Rethinking Climate Justice: Insights from Environmental Sociology
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Sociological Approaches to Climate Change
2.1. Analyzing the Causes and Consequences of Climate Change
2.2. Social Critique: Challenging Dominant Ideologies and Practices
2.3. Moral and Ethical Foundations of Climate Justice
3. The Imperative for Climate Justice
3.1. Inequality in Suffering from Climate Change
3.2. Inequities in Responsibility for Climate Change
3.3. Power Imbalance in Global Climate Negotiations
3.4. Economic and Political Vulnerabilities
3.5. Fragmentation and Weakening of Developing Nations’ Negotiating Power
3.6. Obstacles to North–South Cooperation on Climate Change
3.7. The Role of Grassroots Movements
4. Towards an Integrated Climate Justice Approach
4.1. The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP)
4.2. The Post-Growth Society
4.3. The Environmental Justice Paradigm
4.4. Sociological Model of Climate Justice
4.5. Metrics and Criteria for Justice in Climate Change Contexts
5. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
5.1. Summary and Importance
5.2. Policy Recommendations
- 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
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dunlap, R.E.; Brulle, R.J. Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Giddens, A. The Politics of Climate Change; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Islam, M.S.; Kieu, E. Sociological Perspectives on Climate Change and Society: A Review. Climate 2021, 9, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, M.S. Development, Power and the Environment: Neoliberal Paradox in the Age of Vulnerability; Routledge: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Klein, N. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate; Simon & Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- McAdam, D. Social movements and climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2017, 7, 158–160. [Google Scholar]
- Okereke, C. Climate justice and the international regime. In Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Islam, S.; Kieu, E. Tackling Regional Climate Change Impacts and Food Security Issues: A Critical Analysis across ASEAN, PIF, and SAARC. Sustainability 2020, 12, 883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kais, S.M.; Islam, M.S. Perception of Climate Change in Shrimp-Farming Communities in Bangladesh: A Critical Assessment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, M.M. An Invitation to Environmental Sociology; Pine Forge Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Wiest, S.L.; Raymond, L.; Clawson, R.A. Framing, partisan predispositions, and public opinion on climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 31, 187–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong-Parodi, G.; Feygina, I. Understanding and countering the motivated roots of climate change denial. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 42, 60–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marquart-Pyatt, S.T.; Jorgenson, A.K.; Hamilton, L.C. Methodological Approaches for Sociological Research on Climate Change. In Climate Change and Society; Dunlap, R.E., Brulle, R.J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 369–411. [Google Scholar]
- Schnaiberg, A. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Mol, A. The Refinement of Production: Ecological Modernization Theory and the Chemical Industry; Van Arkel: Utrech, The Netherlands, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Goldman, M. Globalization and Environmental Reform: The Ecological Modernization of the Global Economy by Arthur P. J. Mol. Contemp. Sociol. 2002, 31, 727–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mol, A.; Sonnenfeld, D.A.; Spaargaren, G. (Eds.) The Ecological Modernisation Reader: Environmental Reform in Theory and Practice; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Norgaard, K.M. The sociological imagination in a time of climate change. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2018, 163, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brulle, R.J.; Carmichael, J.T.; Jenkins, J.C. Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S. 2002–2010. Clim. Chang. 2012, 114, 169–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urry, J. Climate Change and Society; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Rosa, E.A.; Rudel, T.K.; York, R.; Jorgenson, A.K.; Dietz, T. The Human (Anthropogenic) Driving Forces of Global Climate Change. In Climate Change and Society; Dunlap, R.E., Brulle, R.J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 32–60. [Google Scholar]
- Buttel, F.H. Environment and Society: The Enduring Conflict. by Allan Schnaiberg, Kenneth Alan Gould. Contem. Sociol. 1994, 23, 509–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, M.S. (Ed.) Sustainability Through the Lens of Environmental Sociology; MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute): Wuhan, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Salleh, A. From Metabolic Rift to Metabolic Value: Reflections on Environmental Sociology and the Alternative Globalization Movement. Organ. Environ. 2010, 23, 205–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, J.T.; Parks, B.C. A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy; The MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Wackernagel, M.; William, R. Our Ecological Footprint; New Society: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Grundmann, R.; Stehr, N. Climate Change: What Role for Sociology? A Response to Constance Lever-Tracy. Curr. Sociol. 2010, 58, 897–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perrow, C.; Pulver, S. Organizations and Markets. In Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives; Dunlap, R.E., Brulle, R.J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 32–60. [Google Scholar]
- Ehrhardt-Martinez, K.; Schor, J.B.; Abrahamse, W.; Alkon, A.H.; Axsen, J.; Brown, K.; Shwom, R.L.; Southerton, D.; Wilhite, H. Consumption and Climate Change. In Climate Change and Society; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 93–126. [Google Scholar]
- Kais, S.M.; Islam, M.S. Impacts of and Resilience to Climate Change at the Bottom of the Shrimp Commodity Chain in Bangladesh: A Preliminary Investigation. Aquaculture 2018, 493, 406–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordhaus, W. Climate Change: The Ultimate Challenge for Economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 2019, 109, 1991–2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caney, S. Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Caney, S. Climate Change, Human Rights, and Moral Thresholds. In Human Rights and Climate Change; Humphreys, S., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010; pp. 69–90. [Google Scholar]
- Caney, S. Justice and the Distribution of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. J. Glob. Ethics 2012, 8, 228–245. [Google Scholar]
