(Brussels, July 8, 2025) – The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) failed to confront the primary driver of the climate crisis by refusing to accept proposed language calling for a phase-out of fossil fuels from a resolution on human rights and climate change, Climate Rights International said today.

The resolution, which reaffirmed the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, originally included an amendment proposed by Colombia and the Marshall Islands calling on countries to “transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner.” This echoed the language adopted at COP28 in 2023, the annual global climate conference. Before the resolution was finalized, Doreen Debrum, ambassador of the Marshall Islands to the United Nations, stated, “It is incomprehensible that a resolution purporting to advance the protection of human rights from the effects of climate change would fail to mention the need to transition from fossil fuels.” But after sustained pushback from oil-producing states, the amendment was ultimately not included in the resolution.

“As the climate emergency escalates and threatens fundamental human rights globally, the Human Rights Council’s decision to sidestep the issue of fossil fuels represents a grave failure at a pivotal moment,” said Brad Adams, Executive Director of Climate Rights International. “This is an appalling and irresponsible policy failure by the members of the world’s human rights body. You cannot stop a fire by ignoring the flames.”

The HRC resolution follows over a decade of efforts by climate-vulnerable nations and civil society to solidify the obvious connection between climate change and human rights, Climate Rights International said. The Human Rights Council first recognized the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment in 2021, which the UN General Assembly affirmed in 2022.

Momentum for this initiative grew after COP28 in Dubai, where nearly 200 governments acknowledged, for the first time, the need to transition energy systems away from fossil fuels to renewables. Although the agreement fell short of a full phase-out and lacked binding enforcement, it marked a potential turning point in climate diplomacy. The Human Rights Council’s resolution was expected to embed this transition within a human rights framework.

In June 2025, Elisa Morgera, the UN Special Rapporteur on Climate Change and Human Rights, called on the Human Rights Council to strengthen its position. She warned that continued fossil fuel expansion and subsidies undermine states’ human rights duties. “Defossilisation of our whole economies is urgent from a human rights perspective and truly the single most impactful health contribution,” Morgera said.

“Calling for phasing out fossil fuels should not be controversial,” Adams said. “As children at a summer camp in Texas just experienced, people around the world are suffering and dying from storms, extreme heat, and pollution caused by fossil fuel emissions. If we are serious about avoiding catastrophe, fossil fuels have got to go.”

The Council’s failure comes amid an evolving international legal landscape. On July 3, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an Advisory Opinion that determined for the first time that states have binding international legal obligations to prevent and respond to the climate emergency, and that people have the right to a “healthy climate.” The Court made it clear that the right to a healthy environment is inseparable from other core rights, including the rights to life, health, water, food, and housing. It also determined that the world is in the midst of a “climate emergency” that requires states to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by adopting policies and regulations that set clear mitigation targets, monitoring their implementation, and regulating both their own actions and those of highly GHG polluting corporations.

The Inter-American Court opinion followed recent decisions from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the European Court of Human Rights. In May 2024, ITLOS found that states have an obligation under the Convention on the Law of the Sea to reduce transboundary greenhouse gas emissions to protect the marine environment. In April 2024, the European Court ruled that Switzerland had violated the rights of its citizens by failing to enact sufficient climate policies.

The next major ruling will come from the International Court of Justice, which is expected to deliver an advisory opinion on July 23. Requested by the UN General Assembly and supported by over 130 countries, the opinion will assess states’ legal obligations to address climate change and their responsibilities toward present and future generations.

“The climate and human rights obligations of countries and companies are becoming ever clearer,” said Adams. “Powerful fossil fuel interests thwarted action by the Human Rights Council. But they are just playing for time, as there is no future for humanity without a plan to phase out fossil fuels.”