Rethinking Climate Justice: Insights from Environmental Sociology

Abstract

This paper reexamines climate justice through the framework of environmental sociology, offering fresh perspectives on the intersection of social and ecological systems in the face of escalating global climate crises. It emphasizes that inequality lies at the heart of global climate politics, often obstructing pathways toward achieving a true climate solution. Drawing from established traditions within environmental sociology—such as the new ecological paradigm, the post-growth society, and the environmental justice paradigm—the paper advocates for profound systemic and structural reforms in political and economic systems to tackle entrenched inequalities. By integrating these frameworks, the paper proposes a comprehensive model of climate justice, encompassing material, procedural, compensatory, and transformative dimensions of justice. This holistic approach not only addresses environmental sustainability but also prioritizes social equity, ensuring that marginalized communities are included in the global response to climate change. The paper thus positions this model as a critical component of broader environmental and social transformation.

1. Introduction

Climate change is not just an environmental crisis but also a profound sociological issue, deeply intertwined with socio-structural factors that shape human behavior, institutions, and power relations [1,2,3,4,5]. Its effects are felt globally, but the burdens are unevenly distributed, with marginalized communities often bearing the brunt of its consequences [5,6,7]. This disparity highlights the urgent need for climate justice, which seeks to address the inequities in both the causes and impacts of climate change. At its core, the fight for climate justice is a call for the transformation of social, political, and economic structures that perpetuate environmental degradation and inequality.

Environmental sociology plays a critical role in understanding the multifaceted nature of climate change. It examines how institutions, cultural beliefs, values, and social practices contribute to environmental destruction and offers insights into how these systems can be transformed to promote sustainability and equity. As such, climate change is a deeply sociological concern [1,3,8]. Sociology brings two essential approaches to the study of climate change: first, it provides tools to analyze the causes and consequences of the crisis, and second, it offers a form of social critique that challenges dominant socio-economic practices and belief systems [1,9,10,11,12,13]. This essay explores the environmental sociology of climate change, with a particular focus on the need for climate justice, by expanding on these ideas.

Climate change is primarily socio-structural in nature, driven by human activities embedded within broader systems of production, consumption, and governance. These activities, particularly those related to the extraction and use of fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial agriculture, are deeply rooted in global capitalist systems that prioritize economic growth over ecological sustainability [8,14]. The environmental consequences of these practices are vast, from rising global temperatures to more frequent extreme weather events, and these impacts are disproportionately experienced by vulnerable populations, particularly in the Global South.

As Islam and Kieu note, climate change is not just a product of human actions but of the social systems that facilitate those actions [8]. For instance, global economic structures incentivize the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, while political institutions often fail to adequately regulate or mitigate the environmental impacts of industrial activities. Moreover, cultural beliefs that equate progress with material consumption and technological advancement further entrench unsustainable practices. This socio-structural understanding of climate change emphasizes the need for systemic change to address both the root causes and the unequal impacts of the crisis [15,16,17].

Social structures and climate change are deeply interconnected, with feedback loops that reinforce and reshape one another. Environmental degradation, driven by industrialization, consumption patterns, and unequal power dynamics, exacerbates social inequalities, creating vulnerabilities for marginalized communities. In turn, these vulnerabilities can intensify environmental exploitation, as economically disadvantaged groups are often forced to rely on resource-intensive practices for survival. Simultaneously, the degradation of natural systems—such as deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and climate-induced disasters—strains social systems, leading to challenges like mass displacement, health crises, and resource conflicts. These pressures feed back into political and economic structures, often perpetuating cycles of inequality, overconsumption, and ecological harm. Understanding these dynamic interactions is crucial to addressing the root causes of climate change and reimagining social systems in ways that promote resilience and equity while safeguarding the environment [1,3,8,15,16,17].

In this review essay, we will provide a concise exploration of the sociological perspective on climate change, highlighting the critical role sociological approaches play in understanding the complex dynamics of the climate crisis. We will examine how social structures, power relations, and inequalities shape both the causes and consequences of climate change. Furthermore, the essay will discuss how global inequality presents significant barriers to effective international climate negotiations, often marginalizing the voices of the most vulnerable. Finally, we will emphasize the importance of adopting a social justice framework in addressing the climate crisis, arguing that equitable solutions are essential to ensure that the burdens and benefits of climate action are fairly distributed across different communities and regions.

After this brief introduction, Section 2 of the paper delves into sociological approaches to climate change, exploring how these perspectives illuminate the social dimensions of the climate crisis. Section 3 shifts the focus to the pressing need for a social justice framework, examining various forms of inequality and injustice that exacerbate climate impacts. In Section 4, the paper draws on three key traditions in environmental sociology—the new ecological paradigm, post-growth society, and environmental justice paradigms—to develop an integrative climate justice model. This model offers a comprehensive framework that addresses both environmental sustainability and social equity. Finally, Section 5 concludes by discussing the broader implications of this new climate justice model, considering its potential to influence future policy, research, and global climate governance.

2. Sociological Approaches to Climate Change

As alluded to earlier, sociology brings two distinct and advantageous approaches to understanding and addressing climate change. First, it provides the tools to analyze the social dimensions of the crisis, including its causes, consequences, and potential solutions. Second, it offers a form of social critique that challenges the dominant ideologies and practices that contribute to environmental degradation [3,18].

2.1. Analyzing the Causes and Consequences of Climate Change

One of the key contributions of sociology to the study of climate change is its ability to analyze the social forces that drive environmental degradation. Sociologist Robert Brulle and his colleagues, for example, argue that climate change is not simply the result of individual actions but is deeply embedded in social structures, particularly those related to capitalism and neoliberalism [19]. These systems prioritize economic growth and the accumulation of wealth, often at the expense of environmental sustainability. The result is a global economy that is dependent on fossil fuels, deforestation, and other environmentally destructive practices [1,8,14,20,21,22,23,24].

In addition to examining the causes of climate change, sociology also provides insights into its social consequences. Climate change disproportionately affects marginalized groups, including low-income communities, indigenous peoples, and nations in the Global South. These groups often have less capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and food insecurity. As such, the environmental crisis is also a social justice issue, with the most vulnerable populations bearing the brunt of its effects [25,26].

