climate justice part 1 Flashcards
INTRO TO CLIMATE JUSTICE
AND 3 FRAMEWORKS FOR ENVIRONMNETAL JUTSICE
- Mismatch between places responsible for the crisis and those who bear its brunt - most affected parties have often contributed least to climate change.
- Most affected countries end up with biggest adaptation costs.
- Regional differences in emissions as well as national.
- Historical contributions as well as contemporary - accounted for in matters of justice.
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE - Uneven distribution of benefits and burdens of cc over space and time - solutions won’t affect people evenly - need to recognise this.
PROCEDURAL - Affected parties need seat at the table - they need to be involved in equitable decision making process.
RECOGNITIONAL JUSTICE - acknowledges how social and cultural difference have been tied to identity politics – so argues for existence rights of different cultural and social grps and respect given to those different grps in face of cc.
(Burnham et al 2013a)
CC ACTION SCALES AND CITIES EXAMPLE
Link to common but differential responsibility V.S. Dangerous climate change framing
Inadequate attempts at implementing distributional justice – cities given responsibility but with no power / recognition of sub-national heterogeneity.
Common but differential responsibility argument
Kyoto Protocol 1992 – legally binding targets only applied to voices historically responsible for cc – first time in history legally binding - but expired in 2015.
Paris agreement – all nations have to partake.
Equity highly contested and fraught.
Contribution’s voluntary – binding targets dissolved and have become universal.
COP15 (2009) did for first time show case opportunity for action outside the international, e.g. in cities.
But in cities multi forms of governance (state and non-state actors) - heterogenous across cities.- generalisations around cities and the shifting of responsibilities to cities - whilst, not acknowledging where power lies - creates governance traps where different actors look at each other to burden responsibility - applying same targets etc. to different cities doesn’t account for differences in governance and also historical contributions/ regional differences –> The role of all actors should be assessed whilst considering a common objective rather than a common recipe for change.
(BROT0 2017)
why equity / climate justice key to resolving cc
Post Paris Agreement (2015) era - emphasis n universal and voluntary contributions for cc. Arguments that there’s an inherent trade off between climate action and justice, a focus on justice distracts from cc and the notion that a focus on justice encourages lower-quality research influenced by normative stands - all used to argue against a focus on equity. But… these assertions need intense scrutinisation as climate justice is key for achieving climate mitigation and adaptation that positively affects all rather then some - lack of emphasis on justice just a self-preservation technique from elites arguably.
(Klinksy et al 2016)
4 reasons for research on equity and climate
(Klinksy et al 2016)
-OBLIGATION TO ADDRESS HUMAN WELLBEING – Differential impact of cc needs policies to address it – most vulnerable likely to face severe costs of inaction – human rights of majority world depend on addressing the unequal effects of cc.
- UNDERSTANDING JUSTICE ESSENTIAL TO POLITICAL ANALYSIS – Perceptions and experiences of injustice mean ppl take political action – fight for more desirable world – ability to conduct rigorous political analysis depends on acknowledgement of injustice. Current structural inequalities amplified by cc – overlooking this would miss crucial political elements in climate regimes. Ignoring justice claims means fossil fuel companies can exploit equity concerns to build support for inaction, as action is not in support of the most vulnerable. Equity claims mean those with the most power and ability to act are made to act – preventing governance traps.
EQUITY NOT ALWAYS IN TENSION WITH STRONG CLIMATE ACTION OR COLLECTIVE ACTION
Actors are more likely to participate / act in a reciprocal manner if they consider outcomes or efforts to be equitable and fair.
UNDERSTANDING TRADE-OFFS REQUIRES TAKING EQUITY INTO ACCOUNT – Can’t understand cc trade-offs w out taking equity into account. Without including equity in the analysis of policy decisions, the actual implications of trade-offs for diverse
individuals and groups cannot even be identified. Excluding equity from analysis of trade-offs means sacrificing the most vulnerable grps and most silenced voices for benefit of ‘greater good’ – i.e. favouring the privileged.
