Saving our planet, lifting people out of poverty, advancing economic growth…these are one and the same fight.

Ban Ki-Moon, former UN Secretary General

Like most things in the climate change sphere, there isn’t a singular definition of climate justice – that’s because it is still evolving from its embryonic stages and, of course, the conditions are shifting (the clue is in change really isn’t it). There are a lot of climate claims, actors in different sociopolitical positions, local, national and international mechanisms and, of course, victims, often marginalised groups that are given little space on this busy stage. But it is within this vast stakeholder landscape that we must gain common ground on what just climate action looks like.

I’ll say now though folks, the quest for that common ground is a difficult one – Frodo and Sam’s quest to Mordor difficult (you’re welcome LOTR fans). The reason being that matters of climate justice are not isolated; the intersectionality between climate change and social justices is, in my humble opinion, an inevitability. Why? 1. Existing exposures to climate risks are inherently linked to things like socioeconomic position, race, gender and more and 2.  adaptation and mitigation strategies (see my other post for a refresher on these) as a response to climate risks can influence power dynamics. In essence, to what degree climate change impacts are felt now and how climate actions advantage (or disadvantage) is a result of inequalities. For an example of 1, a crop farmer will be more impacted by extreme weathers than a businessman – the farmer’s livelihood is at higher risk and they likely have little capital to fall back on should a harvest be wiped out. And for 2. If a policymaker introduces additional free climate change education that is only available in the cities, that disadvantages the rural communities that, in developed countries tend towards the extremely poor, and generally women, who may have less time beyond existing caregiving and working duties to undertake education in their own time. Of course both the above are dependent on the society they happen within and how deep those inequalities lie.

So climate justice matters big time – it governs how we understand who is most vulnerable and what effective measures should be put in place to help. I won’t be covering non-human climate justice in this piece, instead we’ll walk through the various approaches to climate justice before taking this for a test drive on a live case study of which is a deeply urgent one: the islands of Kiribati. We’ll end by reflecting on the various arguments applied to the case study and I’ll also call out some limitations of current climate justice too (yep, I like to indulge my cynicism from time to time). Jovial tone to one side, I find this topic to be one of the most crucial aspects of how we, the human race, act on climate change going forward. I hope this piece enables you to think critically about climate stories and strategies; importantly questioning justice for who?

First things first, what is climate justice?

Here, I’ll skoot through some widely regarded approaches to climate justice, before looking at how these approaches intersect with other forms:

Historic responsibility. Otherwise referred to as ‘distributive justice’ this tends to be the most widely acknowledged approach to come from in relation to climate justice. In its simplest form, it means however much you take is what you should ‘pay’ back – a ‘climate debt’ (Schlosberg et. al, 2013). This is the basis of current COP talks on ‘losses and damages’; pointing the proverbial finger at developed nations in credit for their historic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions owed to those most exposed to the effects. Taken further, the ethical point that environmental goods and risks should be equally shared is present here. This was developed by the 2002 Earth Summit in Bali focusing on climate justice, of which the attendees aligned on a principle of ‘’common but differentiated responsibilities‘ given the varying rates by which societies exploit or, on the other hand, nurture the environment.

Procedural justice. Whilst the above looks at how commodities and impacts are shared out (the what), it doesn’t look at the ‘how’. ​​Forysth defines this as “the mechanisms by which we define, as well as distribute, objectives fairly” (Forsyth, 2014). Analogy time: If I was a judge (I wish…) and made a sentencing decision based on little evidence, a pally relationship with the prosecution barrister and some dodgy witnesses, you’d question the way in which that decision on justice has been performed. Turning this to climate change then, this is an evaluation of mechanisms like COPs on an international scale, environmental policymaking on a national scale, down to community townhall decision making on the very local scale.

Participatory justice. This one is a bit ‘what it says on the tin’. We’ve covered the ‘what’ and ‘how’, so this one looks at the ‘who’. Back to me as a judge analogy (I really think I’d suit the wig you know), if the decision I passed was without equally hearing cases from both sides and just from my prosecuting mate, you’d likely argue the defendant was not justly given trial as they have not been represented. Thinking about scale here is particularly important – if national policies are made without local representation such as marginalised groups being represented accurately or livelihoods specific to certain regions, this has the very real danger of deepening inequalities, increasing the power divide between those who wield it and those who don’t. A common criticism of climate change strategies is the exclusion of indigenous communities in decision making. Why? Do they hold power in the socially constructed context? There’s your answer.

