scholarly journals CLIMATE JUSTICE: BALANCING THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP AND THE NORM OF SUSTAINABILITY

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Ushana Jayasuriya

<p>Climate change presents a global problem that requires collective action. Distributing obligations in relation to this has proven problematic, especially in light of the divide between wealthy and developed states compared to poor and developing states. The norm of sustainability requires states to continue to protect and promote sustainable actions. This comes into direct conflict with the right to develop when considering how to mitigate climate change. The right to develop requires the use of limited resources now, whereas the norm of sustainability argues that these resources must be protected for both environmental protection and intergenerational justice. Intragenerational justice requires us to consider whether actions that protect the future may be causing greater injustice within the present generation. In this thesis, I discuss the important potential distribution principles, with considerations of historic responsibility, uncertainty, and the ability to pay principles. I then use this foundation to explore how a right to develop can fit within the balance of intergenerational and intragenerational justice. I also include the context of non-ideal theory as a means of making the discussion more relevant to the real-world situation we find ourselves in, with the partial and non-compliance of many states. I conclude that, within the context of non-ideal theory, there is a right to develop but currently it ought to be limited to a basic needs threshold if we wish to justly distribute obligations between and across generations.</p>

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Ushana Jayasuriya

<p>Climate change presents a global problem that requires collective action. Distributing obligations in relation to this has proven problematic, especially in light of the divide between wealthy and developed states compared to poor and developing states. The norm of sustainability requires states to continue to protect and promote sustainable actions. This comes into direct conflict with the right to develop when considering how to mitigate climate change. The right to develop requires the use of limited resources now, whereas the norm of sustainability argues that these resources must be protected for both environmental protection and intergenerational justice. Intragenerational justice requires us to consider whether actions that protect the future may be causing greater injustice within the present generation. In this thesis, I discuss the important potential distribution principles, with considerations of historic responsibility, uncertainty, and the ability to pay principles. I then use this foundation to explore how a right to develop can fit within the balance of intergenerational and intragenerational justice. I also include the context of non-ideal theory as a means of making the discussion more relevant to the real-world situation we find ourselves in, with the partial and non-compliance of many states. I conclude that, within the context of non-ideal theory, there is a right to develop but currently it ought to be limited to a basic needs threshold if we wish to justly distribute obligations between and across generations.</p>


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marit Ursin ◽  
Linn C. Lorgen ◽  
Isaac Arturo Ortega Alvarado ◽  
Ani-Lea Smalsundmo ◽  
Runar Chang Nordgård ◽  
...  

In the fall of 2019, Trøndelag County Council, Norway, organized a Climate Workshop for children and youth. The intention of the workshop was to include children’s and youth’s perspectives as a foundation for a policy document titled “How we do it in Trøndelag. Strategy for transformations to mitigate climate change”. The workshop involved a range of creative and discussion tools for input on sustainable development and climate politics. In this article, we aim to (1) describe and discuss innovative practices that include children and youth in policymaking related to climate action, and (2) discuss the theoretical implications of such policymaking in relation to children’s rights, young citizenship, and intergenerational justice. We employ a generational framework and perceive climate politics as inherently ingrained in intergenerational justice, where no generation has a superior claim to the earth’s resources, yet power is unfairly concentrated and accumulated among adult generations. We draw on contributions by various stakeholders involved: Two young workshop participants, two county council policymakers, and an interdisciplinary team of researchers from Childhood Studies and Design.


2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 40-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Talia Raphaely ◽  
Dora Marinova ◽  
George Crisp ◽  
Jordan Panayotov

Many think that eating meat is nutritionally necessary and beneficial. Industrialising livestock production provides meat that is often “cheaper” than fruit and vegetables. In reality, this has come at a cost for human, animal and ecological welfare. Western mainstream meat consumption is a leading cause of increasing ill-health, diabetes, cancers, non-communicable and chronic diseases, malnourishment, obesity, antibiotic resistance, spread of infectious diseases, hunger and possible global epidemics as well as climate change, biodiversity loss, water and land degradation. Rather than stop this, vested interests continue to promote meat consumption. If people are deliberately misinformed or have no access to reliable information, what chance do they have to make the right food choices? This paper outlines flexitarianism (flexible vegetarianism) as a personal user-driven opportunity to combat the geopolitical and industrial duplicity about meat. Consumers should have enough information about the implications of their nutritional choices. In addition to health benefits, flexitarianism can help mitigate climate change, environmental and social destruction and reduce animal suffering. The proposed information policy interventions are assessed against their impact on key stakeholders and overall value for public health and environmental wellbeing. They offer an opportunity to reclaim personal health and improve the health of the planet.


