of Asia’s current apparel and footwear factories - including over half of those in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam - are expected to be underwater due to their position near sea level in low-lying areas.³⁰ The map below is but one of many scenarios available depicting how sea level rise might impact the apparel industry in both Vietnam and Bangladesh.

The increasing recognition of the links between climate and human rights is also changing the risk profile in Asia for companies and for governments. In a May 2022 report, the Philippines Commission on Human Rights argued that the world’s most polluting companies have an obligation to address the harms of climate change. It found that 47 of the world’s biggest coal, oil, mining and cement firms engaged in “wilful obfuscation” of climate science and that, by blocking a global transition to clean energy, such actions were “at the very least immoral.” It added that these companies had arguably breached existing laws in the Philippines and might serve as the basis for legal liability in other countries.

While the report only represents a potential legal argument rather than a binding decision, it does point to the growing volume of climate litigation. Catherine Higham, policy fellow for Climate Change Laws of the World at the LSE also writes that those at the nexus of climate change and biodiversity are increasingly focussing on legal recourse to compensate for loss and damage resulting from climate change.³¹

Over 2,000 climate litigation cases have been recorded by Climate Change Laws of the World, a database operated by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. In Asia, climate litigation has been less well documented, however, although this could result from a lack of data collection on actual cases rather than a dearth of cases. “It may also be due to differences in approach, whereby cases are less explicitly focused on climate change but nonetheless may have significant impacts for climate action,” adds Ms Higham.

The climate litigation that has occurred in Asia has focused on both state failures to implement policy and on companies that have committed environmentally-linked, human rights torts.³² These efforts appear to be having an effect: in 2022, IPCC recognised its impacts on “the outcome and ambition of climate governance.” Ms Higham and her colleagues agree, adding that “climate litigation has been successfully used as a tool to influence governance in the absence of political action.”

These lawsuits are not a silver bullet, however. It may be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these firms are liable for climate impacts, notes Mr Bueta. “Most of these groups are civil society organisations, grassroots organisations. They do not have enough resources to show initial evidence of the harm or danger they are alleging from a certain activity or project.” Ms Higham further finds that any success of climate litigation to date “doesn't mean that political action couldn't be a more effective and more efficient way of dealing with some of these issues.”

Even while they face a rising number of climate-related lawsuits, companies operating in Asia also need to be aware of the growth in relevant extraterritorial rules that may apply to their activities. “More states, or supranational bodies, like the EU, are thinking about how we turn what has been a set of voluntary standards and principles into mandatory regulations that apply across the board,” says Ms Higham.

Two examples demonstrate this. First, the European Commission has proposed a corporate sustainability due diligence directive (CSDDD), which will require businesses to prevent, and where necessary remedy, adverse human rights impacts for which they are responsible. An ostensible exemption for suppliers with fewer than 250 employees is unlikely to leave smaller firms unaffected by the directive as larger companies will insist on having relationships only with smaller firms that prioritise sustainability. More importantly, the directive would also require companies to be more transparent about their human rights and environmental due diligence processes, and to engage with stakeholders, including employees, customers and investors, to build a more sustainable and responsible business.

The UN General Assembly’s recognition of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a universal human right has strong symbolic and political value. But indeed, international jurisprudence had already been moving in this direction, even before the UNGA resolution. In October 2022, a case brought by Torres Strait Islanders claimed that the Australian government had failed to take mitigation and adaptation measures to combat the effects of climate change and had therefore failed in its duty to protect human rights. The UN Human Rights Committee agreed, finding that the Australian Government had violated islanders’ rights by failing to implement adaptation measures to protect homes, private lives and families.³⁴

Complicating matters for states, efforts to mitigate climate change may also be accompanied by human rights abuses.

The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre has recorded a rise in human rights abuses in the context of renewable energy projects worldwide. Its 2021 analysis of the human rights policies and practices of 15 of the largest global renewable energy companies found “profoundly concerning” results with poor scores overall. About 200 allegations of abuse of land rights and Indigenous Peoples' rights – including displacement, violence and intimidation – have been recorded by the centre since 2010.³⁵ In Asia, the livelihoods of river and riverside communities continue to be threatened by the construction of hydroelectric projects. In the Mekong River, which runs through East and South-East Asia, some 11 dams on the main river and 120 tributary dams are planned for hydropower generation, which scientists have warned will imperil the already fragile river system and hurt communities dependent on fishing and farming.³⁶

Affected communities argue that the dams will flood their ancestral lands, threatening their livelihoods, culture and identity.³⁷ In India, large solar projects, among others, are exempt from environmental assessment and public hearings. Farmers in some regions allege that renewable energy companies are seizing agricultural lands for solar plants.³⁸ “In environmental circles, it is accepted that green projects might actually be used for green grabs of land, displacing vulnerable communities and taking advantage of marginalised sections of populations. And, unfortunately, there hasn't been much progress in developing a good framework around it,” says one climate expert in India.