Intersecting justices. I made the point at the start about climate justice being inherently linked to other social justices. I think this because the impacts and actions of our environment are widespread: livelihood, health, access to food and water to name just a few. Common social justices include a right to a life out of poverty, a right to education, a right to equal treatment regardless of ethnic background – all of these intersect when considering a changing climate. And this isn’t surprising, because the environment itself is the frame for these justices – it is literally where these things happen. Many believe intersectional analysis is a requirement of climate action, a  “radically cross-disciplinary stance” (Lykke 2010) on what we do based on care and attention across scales, social groups and other categories relevant for the given decision. This way, we can begin to tackle social injustices through climate justice.

What is happening in Kiribati?

The Background

 Kiribati is a region spanning 33 islands in the mid Pacific between Hawaii and Australia. The region is particularly low lying, with no part rising more than 2 metres above sea level.  Therefore this makes it one of the highest risk areas of permanent sea cover due to sea level rise from global warming and ice sheet melting, levels rising by 3.2 mm annually since 1993 (IPCC, 2018). Historically, the islands were once colonised by the British up until 1979 where they became an independent region, and have also been used in the past for nuclear weaponary testing. It is not surprising that the historic emissions of the region has been approximated to 0.6% of the global emissions pot.

The Situation

The climate change risks are already being realised; a 2016 UN report revealed that half of households have already been affected by sea level rise on Kiritimati, an island in the region. Displacement of the 100,000 inhabitants is already happening, with 1 in 7 migrations as a result of the changing environment (Alexis-Martin et. al, 2019). Storm surges and flooding have become more often and more severe, becoming ‘scary at times’ and causing ‘huge outcry’ from local communities according to the regional president Taneti Maamu (Milman, 2022). The results have been contamination of food and water supplies, reducing marine fish supply important to the livelihoods of the locals and, of course, damage to property. It is worth noting too that the average age of Kiribati is just 22, useful when we get to the next section on applying climate justice.

The current climate action considerations

There are a few adaptation routes that could be taken to support the lives of the Kiribati people. Here are 3 of them:

• Relocation. The ‘migrate with dignity’ programme was established by the region, looking at the upskilling of locals as the enabling factor in them relocating internationally. The government has purchased 6000 hectares in Fiji too, predominantly to improve food security, but also as a fall back option for locals to move to. Also, the UN has requested that other countries like Australia and New Zealand adopt an open migration policy for seasonal workers, but only New Zealand has acted on this with the ‘Pacific Access Ballot’ – 75 Kiribati people are selected to migrate annually, albeit some question whether this yearly quota is being met.  
• Artificially raise up the land. This process would involve dredging up large amounts of sediment on the sea floor and placing this on top of the islands. Similar approaches were used in the famous Palm in Dubai, albeit the sand making up the islands were taken from exploded mountainous sediment. Alternatively, the option of creating floating platforms has been…floated… which are already used by the likes of petrol companies, but taken off the table due to high cost. Note that this option proves the most costly, estimates placing it in the billions of dollars. 
• Introduce soft and hard defences. Locals have attempted to build their own sea walls made from coral. Obviously these have proven futile to surges, but of course more investment could be offered to build these substantially. Soft defences like mangrove reforestation have also been supported as well as fortifying the coastal areas.

What does climate justice for Kiribati look like?

Let’s apply all 3 approaches to see what insights they unlock, alongside some intersections too. No doubt you may be able to think of some more.

From an historic responsibility point of view, it is clear that Kiribati is ‘owed’ reparations from developed nations given its breadcrumb 0.6% emissions and fatal exposure to sea level rise, flooding and tropical storms. So support should be provided to support existing damage done from climate change by those industrial high emitting countries, covering loss of livelihood, infrastructure and even value of significant natural resources like coral and forest. Worth saying though that attribution science may prove increasingly important in future to prove that environmental disasters are a result of climate change, and not natural climate variability.