Climate justice, therefore, demands not only the mitigation of climate change but also the redistribution of resources and power to ensure that marginalized communities are protected and empowered to adapt to the changing climate. This requires a critical examination of global economic and political systems, as well as the development of policies that prioritize equity and sustainability.

2.2. Social Critique: Challenging Dominant Ideologies and Practices

The second key contribution of sociology to the study of climate change is its role in providing social critique. Sociologists have long challenged the belief systems and practices that contribute to environmental degradation, particularly those related to capitalism, consumerism, and technological optimism [14,23,24,27]. One of the central critiques offered by sociologists is the reliance on technical fixes as a solution to climate change. While technological innovations such as renewable energy and carbon capture are undoubtedly important, they are insufficient to address the deeper social and economic structures that drive environmental degradation [14,15,16,17,18]. As Giddens argues, the belief that climate change can be solved through technology alone ignores the fact that human behavior is shaped by social, political, and economic forces [2]. Without addressing the underlying social drivers of climate change, technological solutions are likely to be limited in their effectiveness [28,29,30].

Moreover, scholars such as Naomi Klein have critiqued the capitalist economic system for its role in driving environmental destruction. Klein argues that capitalism’s emphasis on growth and consumption is fundamentally incompatible with the ecological limits of the planet [5]. Addressing climate change, therefore, requires a fundamental transformation of the global economic system, one that prioritizes sustainability and equity over profit and growth. This critique challenges the dominant economic paradigm and calls for a more holistic approach to addressing climate change.

Addressing climate change as a global public good is integral to the principles of climate justice, as its benefits—such as reduced emissions and a stabilized climate—are non-excludable and shared globally, regardless of who bears the costs. However, the unequal capacities and historical responsibilities of nations create challenges in ensuring equitable contributions to global efforts. The free-rider problem, as highlighted by Nordhaus, disproportionately impacts marginalized nations that are least responsible for historical emissions yet suffer the most from climate change [31]. These nations often lack the resources to adapt or mitigate its effects, leaving them reliant on robust international agreements to ensure fair burden-sharing. Without multilateral cooperation grounded in justice, wealthier nations may continue to benefit from the sacrifices of others while avoiding accountability, exacerbating global inequalities. Reframing the global public goods nature of climate action through a climate justice lens underscores the urgency of transformative international policies that prioritize equity, shared responsibility, and support for vulnerable communities.

2.3. Moral and Ethical Foundations of Climate Justice

As alluded to earlier, climate change is not solely a scientific issue but is deeply intertwined with social justice, as its effects disproportionately impact vulnerable populations. The sociological approach to climate justice examines the environmental challenges alongside social inequalities and power structures that dictate who bears the most severe consequences. This exploration of the moral and political foundations of climate justice focuses on environmental justice and climate ethics, drawing on the works of philosophers such as David Schlosberg and Simon Caney, and delving into debates on compensatory and distributive justice, as well as the polluter pays principle [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32].

The concept of environmental justice, which gained prominence through grassroots movements in the 1970s and 1980s, centers on the disproportionate harm experienced by marginalized communities, particularly those with limited political or economic power. As David Schlosberg argues, environmental justice is not just about the distribution of environmental goods and harms—it also involves recognizing the rights of affected communities and ensuring their participation in decision-making processes. Schlosberg highlights three key dimensions: equitable distribution, recognition of marginalized groups, and inclusive participation in environmental governance [33,34,35].

Building on these principles, climate justice extends the discussion to a global scale, recognizing that climate change impacts nations and generations unequally. Climate ethics, a branch of moral philosophy, examines the fairness and responsibilities related to addressing climate change. Simon Caney, a prominent figure in climate ethics, has developed a framework that addresses ethical questions about who should bear the costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change. He emphasizes two dimensions: distributive justice, which considers how the costs and benefits of climate action should be shared across populations and generations, and corrective justice, which calls for reparations to those suffering from the actions of high-emission nations [33].

Unlike some minimalist approaches that focus solely on reducing individual emissions, Caney advocates a more comprehensive, egalitarian framework. He argues that wealthy nations, historically the largest contributors to climate change, have an obligation to assist poorer nations in adapting to its effects [32,33,34]. This aligns with the polluter pays principle, which asserts that those responsible for environmental damage should cover the costs of mitigating its consequences. In summary, the moral and ethical foundation of climate justice calls for an equitable approach to addressing the global, intergenerational impacts of climate change, emphasizing fairness, historical responsibility, and inclusive governance. Section 3 below adumbrates more on the critical need for climate justice.

3. The Imperative for Climate Justice

Climate justice is a concept that has gained prominence in recent years as activists, scholars, and policymakers have recognized the unequal distribution of the causes and impacts of climate change. It emphasizes the need to address the disproportionate burden of climate change on marginalized communities, particularly those in the Global South and in low-income communities in the Global North.

3.1. Inequality in Suffering from Climate Change

One of the key dimensions of inequality in addressing climate change is the disproportionate suffering experienced by poorer nations compared to wealthier ones [36]. The world’s most vulnerable populations, especially those in developing countries, bear the brunt of climate-related disasters for two reasons. First, they experience more frequent climate disasters, and second, their limited resources and capacities make them ill-prepared to manage and recover from these events [30,36,37,38].

According to Beck’s risk society theory, modern societies are defined by the anticipation of unprecedented risks, including the unpredictability of climate change. However, Beck’s view of these risks being equally distributed does not reflect the reality of the unequal burden borne by different nations. Islam’s concept of a “double-risk society” offers a more accurate framework to examine these disparities, highlighting that the Global South is far more vulnerable to climate-related risks than the Global North due to limited resources and the larger share of global risks they receive [4].

In developing nations, the impact of climate disasters is magnified by a lack of financial, technological, and institutional capacities. For example, an earthquake in 1973 in Nicaragua resulted in over 6000 deaths, while a similar earthquake in 1971 in California resulted in just 56. This discrepancy illustrates the stark differences in risk management between rich and poor nations [39]. While both are exposed to risks, poorer nations are disproportionately affected due to inadequate infrastructure and preparation [40,41].

