Just Transitions into Responsible Emissions

     Present day, contemporary conversations about climate justice include debates about the intergenerational responsibility to protect the environment, produce food, energy and natural resources, promote coexistence with non-human actors, and be morally sensitive to the needs of future generations. It is imperative to consider intergenerational justice while approaching the conflict of climate change to account for actions like industrialization and their repercussions. By drawing on observations from the past, these conversations can lead to effective solutions related to a prosperous future for humanity. 

     The costs outweigh the benefits of not taking appropriate action in a speedy manner, and the consequences it has had on our Earth has caused irreparable damage. Between methane expelled from melting tundra and acid rain to extinct animal species and unpredictable weather patterns, impoverished countries and communities have seen the face of climate change more intimately than some of the world’s leading countries and wealthiest communities. The stark perspectives between groups already affected by irreversible damage and individuals that have not been impacted has polarized the political communication focused on the topic of climate change. Considering the fluctuating weather patterns and irregular tropical storms, the industrial damage caused on humans, natural resources, our environment, and our communities has an everlasting generational impact.

     Climate change has become a debate between political and ethical perspectives. This has a transverse, opposite effect on the attention that should be focused on alleviating the damages of climate injustice. On one hand, this is a controversial topic that fuels political instability by calling for lifestyle changes, wildlife protection and progress in technology. From another perspective, arguments about that shed doubt on the factuality of the climate crisis and claim it  is not caused by human action. Supporters of this theory deny that humans or government entities owe any responsibility in addressing climate change. Contemporary policies and discussions review scientific evidence to support the claim that the largest and most important emitters of gas emissions are contributed by industrial-manmade activities. These disagreements concern the multiple political issues and questions regarding the fairness of who should be carrying the responsibility for solving the climate crisis, what are the best methods of doing so, how should they implement these policies and methods, and when it will be too late (Shue 2014, 127). Overall, denial of the existence of climate change and fierce debate about possible solutions widen pre-existing polarized democratic divides. 

     While the intergenerational ethics of climate change is a massive issue to resolve, global collaborations have formed to construct feasible environmentally-conscientious goals in technological progress and hold international players accountable for their carbon emissions. Recently, in the United States, several progressive political actors have been advocating for policy change and alternative energy sourcing. Notably, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasió-Cortez is taking discussions into her own hands to call for action in her respective countries. With respect to the negative impacts of intergenerational climate change and legislative movements, within the United States policy makers have the ethical responsibility to address and reverse damages;  amend and transform current approaches to how they embrace climate change as justice,  and consider how these issues disproportionately impact communities of color. 

The Responsibility to Reverse

     Conversations about personal responsibility for climate change consider who, as in particular actors, have the ability to influence change. While climate activists encourage support for lifestyle changes and renewable resources, political agents advocate for policy change and accountability by massive corporate industries. These approaches may be different, but they involve a common call for action by individuals in power.

     One of Shue’s arguments is that the main factor contributing to global warming is multimillionaires/billionaires being irresponsible with their businesses, investments, and the energy they expel in their economic activities, considering those make the greatest polluting impact (2014). Shue (2014) writes with an approach to distributive justice and states that inadequate drinking water, dangerous weather conditions like drought and floods, livestock and crop deficiency, human illness and death, and declining air quality are the visible consequences of climate change that are anthropogenic in nature. By not internalizing the costs of their activities, the largest gas emitters are imposing internal costs on other communities that lack the resources to defend themselves against climate-related injustices.

Legislative and Social Movements

     In order to address and resolve the issues of climate change and climate justice there is a need to acknowledge international actors. International partnerships and legislation are two key methods of accomplishing accountability. Historically, this is evidenced through 1) the Paris Agreement (PA) and 2) Conference of the Parties (COP). The Paris Agreement or Accords is a legally binding arrangement signed by 192 parties at the COP21, the 21st United Nations Climate Change Conference. According to the United Nations, the PA is a collection of “commitments from all countries to reduce their emissions and work together to adapt to the impacts of climate change, and calls on countries to strengthen their commitments over time” (2021). By providing pathways for global cooperation, climate goals, and transparent reporting,  this agreement calls for economic and social reforms in addition to financial and technological cooperation. By 2050, the PA aims to to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and “change the logic of international climate governance from a model of internationally negotiated—mutually agreed upon—and legally binding mitigation obligations for some parties to a pledge-and-review system without binding mitigation obligations for anybody” (Milkoreit 2019). This provides a pathway for developed nations to assist developing nations in their climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, while creating a framework for the transparent monitoring and reporting of countries’ climate goals. As of 2016, “over 7,000 cities from more than 99 countries, with a combined population of 794 million (11 percent of the global population)” had signed off on climate commitments (Hale 2016, 13). However, for the younger generation of representatives in the United States, the severity of the issue is not being addressed. Whereas constructive change may come after many years have passed, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasió-Cortez (D NY-14) argues that for people under the age of 40, the timelines for climate adjustment are not sufficient. Net-Zero by 2050 does not mean zero greenhouse gas emissions, but instead implies the continuous emission of fossil fuels like CO2 and methane so the amount of  greenhouse emissions are negated. From the perspective of millennial citizens and voters, older representatives are making decisions for a future society and determining the state of a planet they will not inherit. The common individual will not become heir to the immense wealth and resources that are necessary to shield oneself from the effects of climate injustice.

