Electricity as Human Right
In the modern era with massive interconnectiveness, where whole countries would fail if power shut down, where the only way to ensure even possible success is through modern amenities (air conditioning or heat for example) and an ability to connect over distances (like through wifi and internet or phones), some think that electricity is an extravagance and people need to earn it to deserve it. Rather, it should be regarded as a human right, necessary to advance people out of poverty, out of sickness, out of seemingly impossible problems. Electricity creates a bridge from desperation to hope.
The NAACP released a report of their beliefs toward electricity as a human right, eloquently and succinctly explaining the problems behind seeing electricity only as a privilege of sorts. They encourage ridding shut off times (extreme temperatures), adding protections for those using it as necessities (medical reasons), and creating more efficient measures (cleaner energies and distributing excess). They argue that because shut-offs are more likely to affect low-income populations , the elderly, and populations of color. An additional problem often left out from the conversation for having no absolute direct relation includes climate change. As temperatures continue to rise and summers reach record highs, and winters reach record lows, additional energy will be needed to keep up with the additional strain of needing more air conditioning or heating. Electricity bills will rise, which low-income families will not be able to afford. This also creates health issues for these populations, as they tend to have more work outdoors. To emphasize, multiple social groups are affects by singular or easily-relatable problems: low-income people, people of color, elderly people, people with special health needs, and socially vulnerable customers. Not only can shut-off problems relate to health (from heat or cold), people can lose abilities to store food (electricity is shut off = fridges and freezers no longer work), focusing bills on electricity rather than prescriptions or medical/dental care.
Arguments for electricity as a human right include:
- Human rights are societal choices. Slavery has always been around but that doesn’t mean people are entitled to own other people. Rights are not associated with an ancestor time, and shouldn’t be especially when we as a society need to keep looking forward.
- Electricity powers services that are vital to survival. HVAC, medical care, preventing food spoilage, access to mass-produced clean water for example. “Electricity itself may not be the basic human right, but what it provides people is”.
- Something that so radically transforms and changes society cannot and should be held back from people in need of an equalization of the playing field (think about the Arab Spring- people want rights, they fight back, technology helps spread their cause and get support and helps move towards democracy and safety of massive populations).
Arguments against electricity as a human right include:
- Offering electricity as a human right opens too many doors as to what can be considered a human right. Are iPods a human right?
- Electricity is man-made and thus a commodity. Since commodities are marketed, people choose to buy into things. That choice negates the argument that electricity is or should be a human right.
- Earth’s resources are not rights. Without sustainability (which the world as a society is not currently doing), viewing these resources as a right will lead to massive depletion and the destruction of earth.
- People can live without electricity. Look at wilderness people.
The United Nations passed the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. It sets a common standard of achievements for all peoples (generally listed in the preamble). It contains 30 articles to ensure, as well as provide examples of, human rights. Article 25 is identified as the definition of what a human right is. It says:
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
A common interpretation of this is that anything that provides or aids in providing an adequate standard of living (construed as a human right) is considered a human right. Electricity is a commodity and itself doesn’t provide for a standard of living, but it does help in providing things that do constitute a human right (access to clean water and food, prevention from persecution via transportation and relocation for example).
When discussing or thinking of the framework of human rights, categories of what counts or doesn’t seems fairly simple. When delving into various examples of for and against arguments, as well as arguments for new ideas on human rights, it becomes a bit harder to easily determine what is or isn’t a human right. For a scholarly analysis of this contested issue, see here.