2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Deni Bram

The issue of climate change has become a central point of attention the world community on this century. In scientists view says that if we fail to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for ten to twenty years ahead, we face the possibility of harmful environmental disaster at the end of this century. Legal instruments at international level which is present as a step to mitigate climate change were felt only in the interests of developing countries alone that puts the asymmetric advantage. The concept of climate justice is felt not touched so that the regime to combat climate change often fail in the fulfillment of justice for present and future.Keywords: climate change, intergenerational equity, intra generational equity


1970 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Karnein

It is becoming less and less controversial that we ought to aggressively combat climate change. One main reason for doing so is concern for future generations, as it is they who will be the most seriously affected by it. Surprisingly, none of the more prominent deontological theories of intergenerational justice can explain why it is wrong for the present generation to do very little to stop worsening the problem. This paper discusses three such theories, namely indirect reciprocity, common ownership of the earth and human rights. It shows that while indirect reciprocity and common ownership are both too undemanding, the human rights approach misunderstands the nature of our intergenerational relationships, thereby capturing either too much or too little about what is problematic about climate change. The paper finally proposes a way to think about intergenerational justice that avoids the pitfalls of the traditional theories and can explain what is wrong with perpetuating climate change. 


Water ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (17) ◽  
pp. 2320
Author(s):  
Anna Ohlin Saletti ◽  
Lars Rosén ◽  
Andreas Lindhe

Infiltration and inflow (I/I) to wastewater systems cause e.g., flooding, pollution, and the unnecessary use of the limited resources in society. Due to climate change and an increased need for the renewal of piping systems, making the right decisions on how to handle I/I is more important than ever. This paper presents a novel framework for risk-based decision support on I/I based on established theories on risk assessment and decision-making. The framework is presented on a general level and suggests that uncertainties are included in the decision-making process, together with criteria representing the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability. Published models on I/I and decision support are evaluated based on criteria from the framework showing that (1) the models rarely include risk-based decision-making or uncertainties in the analyses and that (2) most models only include project-internal financial aspects, excluding social and environmental, as well as project-external aspects, of I/I and I/I measures. A need for further research to develop a more holistic decision support model for I/I is identified, and it is concluded that the application of the proposed framework can contribute to more sustainable decisions on how to handle I/I and provide transparency to the process.


Author(s):  
Alix Dietzel

Chapter Three completes the climate justice account by defining three demands of justice required to meet a condition of justice in the case of climate change. These three demands are considered normative principles that must underwrite a more just global response to climate change. The chapter is organised into three parts, each one developing a demand of justice. The first part of the chapter concerns the right to health and sets out a minimum set of actions that must be pursued in order to protect this right. Part two of the chapter conducts relational analysis by exploring the relationship between developed countries and less developed countries and puts forward that states should be held to account for climate change action according to both their emissions levels and wealth levels. Finally, the third part of the chapter conducts relational analysis of the relationship between those who cause climate change and those who suffer from its effects, and makes the case that responsible actors extend beyond states to all capable actors, including individuals, firms, sub-state entities, international institutions, and states, irrespective of the country they live or exist in.


Author(s):  
Alix Dietzel

Chapter Two defines the grounds of climate justice. Defining the grounds of justice is a key task for any climate justice account because it allows readers to understand what must be normatively prioritised. The grounds of justice in this sense represent the moral underpinnings of the climate justice account, a normative subfloor that must not be crossed. The chapter makes the case for using the human right to health as the non-relational moral minimum that grounds the climate justice position. Chapter Two puts forward that the human right to health provides a strong foundation for a climate justice because it captures the threats climate change poses to humans more comprehensively than other key human rights, including the right to food and water, the right to life, and the right to free movement.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Johannes Reich

Abstract Federalism is ostensibly misplaced to mitigate climate change as a global public concern as it is prone to import the inadequate incentive structures existing at the international level into the domestic domain. Drawing from the legal structures and procedures of Swiss federalism, this article attempts to provide a more nuanced assessment of the relationship between laws designed to mitigate climate change and federalism. It seeks to demonstrate that federalism may support effective policies to mitigate climate change, provided that the architecture of domestic climate change law meets certain criteria. These include considerable federal powers, a degree of institutional flexibility, robust formal channels of influence for subnational actors on policy formulation at the federal level, ample room for regulatory experimentalism at the lower layers of federalism, and the ‘right to act’ conferred on the Federation to avoid political impasse among the constituent units.


Author(s):  
Johannes (Joost) Platje ◽  
Remko Kampen

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to apply club good theory to challenges in climate justice and to identify the opportunities for creating a club of countries or regions to support climate justice and/or mitigate climate change, as well as the threats that such clubs could lead to the real exclusion of large parts of the world from climate justice. Design/methodology/approach A theoretical analysis is provided regarding the conditions for creating a club for climate change mitigation. Indicators of good governance and trust, as well as the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index (ND-GAIN), are used to assess the capacity for creating such a club. Findings While opportunities for achieving climate justice are identified, climate change mitigation is likely to be at most a club good at the global level, thus excluding the most vulnerable countries, regions and groups of people. Although the threats of climate change may be acknowledged, they are easily neglected. Economic growth is likely to be a condition for economic sustainability, which in turn tends to be a condition for environmental sustainability. Decision makers should be conscious of the potential danger of creating a club for climate change mitigation based on the belief that economic growth and technology will solve these problems, as such a club is likely to be either unsustainable, or very small, while deepening existing injustice. Originality/value The authors provide an overview of the complexity of issues involved, to gain an appreciation of the vast, perhaps insurmountable, challenges facing climate justice. A club good approach is applied to issues of climate justice, emphasizing the limitations of the all-inclusiveness of climate justice and sustainable development.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document