     When individual countries come together on the issue of climate change, they’re not operating autonomously as each independent nation must be in accordance with the domestic politics of each individual country. The transnational partnership to maintain accountability through yearly conferences occurs at COP, the Conference of Parties. The 26th conference was held in 2021 and welcomed over 30,000 global representatives who addressed climate change from political, grassroots, and technological perspectives (United Nations 2021). One argument advocates for renewable resources for energy. A common inquiry is whether countries still need to burn oil and gas to industrialize, and the answer to that lies in the obligation of the wealthiest countries. The numbers do not lie: “cost-optimization models, commonly used to inform policy, typically underplay the urgency of  2°C mitigation.” (Larkin et. al., 2018). Research by Larkin et. al. (2018) state that if wealthy nations decarbonize energy, then a development pathway opens to “make explicit an allowance for increasing emissions from industrializing nations,” however, “the distribution of cumulative emissions is disproportionately weighted towards wealthier and rapidly industrializing nations.” Within discussions about legislative movements for climate change, one of the most difficult conceptions is the practicality of all nations being on the same footing globally. This is where global collaboration is imperative. Wealthy nations such as China, the United States, Brazil, and India are capable of leading the  charge of  development of green technologies. For developing countries, there is a necessity in ensuring global diplomacy by sharing green technologies and working jointly towards solutions. 

     In addition to global actors spearheading legislative movements for climate justice, many smaller-scale efforts happen through social efforts that are critical in amending intergenerational injustices caused by climate change. Similarly in the way Puerto Rico had to reconsider it's social and energy infrastructure post-hurricane Maria, communities and nations need to reconsider energy grids and consumption; one alternative is community solar power. When communities react to the trauma of instability caused by the natural disasters of climate change, investing in solar energy within their own property can remove feelings of unease that come with being plugged into a massive centralized community-wide fossil fuel system. From an economic viewpoint, cooperative economies pose another challenge to transitioning to systems built on solar power and enacting progressive change to address climate change. Investing in independent and self-sustaining renewable energy sources like solar power, challenges big corporations since the economic model of cooperative economies allow workers to own the product that gives them power. Cutting out big business as the corporate-middleman allows the consumer to reinvest money into research and equipment technologies that can further the goals of green energy development. 

The Intersectionality of Climate and Racial Justice

     A 1984 report of Chem Waste garbage incineration in local communities in California’s San Joaquin valley found that rural, poor, and less educated areas were less likely to resist becoming incineration sites for chemical waste dumps (Mijin Cha 2007, 317). This can be referred to as the path of least resistance. As if these communities had not been subjected to economic and housing inequalities in the past, all of Chem Waste’s incinerators were built without collective consent and conveniently located in neighborhoods of 75% or more people of color (Mijin Cha 2007, 318). Chem Waste’s infractions continued in Chicago, when an incinerator blew up, projecting toxic waste and fumes. Rather than address the pollution issue, Chem Waste turned off the air monitoring equipment so no constituents would actually know the level of pollution contaminating the air (Mijin Cha 2007, 318). Disparate communities such as these are obsolete from the discussions that decide the fate of their health in regards to the protection or quality of water, air and land. Harlan et. al. (2015) writes

Climate injustice is caused by inequalities: the most politically, culturally, and economically marginalized communities and nations use vastly less fossil fuel–based energy and bear far less responsibility for creating environmental problems than do wealthier nations and people, who use far more than is needed for a decent quality of life.

In developed and western countries there is a lack of care and sensitivity by massive corporations with blatant disregard for their environmental impact. For example, corporations like Chem Waste, through a lack of representation of and input from people of color in the decision-making processes, perpetuate racial and socio-economic discrimination by forcing people of color to live with a disproportionate level of environmental harms. Issues of environmental injustice span from agriculture to toxic inner-city contamination and encompass aspects of socioeconomic identities like culture, race, gender, age, class and power relation.

     Considering the stark contrast between the quality of life in the poorest versus the richest parts of the world, controversies over the extent of human culpability propel responses to climate change to be disunified worldwide. Where wealthy countries have realized that their industrial activity has been destroying the ozone layer, they also acknowledge that industrialization is what fuels the economy (Shue 2014, 180). The Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) states that the corporation(s) responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions should be responsible for the future costs of restoration. On the contrary, Immanuel Kant objects and proposes it is unfair to hold people responsible for issues they did not or could not predictably foresee (Shue 2014, 184-185). The debate about the fairness of equitable distribution of responsibility is bewildering,  and it is made more complicated by the fact that the impacts of climate change are felt unevenly by Black and brown communities.

