Different Angles on Climate Justice: Insights from Non-Domination and Recognition
Alexa Zellentin presented a paper on climate justice as part of a workshop at the University of Warwick.
(Photo: University of Warwick)
As part of the workshop 'Second-best solutions and secondary injustices: a workshop on non-ideal climate justice', Alexa Zellentin presented a paper applying the GLOBUS conceptions of global justice to the context of climate justice.
About the workshop
It is increasingly recognised that the question of how to respond to climate change is as much a question of values as it is of science and economics. Normative theory has made some headway into considering the questions of distributive justice that climate change raises and providing various critical insights on the imperative to “avoid dangerous climate change”. The justification (and criticism) of this goal, plus the distribution of duties to address climate change have been extensively discussed.
Implicit in these discussions on “climate justice”, but rarely fully acknowledged or articulated is the insight that there are that there are two kinds of potential injustice raised by climate change. First, there are injustices that arise despite efforts to implement an effective combination of preventative response measures -understood here as emissions reductions, negative emissions technologies, solar radiation management and adaptation. These are relatively well documented: understood as the “impacts of climate change” and cause the losses and damages that rectificatory measures seek to address. Call these primary climatic injustices. The neglected second category of injustice can be called secondary climatic injustices. Secondary injustices are those that arise as a result of preventative response measures and (perhaps) rectificatory response measures.