The Global South not only faces higher environmental risks but also receives a larger share of harmful environmental externalities. Toxic waste and hazardous materials are often offloaded onto these nations from wealthier countries. This redistribution of environmental burdens worsens their plight, creating a cycle of vulnerability in which the least responsible countries bear the heaviest impacts [4,42,43,44,45]. This disparity highlights the need to integrate new research that focuses on the economic implications of climate change across different global regions. For instance, Meierrieks and Stadelmann provide compelling evidence on how climate change exacerbates inequalities, affecting economic stability and growth in developing regions more severely than in affluent areas [46]. By incorporating this perspective, the analysis can present a more nuanced understanding of climate change’s multifaceted economic consequences, emphasizing the urgent need for equitable climate action that addresses these disparities.

Moreover, acknowledging inequalities in climate impacts and responsibilities (more below) is essential but framing them solely as a “Global North” versus “Global South” issue oversimplifies the dynamics. Marginalized communities in the Global North face disproportionate vulnerabilities while industrializing nations in the Global South contribute growing emissions. Effective climate policies must address disparities within and between nations, considering intersectional factors like class, race, and economic development.

3.2. Inequities in Responsibility for Climate Change

Developed countries are largely responsible for the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions driving climate change, yet it is the developing nations that suffer the most from its consequences. Data and case studies show that wealthier nations such as the U.S., Germany, and Russia historically remain top contributors to carbon dioxide emissions per capita. In contrast, countries like Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Nigeria, which emit less than one ton per capita, are disproportionately affected by climate-related disasters [4,25,30]. This inequality is glaring in regions like Africa, where climate change has exacerbated existing challenges like droughts and floods. African nations contribute less than 8% of global emissions, yet suffer immensely from climate change impacts. Similarly, small island states are threatened by rising sea levels, unpredictable weather patterns, and devastating storms, despite contributing little to GHG emissions (see,

Table 1. Inequality in Contributions to and Impacts from Climate Change.

Region or Community	Contribution to Climate Change	Impacts of Climate Change	Case Studies
Sub-Saharan Africa	Accounts for less than 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions.	Experiences severe droughts, leading to food insecurity and displacement.	The 2011 East Africa drought affected over 13 million people, causing widespread famine [49].
Small Island Developing States (SIDS)	Contribute less than 1% to global emissions.	Face existential threats from sea-level rise, increased storm intensity, and coastal erosion.	The Maldives is at risk of becoming uninhabitable due to rising sea levels [50].
Indigenous Communities in the Amazon	Minimal carbon footprint due to traditional lifestyles.	Suffer from deforestation and biodiversity loss, impacting livelihoods and cultural heritage.	The Yanomami people face health crises due to environmental degradation [51].
Bangladesh	Low per capita emissions, approximately 0.5 metric tons of CO2 per person annually.	Highly vulnerable to cyclones, flooding, and salinization of arable land.	The 2007 Cyclone Sidr resulted in over 3000 deaths and displaced millions [52].
Arctic Indigenous Peoples	Negligible contribution to global emissions.	Experience rapid warming, affecting traditional hunting and fishing practices.	The Inuit communities face food insecurity due to declining ice cover [53].
Pakistan	Contributes less than 1% to global emissions.	Endures extreme weather events, including floods and heatwaves.	The 2022 floods affected over 33 million people, causing significant loss of life and property [54].

). Their very existence is at risk, as evidenced by the erosion of islands like the Kinilailau Islands [47,48].

The Table 1 illustrates the disparity between contributions to climate change and its impacts across various regions and communities, highlighting specific case studies to underscore these inequalities.

The inequities in responsibility and suffering from climate change highlight the issue of climate injustice. Developing countries, which are the least responsible for climate change, are the ones most affected by it. Without addressing these inequalities, the gap between those contributing to and those suffering from climate change will only widen. Along with this general pattern in which developed countries bear historical responsibility for emissions, it is essential to acknowledge the evolving nature of climate accountability, particularly with the rising contributions of fast-developing nations like China and India. Industrialization remains crucial for economic growth and poverty alleviation in these countries, but their growing emissions underscore the importance of a balanced approach that recognizes shared but differentiated responsibilities.

3.3. Power Imbalance in Global Climate Negotiations

Inequality in power dynamics also plagues the international response to climate change. In forums such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Conference of the Parties (COPs), poorer nations often find their interests marginalized. Wealthy nations, armed with superior financial and technical resources, dominate negotiations. They are backed by a large cadre of experts, while poorer nations lack the personnel and resources to effectively advocate for their interests [55,56]. For instance, most climate research, including that conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is produced by scientists from the Global North. As a result, the IPCC reports tend to focus more on adaptive policies that benefit wealthier countries, rather than mitigation strategies favored by developing nations. This imbalance in scientific and technical expertise skews climate negotiations in favor of wealthier countries, leaving poorer nations at a disadvantage [5,56].

An example of this power imbalance was seen during the 6th COP in The Hague in 2000, when the Group of 77 (G77) and China expressed dissatisfaction with decisions made in secretive “Green Room” meetings attended only by wealthier nations. The exclusion of poorer nations from key negotiations reflects the systemic marginalization of their interests in international climate talks [25,56].

3.4. Economic and Political Vulnerabilities

Developing nations are also constrained by their economic and political vulnerabilities. Many are burdened by debt and subject to the conditions imposed by multilateral financial institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). These institutions often prioritize the interests of wealthier nations, further weakening the bargaining power of developing countries [57,58,59]. The structural adjustment policies imposed on developing nations in the wake of the 1980s debt crisis undermined their national sovereignty and weakened their collective negotiating power. The process of debt management has made these nations more vulnerable to foreign influence, limiting their ability to pursue independent climate policies [4,60,61].

Moreover, developing countries often find themselves locked into global supply chains where they are responsible for resource extraction and industrial production, while the environmental burdens, including pollution and GHG emissions, are outsourced from wealthier nations. This dynamic exacerbates the environmental degradation in developing countries, while wealthier nations reap the economic benefits without bearing the full environmental costs. In another twist of irony, the World Bank, which has funded numerous polluting projects in the Global South, was appointed interim trustee of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) in 2010. This fund was established to help developing nations cope with climate change, with the aim of raising $100 billion annually by 2020. However, the involvement of the World Bank raises concerns about the potential conflicts of interest in how climate funds are managed and distributed [5,55,62,63].