     The historical legacy of racial discrimination and disadvantaging communities of color stem from red-lining populations and residential segregation. Harlan et. al (2015) state that “these forces limit individuals’ capacity to choose where to live, thus frequently relegating these groups to highly polluted areas and restricting their mobility out of such compromised environments.” This research reflects how social and racial histories entwine with climate justice. As a luxury within the social hierarchy, wealthier communities primarily composed by white constituents are more likely to have access to protections in their infrastructure development that reinforce their safety against environmental threats. Whereas neighborhoods composed of  minority-low income residents and historically disadvantaged social groups are more likely to be faced with structural inequalities like poorer air quality, polluted waters, water shortages, and zoning into flood storms. Pollution inequity is a concept that disparately affects communities of color through air-related illness, especially in the Bronx, New York City. For instance, “Exhaust emitted by constant traffic on the four nearby highways, as well as from the printing presses of the Wall Street Journal, a parcel depot and sewage works” plague the air of “Asthma Alley”, the low-income neighborhood in Mott Haven (The Guardian, 2019). Asthma is a respiratory illness that disproportionately affects African Americans 36% more than white Americans (Harlan et. al. 2015). This trend of preventable illness and the exacerbation of pre-existing medical conditions as caused by climate change is the intersectionality of social, racial, and climate justice is a righteous cause for attention and concern. 

     The Green New Deal (GND) is a legislative and social movement that is highly attributed to Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasió-Cortez, as well as backed by other representatives in the United States. The GND is not only an economic recovery plan, but also an environmental solution to climate and social-racial injustice. The proposal aims to counteract intergenerational environmental and systemic injustices by securing a sustainable environment through clean air and water by applying pressure on other government actors to discontinue these contracts and hold companies that frack and expel harmful gasses in New York’s air and waterways accountable. (H. RES. 199, 2019). By addressing environmental and social inequality, the Green New Deal can transform the United States by investing in widely-accessible green methods of transportation, such as scooters and bikes in disadvantaged communities, guaranteeing access to clean water and air, and investing in community projects to reduce the impacts of systemic oppression.

Conclusion

 With respect to amending climate injustices and fixing climate crises, efforts to hold the largest countries as emitters of greenhouse gasses accountable while simultaneously encouraging grassroots efforts has resulted in global and intergenerational collaborations like the Paris Agreement and annual Conference of Parties. Through legislative and social movements, attention has been  placed on the intersectional complexities of climate and socio-racial injustice. Although this topic has become a point of contention and political debate, the effects of climate change and injustices disparately experienced by communities of color are factual and legitimate. Possible resolutions propose green energy resourcing, distributive justice, and tests of accountability. However, there is always more that can be done to rectify the effects of climate crisis as caused by mass industrialization. While there are limitations, such as how Harlan et. al. (2015) exposes that “technological changes in energy and industrial production frequently produce new environmental inequalities and vast disparities between the privileged and the disadvantaged in exposure to climate-related hazards and risks associated with increasing emissions,” this does not imply that the repercussions of climate injustice are irreparable.  Major liabilities and lives are at stake if global leaders believe this falsehood. The hazards and risks are more costly than any attempt to pass legislation such as the Green New Deal which would address many of the systemic inequities caused by climate change and injustice. Sustainability, in dynamic terms, requires consistency, partnership, and accountability. Moreover, change requires courage, and addressing the intergenerational ethics and injustices of climate crisis involves humans making an effort at social reform and progressive legislation. 

References

Hale. Thomas. 2016. “All Hands on Deck: The Paris Agreement and Nonstate Climate Action". Global Environmental Politics 16 (3): 12–22. 

Harlan, Sharon L, David Pellow, J. Timmons Roberts, Shannon Elizabeth Bell. 2015. “Climate Justice and Inequality”. Climate Change and Society: Sociological perspectives, 127-163.

Hazar Kilani. 2019. “‘Asthma Alley’: Why minorities bear burden of pollution inequity caused by white people.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/04/new-york-south-bronx-minorities-pollution-inequity (Accessed Dec 5, 2021)

Larkin, Alice, Jaise Kuriakose, Sharmina, Maria Sharmina, Kevin Anderson. 2018. “What if negative emission technologies fail at scale? : Implications of the Paris Agreement for big emitting nations.” Climate Policy, 18(6), 690–714.

Mijin Cha, J. 2007. “Access to Environmental Justice in the United States: Embracing Environmental and Social Concerns to Achieve Environmental Justice.” Access to Environmental Justice: A Comparative Study 11: 317–54. 

Milkoreit, Manjana. 2019. “The Paris Agreement on Climate Change—Made in USA?” Perspectives on Politics 17(4): 1019–37.

Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. 2019. H. RES 109 https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf

Shue, Henry. 2014. Climate justice: Vulnerability and protection. Oxford University Press.

The United Nations. 2021. “The Paris Agreement.” https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/paris-agreement (accessed Dec 7, 2021)