framing of cc definition
“The way government, activists, policy makers, and academics frame environmental issue (and relevant solutions) is important to understanding how environmental issues are understood and acted upon” (Burnham et al. 2013a)
It determines who we blame? who will suffer? and what appropriate actions are ? – how we respond to cc
three framings of cc
- Dangerous cc
- routed in indisputable science that cc poses an existential threat to humans. But problems with this framing is no emphasis on who, at what scale, who has power to define this danger and its extent, and places emphasis on biophysical effects and less so the more socio-economic, cultural, political - human effects. - Common but differential responsibilities
- idea that it a common issue but affects people differently and ppl have contributed differently so therefore justice should be key to international regime - different parties should contribute different amounts to mitigation efforts. Consideration of historical and current contributions, as well as where consumption and production of emissions takes place, and where emissions are subsistence vs. where they are for luxury purposes. (Burnham et al 2013a) - GHG Development rights - Idea that some parts of the world should be allowed to increase emissions to increase wellbeing - someone has to reduce their emissions for others to increase theirs. (Dutta 2015)
FRAMING OF CC AND EFFECT ON GOVERNANCE
Current framings of cc - focus on identifying agency, w out recognising how its attributed - to explore dynamics of framing need to look at current framings of rights and responsibilities in climate politics.
Dysfunction of climate action as emphasis placed on individual party’s or collective agency, whilst disregarding the systematic nature of current climate crisis. existing approaches (i.e. cities one) often misread agency of social actors and overlook drivers of cc.
Need new framings and critical analysis that enable new approaches to political responsibility and rights that avoid governance traps.Industrialised societies – responsibility moved from centrally controlled political institutions to devolved systems of risk governance – agency transferred to multi-layered coalitions of actors and institutions that have less direct means of achieving objectives (responsibilities inappropriately allocated) – example is gov. placing emphasis on carbon footprint of individuals / communities / firms – who have little agency to act on it - both look at one another for action – neither forthcoming – no consideration for agency and systematic nature of problem – the need for collective and community driven action. Increased emphasis on cities to tackle cc – see Broto 2017
(NEWELL 2015)
DEBATE BETWEEN COMMON BUT DIFFERENTIATED RESPONSIBILITIES AND GREENHOUSE GAS DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.
Need to determine on what basis responsibility of agents is determined. On a global scale – emphasis on responsibility of production rather than consumption of GHG emissions – unjust allocation of responsibility and emissions won’t be reduced if c extractions simply relocate – E.g. extensive production in China – exports ‘embodied c’ back to wealthier regions – consumption patterns overlooked and unchallenged. (PRODUCTION VS CONSUMPTION)
Consumption also often assumed to be a choice – but env. Conditions e.g. living rurally or in a cold place may mean more consumption required – need emphasis on how ‘needs’ for energy evolve when looking at responsibility. (LUXURY VS SUBSISTENCE)
Development rights often framed in way that encourages governance traps - need to ask who excluded from climate governance currently and how different responses to cc shape the nature of rights being claimed and exercised.
Through exclusively focusing on rights to develop - aggregate measures like economic growth - dominate narratives of what’s at stake ignore how ec. growth already excludes many - no emphasis on how individuals and communities are already systemically forgotten with in regions - this framing doesn’t acknowledge how current systems are already broken - encourages differential responsibilities but on a national scale.
NEWELL 2015
NEWELL 2015 ON REASON FOR COMMON BUT DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSIBILITY
CC framed by assumption that developing countries have rights to luxury, highly consumptive lifestyle and continuous economic growth - framing should reflect the highly uneven nature of the global economy. “Focusing on rights to a sustainable society and equitable standard of living raises different kinds of policy solutions. For example, it makes clear the imperative for investment in, and the effective transfer of, clean technology and the need to meet development objectives alongside those directly related to climate change.”
Need emphasis on development of policy responses that don’t compromise rights of some, exacerbating and entrenching inequality – often global economy decisions made in richer countries abt mitigation and adapatation have neg effects elsewhere.
For example, the Renewable Energy Directive in the EU targets 10% of transport fuels to come from renewable sources by 2020.18 However, responsibility for delivering this target has been displaced overseas, with palm oil production in countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia consolidated into large-scale plantations, squeezing out smallholder livelihoods that are unable to compete. Fulfilling responsibility by undermining the rights of other actors only risks entrenching the antagonisms and distrust which has hampered international mitigation efforts to date.
All parties must have rights to participate in political process of allocation of responsibilities
For example, those communities most affected by having to host carbon offset projects often lack awareness of consultative processes, resulting in allegations of dispossession, violence and even human rights abuses which bodies like the CDM Executive Board then have to address.
ENERGY AS EXAMPLE OF SUB-NATIONAL JUSTICE
energy provision doesn’t equate to equal access for all.