The critique of organizations like the World Bank and IMF is important, given their significant influence on global climate adaptation efforts. However, a more balanced analysis is needed to capture their dual roles in both supporting and constraining progress. On one hand, these institutions provide critical funding and technical assistance for climate adaptation projects in vulnerable regions, enabling infrastructure development, disaster resilience, and renewable energy transitions. On the other hand, their structural adjustment programs and loan conditions have often exacerbated economic vulnerabilities, limiting the capacity of some nations to prioritize long-term climate resilience. By examining how these organizations can either alleviate or perpetuate inequalities—depending on their policies and funding frameworks—this discussion could provide a more nuanced understanding of their complex impact on climate justice.

3.5. Fragmentation and Weakening of Developing Nations’ Negotiating Power

The political and economic vulnerabilities of developing nations have also led to fragmentation in their collective negotiating power. The once-unified “G77 + China” bloc, consisting of 134 developing countries, has splintered into various ad hoc groups such as BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China), the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America). Each group prioritizes its own interests in climate negotiations, weakening the collective bargaining position of developing nations [5,55]. This fragmentation was evident in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord and the subsequent Cancun Agreement in 2010, where the collective power of developing nations was diminished. The pursuit of national advantage and economic interests has led to a lack of unity among developing nations, further weakening their ability to influence global climate policy [4,5].

3.6. Obstacles to North–South Cooperation on Climate Change

The unequal distribution of power and responsibility in the global political and economic system has created major obstacles to international cooperation on climate change. Despite the success of the UNFCCC in engaging 154 states and the European Union in climate talks, disagreements over the principle of “differentiated responsibilities” have hindered progress [47]. Wealthier nations, particularly the U.S., have been reluctant to commit to legally binding emission reductions, especially when fast-developing countries like China and India are not subject to similar restrictions. The U.S., for example, delayed its participation in the Kyoto Protocol, demanding that key developing nations also commit to emission reductions. Ultimately, the U.S. withdrew from the Protocol in 2001, citing concerns about its economic competitiveness [5,55].

At the same time, developing nations argue that they should not bear the same responsibilities as wealthier countries, given their historical contributions to climate change and their need for economic development. Countries like China and India insist on their right to industrialize and have demanded that developed nations take responsibility for their own emissions [5,62].

3.7. The Role of Grassroots Movements

Grassroots movements have played a crucial role in advocating for climate justice, challenging the dominant systems of power and calling for more equitable and sustainable approaches to environmental governance. Movements such as the Global Climate Strike, led by young activists like Greta Thunberg, have brought attention to the need for urgent action on climate change, while indigenous movements around the world have emphasized the importance of protecting traditional lands and resources from environmental degradation [6,63]. These movements highlight the intersection of environmental and social justice, emphasizing that climate change cannot be addressed without also addressing issues of inequality, marginalization, and exploitation. The fight for climate justice, therefore, is not only about mitigating the effects of climate change but also about transforming the systems of power that perpetuate environmental and social inequality.

4. Towards an Integrated Climate Justice Approach

Environmental sociology provides critical frameworks for understanding the intersection of social systems and environmental crises, offering insights into how societies can achieve climate justice. Among the most influential paradigms are the new ecological paradigm (NEP), the post-growth society, and the environmental justice paradigm. I chose these paradigms because they collectively offer a comprehensive sociological lens to address the complex socio-structural dimensions of climate justice. While alternative frameworks may provide valuable insights, my aim is to ground the discussion in paradigms that specifically focus on the social critique of environmental degradation and systemic inequalities. Together, these approaches form the basis for a comprehensive sociological model of climate justice that includes material justice, procedural justice, compensatory justice, and transformative justice. This section will first elaborate on these paradigms and then propose a unified model of climate justice.

4.1. The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP)

The new ecological paradigm (NEP), developed by Riley Dunlap and colleagues, challenges the traditional human-centered or anthropocentric worldview. It argues for a more eco-centric perspective, one that recognizes the interconnectedness of humans with the natural world (see

Table 2. Key Principles of the New Ecological Paradigm.

No.	Principles	Elaboration
1.	Human Dependence on Nature	The NEP stresses that humans are part of a larger ecological system. They depend on the finite biophysical environment for survival, contrary to the widely held belief that technology or human ingenuity can fully compensate for ecological degradation.
2.	Interconnectedness of Species:	NEP emphasizes that humans are one among many species in the global ecosystem and that all species are interconnected in a vast web of life. This recognition urges the protection of biodiversity and the acknowledgment that other species have the right to exist and thrive alongside humans.
3.	Limits to Growth	This paradigm also emphasizes the finite nature of Earth’s resources. The environment imposes constraints on human activity, and humanity cannot bypass the laws of ecology. The unchecked pursuit of growth, without regard to these limits, results in ecological crises.
4.	Ethical Obligations to Non-Human Entities	The NEP asserts that plants, animals, and ecosystems possess intrinsic rights to exist independently of human needs or desires. Human exceptionalism—the belief that humans are exempt from ecological constraints—must be dismantled.
5.	Rejection of Technological Fixes	The paradigm critiques the reliance on technological solutions to solve environmental problems, asserting that such fixes often exacerbate ecological issues. It advocates for systemic changes in consumption patterns, lifestyle choices, and governance to address root causes rather than temporary technological band-aids.
6.	Ecological Justice	NEP integrates principles of justice into the human-nature relationship, emphasizing fairness in the distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. This includes addressing inequalities between nations, communities, and species to achieve a balanced and just coexistence within Earth’s ecological limits.
7.	Sustainable Living	The NEP calls for a transition toward sustainable living, emphasizing the need for long-term ecological balance over short-term exploitation of resources. This involves rethinking economic systems, adopting renewable energy, and preserving ecosystems for the well-being of current and future generations.

