When will climate justice be done?

Climate justice refers to the notion that there are differences between those who have benefited from the benefits of carbon emissions and those who have suffered from climate change. It also points out that those who have suffered the most from the manifestations of climate change have created disproportionately fewer emissions.

Some of the groups considered in this framework are illustrated in a preambular clause of the Bali Principles of Climate Justice, which states: The impacts of climate change are “disproportionately felt by small island states, women, youth, coastal peoples, local communities, indigenous peoples, fishermen, the poor and the elderly.”

In the context of COP26, the most obvious example is the trade-off between the richest and most developed countries in the global North that have historically benefited from the burning of fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and the least developed countries and poorest in the global world. South that have benefited much less from burning fossil fuels. Those in the Global South, due to peculiarities of geography and climate, are much more vulnerable to the manifestations of climate change, such as increased temperatures, droughts, floods, more extreme storms, increased disease , poor harvests, climatic migration and increased weather. social conflict related to change. Climate justice is a rights-based approach to tackling this problem.

A brief history

The concept of climate justice emerged during COP6 in 2000, where some groups expressed concern about equity issues between the Global North and the Global South. In August 2002, a group of NGOs articulated some climate justice principles in a document known as the Bali Climate Justice Principles.

The notion of climate justice originates from the earlier concept of environmental justice – the idea that different groups in society are disproportionately exposed to environmental damage, and that this situation must be addressed. Environmental justice recognizes that there are disparities between different groups in the quality of the environments in which they live and work. Research has shown that the degree of pollution in the environment tends to be correlated with race and ethnicity, and minority groups such as African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics are much more likely to live near toxic sites and face other environmental risks.

Here at home

In Canada, one of the most striking aspects of climate justice is the disparity between indigenous peoples and settler society. Indigenous communities are more likely to be located in remote, rural and less urban areas compared to the rest of the population. These communities are often more vulnerable in terms of risks related to climate change, such as wildfires and floods, and they tend to have much less infrastructure and resources to help cope with climate-related emergencies.

One of the places experiencing the greatest climatic changes is the Arctic, where average temperatures have risen more than anywhere else on the planet. This has had serious consequences for Inuit communities. Melting permafrost is disrupting infrastructure in the north, negatively affecting wildlife, and the changing climate has significantly affected traditional ways of life, such as hunting and fishing practices. (Additionally, melting ice and melting permafrost have triggered a feedback loop that increases global warming as methane is released into the atmosphere, and the loss of ice leads to increased absorption of solar radiation by the earth).

Historically, indigenous peoples have been disproportionately excluded from the benefits of natural resource exploitation (such as oil and gas production and timber extraction) in their traditional territories and the wider economy. In Canada, the residential school system and other facets of colonialism have also suffered.

Some issues for COP 26

Going back to COP26, there are a number of climate justice issues that have been debated and negotiated at COPs over the years.

The more developed countries have committed to providing financial assistance to the less developed countries to ease their transition. In 2009, that pledge amounted to US $ 100 billion in financial assistance per year to developing countries. While some assistance has been provided, this commitment has yet to be met.

A particularly “thorny” issue is what is known as “loss and damage.” Countries in the Global South argue that they are more likely to suffer from climate change and, since they have contributed very little to greenhouse gas emissions, argue that they should be compensated financially. This issue has been debated in several meetings of the COP, but key countries of the Global North have opposed this proposal. Indeed, at the Paris COP meeting, Canada joined the US in resisting making compensation a fundamental part of the Paris Agreement.

On Thursday at COP 26, a representative of the European Union said the EU opposes liability and redress being part of any deal emerging from Glasgow. But he noted that the EU is committed to supporting developing countries in various other ways, including early warning technologies, insurance for small farmers and disaster recovery assistance.

Attendance, participation and compensation

Another aspect of climate justice has emerged at COP26 around participation and COVID issues. Before the conference, some NGOs called for the conference to be canceled entirely due to global inequalities regarding access to vaccines. Vaccine availability and vaccination rates are much lower in many developing countries than in the global North. Travelers arriving in the UK unvaccinated must undergo additional COVID testing (compared to those who are fully vaccinated) and must also be quarantined for 10 days. This generates considerable additional costs for people who come from developing countries.

Several other complications were recently discussed at a Climate Action Network press conference. The COVID protocols have limited the number of attendees to the COP26 venue and, in particular, to the rooms. Priority is given to the parties involved in the negotiations. Therefore, there are very few spaces available for NGO observers. After obtaining funds for travel and accommodation, overcoming the hurdles of tests and vaccines, and traveling to the other side of the world, NGO observers from developing countries may still not be able to enter the negotiating room.

Some political issues

To some extent, support for addressing climate justice depends on one’s political and moral philosophy. However, regardless of one’s political perspective, there is a practical element to these issues. Many countries in the Global South are unlikely to agree to freeze their development at current levels and are unlikely to be willing or able to take bold climate action without financial assistance. So even for world leaders who are less sympathetic to the moral aspects of this issue, addressing climate justice issues is a practical reality if a deal is to be reached.

On the other hand, with the winds of populism still circulating within some countries of the Global North, selling stocks in large financial transfers to help achieve a climate deal is a challenging task. These are some of the things that make solving anthropogenic climate change a “wicked problem.”