But beyond this straightforward point, is support to enable ‘relocation’ justice? On an international scale, Kiribati wields little economic power – no major exports, not a tourist destination and, not forgetting, it has a past of colonial rule. So, in decisions to advocate relocation, are we hearing what justice looks like from the inhabitants themselves or from other countries who may be footing the bill? We know the UN itself has supported open borders migration, but is the UN not itself a design construct of those in power? Yes, procedural and participatory justice are the basis of this point. The president noted that the inhabitants generally wish to stay in the lands they’ve called home for generations, Maanu saying “We’ve been here for over 2,000 years, how can you convince us that our islands are going to disappear?” Therefore climate strategies around relocation, as much as some argue it promises a more prosperous economic position in wealthier countries, overlooks the value the Kiribati people link to their land culturally and is a biased viewpoint, let alone discounts those with disabilities who cannot easily relocate. Value to Kiribati people is not the same as value to those from a developed country. Given the younger average age of the population and largely lacking education on international politics and climate change compared to the western world, again this would point to an exclusion from decision making in international forums.

So why not go for option B and artificially raise the land? As the climate scientist Simon Donner states, ‘this is a question of resources. If Kiribati was off the coast of Los Angeles you’d say it was doable.’ (Milman, 2022). Explicitly here we intersect with socioeconomic justices, where the poorer nations may be given less options despite historically being owed much from developing country colonisation and emissions. Procedural justice for loss and damage? Well it hasn’t been defined yet, given the major outcome of COP27 this year was a promise for this funding approach to be defined no later than 2024. But (stay with me here) given it’s been decades of underdeveloped countries asking for this approach to be defined, is that not a sign of procedural injustice?

I’ll end this section by making a tragic and darkly ironic point that I make clear isn’t backed up explicitly by anything I have read  – if there were fossil fuel ventures from the large international corporations in the region this may be a different story. Given they have significant political and economic power to lobby for alternatives than losing their capital on a Kiribati island, isn’t it likely raising land and implementing defences would be chosen and quickfast? Recently, there has been talk of China’s involvement in the region but this is speculation. There are unconfirmed claims that, in return for funding, China may have access to Kiribati land for military base use and access to ocean zones for exclusive fishing rights. If this does prove to be true, historical social injustices are allowed to repeat through climate change, and Kiribati returns to a similar colonial past.

Wrapping up...

I hope you had some further thoughts on climate justice in Kiribati, perhaps even challenged the points I’ve made. And that I suppose is the criticism of climate justice; there are several interpretations, and no clear legislation. Law and justice must be as polarised as possible in order to be abided by, but we don’t have that in relation to climate change (yet), making it more susceptible to abuse in the grey areas. Also, a problem with scaling is present. What appears to be justice on an international scale (like relocation in Kiribati) may not be justice on a different scale. 

One promising point is a notion of transformational adaptation in climate justice. I don’t just like it because it sounds exciting (as anything labelled transformation does) but because, at its core philosophy, it is about newly forming the environment, not defending the existing one. I’ve described this as going  ‘beyond zero’ (net zero pun intentional!) – not just maintaining the same, but constructing a new, fairer environment for all (Fisher, 2015). It may be in its radical infancy, but I hope it grows more defined legs. 

To round off, whilst researching and writing this I was thinking about the potential for climate justice. Can it mature, be defined and prevail in such a geopolitically charged setting, facing into a forest of power structures and inequalities? Perhaps too soon to tell. Regardless of if it matures legally, the just question we should at least be asking is whether specific sufferings as a result of climate change or climate actions put in place are ‘right’. However, my fear is that too often the implicit question asked is ‘do we care’,with ‘we’ being those in power. If an island sinks, does it make a sound?

References:

• Milman, O., ‘No safe place’: Kiribati seeks donors to raise islands from encroaching seas’, The Guardian (2022), available here.
• Alexis-Martin, B., Dyke, J., Turnbull, Malin, S., ‘How to save a sinking island nation’, BBC Future (2019) available here.
• Anon., ‘Kiribati and climate change’, Iberdrola, available here
• Kaijser, A. and A. Kronsell ‘Climate change through the lens of intersectionality’  , Environmental politics 23(3) 2014, pp.417–433.
• Schlosberg, D. and L.B. Collins ‘From environmental to climate justice: climate change and the discourse of environmental justice’ , Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 5(3) 2014, pp.359–374. 
• Forsyth, T. ‘Climate justice is not just ice’, Geoforum 54 2014, pp.230–232. 
• Fisher, S. ‘The emerging geographies of climate justice’, The Geographical Journal 181(1) 2015, pp.73–82, available here.
• ‘Attributing extreme weather events’, Climate and Development Knowledge Network, 2017, available here. Last accessed 29/11/22.