). The NEP is rooted in four key principles [64,65,66,67] as shown in Table 2 below:

In light of these principles, NEP argues that environmental problems such as climate change are rooted in the dominance of human-centered worldviews. For climate justice to be realized, humans must acknowledge their role as part of nature and cease acting as if they are above ecological limits. While NEP offers valuable insights into ecological limits and the interconnectedness of human and natural systems, it is important to acknowledge its limitations when applied to climate justice. Critics have noted that NEP’s emphasis on challenging anthropocentrism may overshadow the structural inequalities that shape resource distribution and access, which are central to climate justice. By focusing primarily on humanity’s relationship with the environment, NEP risks insufficiently addressing the social, economic, and political disparities that exacerbate climate vulnerability, particularly for marginalized communities. Incorporating these critiques not only provides a more nuanced understanding of NEP but also strengthens its application to climate justice by encouraging integration with frameworks like environmental justice, which prioritize equity and address systemic inequalities alongside ecological concerns. Recognizing these gaps ensures a more holistic and balanced approach to climate justice.

4.2. The Post-Growth Society

The concept of the post-growth society, championed by thinkers like Gus Speth, challenges the capitalist obsession with GDP growth. This paradigm suggests that perpetual economic growth is not only unsustainable but also harmful to the environment and society. As shown in

Table 3. Key Principles of the Post-Growth Society.

No.	Principles	Elaborations
1.	Quality of Life Over Quantity of Growth	In a post-growth society, the well-being of communities, the natural environment, and public health would take precedence over GDP growth. Economic policies would prioritize shorter workweeks, longer vacations, and a balanced life over material consumption.
2.	Rejection of Growth Mania	Post-growth theorists argue that the pursuit of continuous economic growth is an illusion that exacerbates environmental degradation and social inequality. Instead, society should strive to develop in ways that improve social and environmental well-being.
3.	Reshaping Corporate Power	The paradigm also suggests redefining corporate goals to align with social and environmental priorities. This would include dismantling corporate dominance and enacting pro-democracy reforms that limit the power of large corporations over environmental and economic policies.
4.	Degrowth as a Pathway	The post-growth society emphasizes “degrowth” as a strategy to intentionally reduce unnecessary production and consumption, especially in resource-intensive sectors. This involves shifting societal values from consumerism to sustainability, focusing on sufficiency rather than excess.
5.	Localization of Economies	A post-growth society promotes localized economies that reduce dependency on global trade and prioritize local production, consumption, and governance. Localization enhances community resilience, reduces ecological footprints, and fosters self-sufficiency and cultural diversity.
6.	Redistribution of Wealth and Resources	Reducing inequality is central to the post-growth vision. This involves implementing policies such as progressive taxation, universal basic income, and equitable access to education, healthcare, and housing. Redistribution ensures that economic systems function for the collective benefit of all members of society.
7.	Sustainable Use of Resources	The paradigm stresses living within ecological limits by transitioning to renewable energy, minimizing waste, and adopting circular economy practices. This includes encouraging resource-efficient technologies and cultural shifts toward reducing consumption to meet environmental and social goals sustainably.

, a post-growth society envisions an economic and social system that prioritizes well-being, environmental sustainability, and equity over GDP expansion [68,69]. Some key principles of the post-growth society are shown in the Table 3 below:

In the context of climate justice, a post-growth society offers a transformative model. By decoupling societal progress from economic growth, resources can be redistributed in a way that addresses environmental injustices, while simultaneously protecting the natural world. Some recent studies, however, show that the phenomenon of decoupling, where economic growth and production in relatively wealthy countries do not necessarily result in higher CO₂ emissions, is an important consideration in relation to the post-growth society approach. Decoupling challenges the traditional association between economic growth and environmental degradation by suggesting that nations can achieve growth while reducing or stabilizing emissions. Ritchie provides compelling evidence that some nations have successfully reduced their emissions while maintaining economic growth, even when accounting for offshored production. However, while this decoupling offers optimism, the post-growth society approach argues that a focus on endless economic growth still poses broader ecological and social challenges, such as resource depletion and social inequality [70]. Therefore, acknowledging decoupling does not invalidate the post-growth society critique but highlights the need for a more comprehensive understanding of sustainability that extends beyond emissions alone.

Economic decoupling—achieving growth without increased emissions—has relevance to post-growth society and climate justice but requires clarification. While it supports sustainability by reducing environmental impacts in wealthy nations, it contrasts with post-growth principles that reject the growth paradigm to address systemic issues like overconsumption and inequality. Decoupling may serve as a transitional step toward sustainability but risks perpetuating inequities if structural injustices are ignored. Post-growth principles, with their focus on sufficiency, redistribution, and systemic transformation, offer a more comprehensive path to achieving both sustainability and equity. Placing decoupling within this broader context clarifies its potential role in climate justice.

4.3. The Environmental Justice Paradigm

The environmental justice (EJ) paradigm, developed by Robert Bullard and other scholars, examines how marginalized communities disproportionately bear the burden of environmental degradation due to unequal laws, regulations, and policies. Environmental justice seeks equitable treatment for all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, income, or geography, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental policies [35,71,72,73,74].

Table 4. Key Principles of the Environmental Justice Paradigm.

No.	Principles	Elaborations
1.	Fair Treatment	Fair treatment in environmental justice means that no group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, or commercial operations. This principle challenges existing systems of environmental inequality, which often expose marginalized communities to greater risks of pollution and climate-related disasters.
2.	Meaningful Participation	Environmental justice emphasizes the importance of meaningful participation, ensuring that marginalized and affected communities have a say in the decision-making processes that impact their lives. For climate justice, this means that those most affected by climate change—often communities in the Global South—must be included in global discussions and decision-making.
3.	Non-discrimination	EJ mandates non-discriminatory environmental policies that do not disproportionately harm vulnerable populations. Historically, communities of color, indigenous peoples, and low-income groups have been systematically excluded from decision-making, resulting in environmental harm being concentrated in these communities.
4.	Recognition of Rights	The paradigm advocates recognizing the inherent rights of individuals, communities, and ecosystems to a clean and healthy environment. This includes protecting indigenous rights to land and resources, respecting cultural traditions, and safeguarding ecosystems from exploitation to ensure sustainable co-existence.
5.	Intergenerational Equity	Environmental justice encompasses the principle of intergenerational equity, ensuring that present actions do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs. This requires sustainable resource management, reduction of ecological footprints, and proactive measures to mitigate climate change for long-term environmental and social health.
6.	Community Empowerment	Environmental justice stresses empowering affected communities through education, access to information, and resources to advocate for their rights. This involves supporting grassroots movements, amplifying local voices, and providing tools for marginalized groups to engage in environmental decision-making effectively.
7.	Accountability and Transparency	The paradigm calls for accountability and transparency in environmental governance. Governments, corporations, and international organizations must be held responsible for environmental harm and provide clear, accessible information to communities, ensuring that policies and actions align with principles of equity and justice.
8.	Global Solidarity	Environmental justice recognizes the interconnectedness of global struggles, advocating for solidarity among nations and communities to address shared environmental challenges. This includes acknowledging the disproportionate impacts of environmental degradation on the Global South and uniting to address systemic inequalities at local, national, and international levels.

below highlights the key principles of the Environmental Justice Paradigm.