- need to acknowledge differentiated effects of mitigation and adaptation at regional level as well as international.
Socio-economic cultural factors like gender, class, race, cast etc. will determine whether someone gets to access energy - no quick developmental fix.
Emergency framing of climate change does’t necessarily indicate justice - a rapid transition to renewables not achieving objective of reducing effects of cc on most vulnerable if not accounting for how people unevenly affected by mitigation efforts.
(DANIEL ET AL 2018)
SMALL SCALE RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES
Some success - local energy can aid development in many ways. but simplistic notion of justice - differentiated access to these energy sources based on ind. status - more entrenched in socio-economic systems then made out to be.
Many small scale renewable projects delivered through market - commodification of renewable energies - privatised - rational of free market providing better cheaper services through corporate competition but in reality profit driven no inherent interest in getting people out of poverty - short term profits - lead to built in obsolescence, waste etc.
break very quickly i.e. 3-4 yrs – 22 mn solar lamps could be out of use by 2017.
FOR EXAMPLE MOZAMBIQUE - New solar power plant by corporate organisations in Zambezia - a region with very low electricity access (only 10%) - massive potential for renewables to aid development. Low c transition depends on the political economy of energy -and makes manifest the inherent in- equalities in current energy systems. Questions of justice pertain to both low carbon and energy access agendas. 1.5 mn mozambiquans have benefited from solar project - but the installation process has been highly uneven - they rarely reach most remote areas - overlook local energy requirements and bypass rural areas - they often often have superficial purposes of bolstering image of place over actually meeting needs of locals.
(DANIEL ET AL 2018)
CARBON EMISSIONS - WHO AND WHERE ARE THEY COMING FROM?
Household carbon emissions in Great Britain are strongly related to income: the richest 10 percent of households emit three times that of the poorest 10 percent from energy use in the home and personal travel.
Current policies to reduce household carbon emissions have inequitable impacts: the average impact on household energy bills in England in 2020 is a 7 per cent reduction for the poorest 10 per cent and a 12 per cent reduction for the richest 10 per cent. This represents a triple injustice: the lowest income households pay more, benefit less from policies and are responsible for the least emissions.
(Preston 2013)
But proportional contribution of households varies across different household types and scoio-demographics.
Strong correlation between disposable income and emissions.
Heterogeneity of ‘us’ do we all emit same amount? Common but differential individual responsibilities?
Can change lifestyle but often substation effect – move from one emissions source to another.
Rebound effect – emissions move from one place to another e.g. reduce commuting , increase energy bill.
Outsourcing major source of emissions.
Global North vs South – Asia biggest emitter of CO2 but question of how many of these emissions are outsourced to other countries and obviously much bigger population.
Emissions in global north declining and the global south is increasing – but at what speeds ? historically how does this add up?
In the global south top 20% of high-expenditure households are responsible for 7 times the emissions of poorer households.
(Ritche 2019)
Mega districts like Mumbai, New Delhi, Bengaluru, Chennai and Kolkata (also big cities) have carbon footprints well above the national average
Rural areas have lower emission
BURNHAM ET AL 2013b - INTRODUCTION
CC framed as issue for state-actors at national scale - but nation state’s interests often state sovereignty, boundaries and material resources.Often dev vs. under. state binary that ignores variation w in states - need for attention on all scales.
Need to pay attention to mitigation and adaptation on all scales as they affect localities livelihoods and identities.
REVIEW OF SOCIETAL RESPONSE TO CC - MITIGATION AND JUSTICE
CARBON OFF-SET PROJECTS
“Market solutions” – to meet Kyoto protocol targets – e.g. carbon trading – cost effective but…
Problems:
Commodification of carbon – reproduce and exacerbate existing local injustices – restricting natural resource access for resource dependent communities – recentralize natural resource government, which may lead to evictions, land right violations, and damaged livelihoods; and may create forms of neo-colonialism – carbon colonialism – where global south’s use of natural resources limited, so north can rectify emissions and continue as they are.
C offset mechanisms allow rich nations and corporations dominant Carbon market – outcompeting those who can’t afford c credits – restricting these nation’s development and growth powers – whilst, richer countries permitted to keep using c-based fuels – increased emissions.