While both environment justice and climate justice frameworks address inequities in the distribution of environmental harms and benefits, the former traditionally focuses on localized issues, such as the siting of polluting facilities or access to clean air and water, often within specific communities or regions. Conversely, climate justice extends these concerns to global and intergenerational scales, addressing the disproportionate impacts of climate change on marginalized nations and future generations. By highlighting how environmental justice principles have evolved to encompass the broader, systemic challenges of climate change—such as historical emissions, global power imbalances, and the long-term consequences of inaction—we can better illustrate the continuity and expansion of these concepts. The EJ paradigm underscores the need for a climate justice framework that addresses systemic inequalities. To achieve climate justice, the impacts of climate change must be viewed through the lens of social justice, with a focus on protecting vulnerable communities.

4.4. Sociological Model of Climate Justice

To create a cohesive model of climate justice, it is essential to integrate NEP, post-growth society, and environmental justice frameworks, illustrating how they collectively address its multidimensional challenges. NEP provides the foundation by emphasizing the ecological limits of the planet and the interconnectedness of human and natural systems, grounding climate justice in the recognition of environmental constraints. Post-growth society complements this by advocating for a reorientation of social and economic priorities away from relentless growth toward sustainable well-being, highlighting the need for systemic transformation to align with ecological boundaries. Environmental justice brings an essential equity lens, addressing the uneven distribution of climate impacts and ensuring fair treatment and participation for marginalized communities. Together, these paradigms form a unified framework: NEP underscores the ecological imperatives, post-growth society shifts socio-economic values, and environmental justice ensures equitable solutions. This integrated approach provides a comprehensive pathway to achieving climate justice.

Combining insights from these three paradigms, we can propose a comprehensive sociological model of climate justice that includes material, procedural, compensatory, and transformative justice (Figure 1). Distributive and material justice refers to the equitable distribution of environmental goods (e.g., clean air, water, and land) and the burdens of environmental harm [35]. In a climate justice framework, this means ensuring that the benefits of climate adaptation and mitigation efforts are shared fairly and that no group disproportionately bears the negative impacts of climate change.

Debates around distributive justice in the context of climate change often center on the question of how to fairly allocate the costs and benefits of mitigation and adaptation. Simon Caney and other scholars have engaged with this issue by considering various principles of justice, including equality, capacity, and need. Should wealthy countries bear a greater share of the burden because they have more resources, or should all countries be held to the same standard regardless of their wealth? Furthermore, how should the burdens be distributed within countries, especially between rich and poor citizens? Liberal egalitarians argue that addressing climate change requires redistributive policies that reduce inequalities both within and between nations. They emphasize that the most vulnerable populations—those in the Global South, indigenous communities, and low-income groups—should receive special consideration in global climate agreements. For example, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has called for financial assistance to be provided to developing countries to help them adapt to climate impacts [32,33,34,35].

In contrast, libertarians tend to resist redistributive approaches, emphasizing individual responsibility and limited government intervention. They argue that individuals and nations should be free to pursue their own interests, provided they do not harm others, and that wealthier countries should not be forced to subsidize poorer ones. However, as Caney [32] and others have pointed out, the libertarian position overlooks the reality that wealthier countries and individuals have disproportionately benefited from the fossil fuel-driven development that has caused climate change, leaving poorer nations to suffer the consequences. Material justice is also crucial in discussions of climate justice, particularly in addressing the inequitable distribution of resources required to cope with the effects of climate change. Poorer countries and communities often lack the infrastructure, technology, and financial resources needed to protect themselves from climate impacts such as rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and food insecurity. Distributive justice in this context would require wealthier nations to provide the necessary resources to those most in need, ensuring that all have the means to survive and thrive in a changing climate.

Procedural justice involves fair and inclusive decision-making processes. Every country should have an equal voice in the climate negotiations. Building on the EJ paradigm, it ensures that marginalized groups have meaningful participation in environmental governance [5,48]. Procedural justice in climate change mitigation would require that the voices of those most affected by climate change, such as indigenous peoples and climate refugees, are heard and respected in global climate negotiations.

Conversely, compensatory justice seeks to rectify past injustices by providing compensation or reparations to those who have been harmed. In the context of climate justice, this means holding wealthy, industrialized nations accountable for their disproportionate contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and providing financial and technological support to vulnerable nations [31]. The polluter pays principle is a widely accepted norm in environmental law and policy, but it has been subject to significant debate in the context of climate justice. The principle asserts that those who cause pollution should be responsible for paying to clean it up or mitigate its effects. In theory, this seems fair: wealthier, industrialized nations have contributed the most to climate change, so they should take on the responsibility of reducing emissions and assisting those who are most affected by climate impacts. However, critics argue that the polluter pays principle is not sufficient to address the complexities of climate justice. First, there is the issue of historical responsibility: many of the countries that contributed the most to climate change did so before the full extent of the problem was known. Should current generations be held accountable for the actions of their predecessors? Some libertarian theorists argue that it is unfair to impose such retrospective obligations, while liberal egalitarians contend that wealthy nations have benefited from historical emissions and, therefore, have a duty to compensate those harmed by climate change [33]. Additionally, there are practical concerns with implementing the polluter pays principle on a global scale. The sheer magnitude of the climate crisis makes it difficult to determine how much each country should pay, and some nations may lack the financial or technological capacity to meet their obligations. Compensatory justice, which calls for reparations to those who have been harmed by climate change, similarly faces challenges in determining who is owed compensation and how it should be distributed.

Transformative justice in the context of climate action emphasizes not only addressing the immediate impacts of climate change but also creating long-term, systemic changes that foster inclusivity and equity. One critical aspect is the inclusion of marginalized groups in climate-resilient livelihoods. These communities, often the most vulnerable to climate impacts, must be empowered with access to sustainable resources, training, and opportunities to build resilience, ensuring their active participation in decision-making processes that shape their futures. Additionally, transformative justice addresses structural power imbalances by challenging the dominant political and economic systems that have historically marginalized these groups. It calls for the redistribution of resources, political influence, and decision-making power, enabling marginalized communities to not only survive but thrive in a climate-changed world. This holistic approach seeks to correct long-standing inequities while building a more just, inclusive, and resilient society [67]. The Figure 1 below demonstrates a sociological model of climate justice.

The sociology of climate justice reveals the deep moral and political complexities involved in addressing climate change. While scholars such as Simon Caney provide a valuable starting point for understanding the ethical dimensions of climate justice, it is clear that there is far from consensus on how justice should be achieved. Debates around the polluter pays principle, compensatory justice, and distributive justice highlight the many challenges that arise in determining who is responsible for climate change and how the costs and benefits of mitigation and adaptation should be distributed. As we grapple with these questions, it is essential to recognize that climate justice is not only about the environment but also about social justice. The impacts of climate change are felt most acutely by those who are least responsible for causing it, and addressing this inequity requires a multifaceted approach that considers historical responsibility, capacity, and need. Moving forward, it is crucial for policymakers, scholars, and activists to continue engaging with these debates and to work towards solutions that reflect the principles of fairness, equality, and justice.

Other prominent models, such as the doughnut economy and ecomodernism, offer potentially relevant insights to addressing climate change. The doughnut economy provides a compelling framework for balancing social and ecological boundaries by promoting a “safe and just space” for humanity. However, it falls short of explicitly addressing the systemic roots of inequality embedded in global political and economic systems. Similarly, ecomodernism, with its emphasis on technological optimism and decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation, tends to overlook the entrenched power imbalances and socio-economic disparities that drive climate injustice. In contrast, paradigms such as the NEP, post-growth society, and environmental justice explicitly critique the structural forces that perpetuate inequality and environmental harm. These paradigms prioritize transformative changes to existing systems over technological fixes or incremental adjustments, making them more aligned with the paper’s focus on systemic reform and equity as central to achieving climate justice.

4.5. Metrics and Criteria for Justice in Climate Change Contexts

Metrics and criteria for justice in climate change contexts are essential for translating abstract principles into actionable and measurable outcomes (see,

Table 5. Taxonomy of Climate Justice: Metrics and Criteria.

Type of Justice	Matrix and Implementation Pathways and Methods
1. Material Justice Definition: Ensuring equitable distribution of resources, costs, and benefits of climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts	Equity in Resource Allocation: Percentage of climate adaptation funds allocated to vulnerable communities. Proportion of renewable energy infrastructure located in low-income areas. Access to Basic Needs: Number of households in climate-vulnerable regions with access to clean water, energy, and shelter. Reduction in climate-related health disparities (e.g., heat-related illnesses or pollution-induced respiratory issues). Cost Distribution: Share of climate mitigation costs borne by high-income versus low-income populations or nations. Taxation structures that ensure that polluters pay proportionately (e.g., carbon taxes). Economic Support Mechanisms: Volume of direct financial aid to climate-displaced populations. Accessibility and uptake of green job training programs in marginalized communities.
2. Procedural Justice Definition: Ensuring fair, inclusive, and transparent decision-making processes related to climate policies.	Inclusivity in Decision-Making: Percentage of policy-making committees or bodies that include representatives from vulnerable groups (e.g., indigenous peoples, women, youth). Frequency of public consultations on climate policies in at-risk communities. Transparency: Availability of publicly accessible reports and data on climate actions and expenditures. Use of participatory tools like citizen assemblies or climate deliberative forums. Accountability: Existence of independent oversight mechanisms to evaluate climate policy implementation. Number of complaints or grievances addressed through legal or institutional channels. Empowerment and Education: Number of capacity-building workshops held for marginalized communities on climate resilience. Access to climate-related information in multiple languages and accessible formats.
3. Compensatory Justice Definition: Providing reparations or compensation to those who have been disproportionately harmed by climate change.	Reparation Mechanisms: Amount of financial compensation provided to individuals or regions impacted by climate disasters. Timeliness of disbursement of climate-related insurance claims or relief funds. Addressing Loss and Damage: Volume of funds dedicated to international loss and damage mechanisms for least developed countries (LDCs). Number of climate refugees supported through housing, healthcare, and livelihood programs. Legal Redress: Number of successful climate-related lawsuits brought by affected communities. Percentage of cases where reparations are awarded and implemented. Support for Displaced Populations: Number of formal climate migration policies that provide legal protections for displaced individuals. Amount of infrastructure investment in host communities for climate refugees.
4. Transformative Justice Definition: Addressing systemic inequalities and creating structural changes to prevent future injustices and ensure sustainable, equitable climate action.	Institutional Reform: Creation or strengthening of climate governance frameworks that prioritize equity (e.g., establishment of climate justice ministries or bodies). Degree of integration of climate justice principles in national and international legal systems. Addressing Root Causes: Implementation of policies to transition away from fossil fuel dependency (e.g., timelines for decarbonization). Number of initiatives aimed at tackling socioeconomic disparities exacerbating climate vulnerability. Building Resilient Systems: Investment in community-led renewable energy projects. Adoption of agroecological practices to promote food security and environmental sustainability. Cultural and Educational Shifts: Number of climate justice-focused curricula introduced in schools and universities. Public opinion shifts as measured by surveys on awareness and attitudes toward climate justice. Equity in Innovation: Patents or innovations related to green technology shared freely or made affordable for low-income countries. Partnerships or funding programs for local innovation in climate solutions by historically disadvantaged groups.