EXAMPLE OF MECHANISM FOR C OFFSET ON INTERNATIONAL LEVEL “Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation’’ (REDD+) – Emerged out of the UNFCCC – adopted at COP 13 – intended to be incentive for reducing C emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries – while promoting conservation, sustainable forest management, enhancement of c stocks through afforestation/ reforestation. But …
Increased injustices for forest-dependent communities – increased state and expert control over forests; support for fortress conservation principles; violations of land tenure, access, and territory rights; and unequal contracts, land grabs and land speculation.
It has also been criticized for resulting in a resurgence of injustices tied to struggles among local actors over access to and governance of natural resources. Some scholars see REDD+ as a fundamental shift away from community-based natural resource management back to a system of protectionism and ecosystem enhancement often associated with expanded local injustices.
EXAMPLE – (Basset 2011) empirical demonstrated concerns - REDD Readiness project Tanzania demonstrates interlinked nature of all 3 justice types:
Through ahistorical misreading of Rufiji Delta – national and global actors positioned local inhabitants as recent migrants destroying an ‘un-peopled’ forest – legitimizing themselves to undertake c forestry projects. Control of forest shifted from local to national / global actors – planned eviction of locals – enabling discourse that framed cc as so urgent it required immediate intervention – Rufiji had limited participation in decision making process.
MEXICO – Small holders in Chiapas – REDD+ - locals able to retain land rights – but lost out on short term benefits of c sequestration – subsistence farmers forced further out into more distant areas – increasing labour burden – incurring transportation time costs – and carbon forestry movements moving away from subsistence farming.
ALL 3 TYPES OF JUSTICE ISSUES.
REDD+ is governed by international institutions, and the state is ‘‘primary apparatus’’ for carrying out projects. This setup subsumes localised interests into the state, homogenizing local actors and civil society.
On FRAMING
Many geographers consider it critical that a political ecology of carbon markets and offsets continue to be developed to examine: (i) how carbon outcomes are defined and controlled through a structure of discourse that determines frames and priorities; (ii) how scientific expertise, through discourse and representation, work together to produce particular climate problems and outcomes; and(iii) how language, science, institutions, and culture that shape the discourse of climate change can be used to further political objectives in order to gain a more complete understanding of the potential justice problems posed by carbon offset projects.
(BURNHAM ET AL 2013B)
ADAPTATION AND JUSTICE
Early climate discourse on adaptation as climate action avoided as contributed to local wellbeing rather than ‘global’ mitigation.
Past decade focus on adaptation for those already suffering regardless of any further mitigation – linked to development.
Global funding of adaptation mechanism 🡪 justice issues.
Who gets control of funds shapes justice outcomes.
“adaptation paradox” – cc global risk being governed globally but vulnerability and impacts felt locally.
Distributive problems – those contributed least to cc – most vulnerable from it 🡪 to qs – who responsible for costs, who should receive help adapting, what should be adapted to and how?
Difficult to determine responsibility as whole host of socio-economic factors (development) levels – also play into vulnerability – q of who is responsible.
3 approaches to who should receive adaptation funding, and who pays for it?
Those historically responsible for emissions, those w highest ability and all should pay equally.
Theoretical convergence has centred wealthy nations responsible for historical emissions, whilst in practice largest emitters and states w greatest means given responsibility.
Currently allocation of spending dependent on social and physical ‘vulnerability’ on a national scale (this is uneven w in countries) – vulnerability definition therefore v important. #
UNFCCC – Limited view of adaptation – address only ‘additional’ biophysical pressures from cc shown to be above ‘baseline’ development – which obviously v hard to define – and many countries unable to address bassline needs – on which ‘additional’ adaptations would need to be built.
This approach means tech and scientific expertise define and predict cc and furthermore formulate the adaptive solutions – priority given to technological solutions like dams, irrigation, early warning systems – local knowledge excluded from decision making process – often local communities are only represented through a single person representing whole community, often involving only elites – need to involve all and local knowledge
Applying this framework, he argues that distributive justice concerns are well addressed in terms of (i)recognizing common but differentiated responsibility for burden sharing, and (ii) ensuring that capabilities are taken into account with regards to allocating funding.
Procedural justice – only inclusiveness incorporated – power and balance ignored.
Discursive use of ‘adaptation’ – locates stress on hazards rather than overall set of stressors ppl face – shifts discussion towards response – also naturalises process of adaptation – runs risk of introducing Darwinism – ‘survival of the fittest’ – framing masks social, political economic processes driving change and places the burden of adaptation on individuals.
(Burnham et al 2013b)