). Climate justice encompasses diverse dimensions, including material, procedural, compensatory, and transformative justice, each requiring specific benchmarks to assess progress and accountability. For example, metrics such as the equitable allocation of climate adaptation funds, representation of marginalized groups in decision-making, and timely disbursement of financial reparations for climate-affected communities ensure that justice is not only conceptual but also practical. Establishing clear criteria helps policymakers, practitioners, and researchers evaluate whether climate actions address structural inequities, respect ecological limits, and prioritize vulnerable populations. Furthermore, such metrics provide a basis for transparency and accountability, fostering trust in climate governance processes and ensuring that efforts to combat climate change are aligned with principles of fairness and equity. Table 5 shows an example of a breakdown of specific metrics and criteria—though not exhaustive—to operationalize material, procedural, compensatory, and transformative justice within the context of climate change:

5. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

5.1. Summary and Importance

Climate change is one of the most pressing global challenges of the 21st century, and its root causes and impacts are deeply embedded in social structures. The environmental sociology of climate change emphasizes the need for climate justice, which seeks to address the unequal distribution of the causes and consequences of climate change. Sociology provides valuable tools for analyzing the social dimensions of the crisis and offers a critical perspective on the belief systems and practices that contribute to environmental degradation. Moving beyond technical fixes, the fight for climate justice requires systemic change that prioritizes sustainability, equity, and social justice.

As sociologists have argued, addressing climate change requires more than just technical fixes; it demands systemic change. This includes not only the development of renewable energy technologies and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions but also the transformation of social, political, and economic systems that prioritize profit and growth over sustainability and equity. Sociology’s emphasis on social critique and its focus on power relations make it a valuable tool for understanding and addressing the structural causes of climate change. By examining the ways in which social institutions, cultural beliefs, and power dynamics shape human behavior, sociology offers insights into how these systems can be transformed to promote sustainability and climate justice.

As shown in the paper, the inequalities in suffering, responsibility, and power between the Global North and South are central to the ongoing climate crisis. Developing nations, which contribute the least to global emissions, are disproportionately affected by climate change and marginalized in international climate negotiations. The structural inequalities embedded in the global political and economic system make it difficult to achieve a fair and effective global response to climate change. If these inequalities are not addressed, the gap between the nations contributing to and suffering from climate change will continue to grow, undermining the international community’s ability to collectively address the climate crisis. Mutual trust and cooperation between North and South are crucial for achieving meaningful progress in tackling climate change and ensuring climate justice for all.

Environmental sociology offers profound paradigms, such as the NEP, the post-growth society, and the environmental justice paradigm, that provide a comprehensive understanding of climate justice. These frameworks highlight the interconnectedness of humans and nature, the dangers of growth-oriented economies, and the importance of fair treatment for marginalized communities. A sociological model of climate justice must incorporate material, procedural, compensatory, and transformative justice, ensuring a holistic approach to addressing the climate crisis. This model emphasizes the need for systemic change, fair participation, and the protection of both vulnerable communities and the environment.

5.2. Policy Recommendations

Based on our analysis, we can discern a number of policy recommendations or actionable messages that would enhance the relevance of the paper for policymakers and practitioners:

• First, policymakers should prioritize addressing social inequalities in climate policies. This includes ensuring that vulnerable and marginalized communities have equitable access to resources, decision-making processes, and adaptation strategies. By embedding material, procedural, and compensatory justice into climate policies, governments can better distribute the burdens and benefits of climate action, making it more inclusive and effective.
• Second, the post-growth society paradigm highlights the dangers of relying on continuous economic growth at the expense of environmental health. Policymakers should explore alternative economic models, such as degrowth or circular economies, that prioritize ecological sustainability and social well-being over GDP growth. This shift would reduce environmental degradation while fostering long-term resilience.
• Third, climate justice demands systemic change, which requires strong international collaboration. Policymakers should push for robust multilateral agreements that ensure shared responsibility and accountability in emissions reductions and climate adaptation efforts. Special attention should be given to ensuring that both high-emission and vulnerable nations are part of a cooperative global strategy.
• Fourth, procedural justice emphasizes the need for transparent and fair participation in climate governance. Policymakers must ensure that marginalized groups, indigenous populations, and vulnerable communities are actively involved in climate decision-making processes. This includes creating platforms for meaningful engagement and ensuring their voices are integral to shaping climate policies.
• Fifth, transformative justice calls for addressing the root causes of both environmental and social injustices. Policymakers should support policies that not only mitigate climate change but also transform the underlying systems of inequality and exploitation. This involves promoting clean energy transitions, sustainable land-use practices, and reforms in industries that perpetuate environmental degradation and social injustice. These recommendations aim to ensure that climate policies are inclusive, equitable, and systemic, leading to both environmental sustainability and social justice.
• Finally, while the Global North bears historical responsibility for the majority of cumulative emissions, emerging economies like China and India have become major emitters due to rapid industrialization and development. These nations, however, face a dual challenge: addressing current emissions while pursuing economic growth to reduce poverty and inequality. Climate justice in this context requires acknowledging historical accountability while considering the developmental needs of emerging economies, emphasizing shared but differentiated responsibilities. This nuanced understanding highlights the need for equitable solutions, such as technology transfer, financial support, and tailored emissions reduction targets that balance sustainability with developmental goals.

5.3. Future Research

Future research should focus on developing specific, measurable, and actionable frameworks for operationalizing material, procedural, compensatory, and transformative justice in the context of climate change. Key priorities include the creation of robust metrics to assess material justice, such as equity in resource allocation, ensuring access to basic needs, and fair cost distribution, particularly through taxation structures like carbon taxes and direct financial aid to climate-displaced populations. For procedural justice, research should investigate mechanisms to enhance inclusivity in decision-making, such as the representation of marginalized groups in climate policy bodies and the effectiveness of participatory tools like citizen assemblies. Studies should also explore the role of accountability structures, such as oversight mechanisms and accessible grievance redress systems, in ensuring transparency and empowerment.

To advance compensatory justice, future research must evaluate the effectiveness of reparative mechanisms, including the timeliness and sufficiency of financial compensation and support for climate refugees. Specific emphasis should be placed on international loss and damage mechanisms, legal frameworks for climate migration, and the socio-economic impacts of these compensations on vulnerable communities.

Finally, for transformative justice, research should examine pathways to institutional reform, such as integrating climate justice into governance frameworks, addressing root causes of inequity like fossil fuel dependence, and fostering cultural shifts through climate justice education. Innovative strategies for equitable technology sharing and fostering local climate solutions in disadvantaged communities should also be a priority. Together, these research directions can inform comprehensive and equitable climate action.