- Schlosberg, D. Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Parks, B.C.; Roberts, J.T. Climate Change, Social Theory and Justice. Theory Cult. Soc. 2010, 27, 134–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mennis, J.L.; Jordan, L. The Distribution of Environmental Equity: Exploring Spatial Nonstationarity in Multivariate Models of Air Toxic Releases. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2005, 95, 249–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyiwul, L. Climate change adaptation and inequality in Africa: Case of water, energy and food insecurity. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yodmani, S. Disaster Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction: Protecting the Poor; Asian Development Bank: Mandaluyong, Philippines, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Harlan, S.L.; Pellow, D.N.; Roberts, J.T.; Bell, S.E.; Holt, W.G.; Nagel, J. Climate Justice and Inequality. In Climate Change and Society; Dunlap, R.E., Brulle, R.J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 127–163. [Google Scholar]
- Roberts, J.T.; Toffolon-Weiss, M.M. Chronicles from the Environmental Justice Frontline; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Pellow, D.N. The state and policy: Imperialism, exclusion and ecological violence as state policy. In Twenty Lessons in Environmental Sociology; Gould, K.A., Lewis, T.L., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 47–58. [Google Scholar]
- Downey, L. Environmental Racial Inequality in Detroit. Soc. Forces 2006, 85, 771–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Xu, N.; Wei, W.; Zhao, N. Social inequality among elderly individuals caused by climate change: Evidence from the migratory elderly of mainland China. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 272, 111079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovacool, B.K. Bamboo Beating Bandits: Conflict, Inequality, and Vulnerability in the Political Ecology of Climate Change Adaptation in Bangladesh. World Dev. 2018, 102, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tol, R.S.J. The Economic Impacts of Climate Change. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2018, 12, 4–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, R. Climate Change and the Poorest Nations: Further Reflections on Global Inequality. Univ. Colo. Law Rev. 2007, 78, 1559–1624. [Google Scholar]
- Roberts, J.T. Multipolarity and the new world (dis)order: US hegemonic decline and the fragmentation of the global climate regime. Glob. Environ. Change 2011, 21, 776–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank. Sub-Saharan Africa’s Emissions and Climate Impacts; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- IPCC. Global Warming of 1.5 °C: An IPCC Special Report; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Survival International. Yanomami Under Threat; Survival International: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- UNDP. Cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh: Damage, Loss, and Needs Assessment; UNDP: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- AMAP. Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) 2017; AMAP: Tromsø, Norway, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- UN News. Pakistan Floods a ‘Litmus Test’ for Climate Justice Says Guterres. UN News. Available online: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1141587 (accessed on 27 September 2023).
- Roberts, T.J. Climate Change: Why the Old Approaches Aren’t Working. In Twenty Lessons in Environmental Sociology; Lewis, T.L., Gould, K.A., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 191–208. [Google Scholar]
- Mearns, R.; Norton, A. Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability in a Warming World; The World Bank: Herndon, VA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Agyeman, J. Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice; New York University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Islam, S.; Pei, Y.H.; Mangharam, S. Trans-Boundary Haze Pollution in Southeast Asia: Sustainability through Plural Environmental Governance. Sustainability 2016, 8, 499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jorgenson, A.K.; Dick, C.; Shandra, J.M. World Economy, World Society, and Environmental Harms in Less-Developed Countries. Sociol. Inq. 2011, 81, 53–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmin, J.; Tierney, K.; Chu, E.; Hunter, L.M.; Roberts, J.T.; Shi, L. Adaptation to Climate Change. In Climate Change and Society; Dunlap, R.E., Brulle, R.J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 164–198. [Google Scholar]
- Ehrhardt-Martinez, K.; Rudel, T.K.; Norgaard, K.M.; Broadbent, J. Mitigating Climate Change. In Climate Change and Society; Dunlap, R.E., Brulle, R.J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 199–234. [Google Scholar]
- Frank, D.J. The Social Bases of Environmental Treaty Ratification, 1900–1990. Sociol. Inq. 1999, 69, 523–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caniglia, B.S.; Brulle, R.J.; Szasz, A. Civil Society, Social Movements, and Climate Change. In Climate Change and Society; Dunlap, R.E., Brulle, R.J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 235–268. [Google Scholar]
- Catton, W.R., Jr.; Dunlap, R.E. Environmental Sociology: A New Paradigm. Am. Sociol. 1978, 13, 41–49. [Google Scholar]
- Catton, W.R.; Dunlap, R.E. A New Ecological Paradigm for Post-Exuberant Sociology. Am. Behav. Sci. 1980, 24, 15–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D. The ‘New Environmental Paradigm’: A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results. J. Environ. Educ. 1979, 9, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.E. The NEP Scale: From Marginality to Worldwide Use. J. Environ. Educ. 2008, 40, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Speth, J.G. The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Jackson, T. Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet; Earthscan: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Ritchie, H. CO2 and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Our World in Data. 2021. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-gdp-decoupling (accessed on 23 November 2024).
- Agyeman, J.; Bullard, R.D.; Evans, B. Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Bullard, R.D. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Dunlap, R.E.; McCright, A.M. The Denial Countermovement. In Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives; Dunlap, R.E., Brulle, R.J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 300–332. [Google Scholar]
- Mascarenhas, M. Environmental Inequality and Environmental Justice. Sociol. Compass 2009, 3, 123–139. [Google Scholar]
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]. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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:
|
2. Procedural Justice Definition: Ensuring fair, inclusive, and transparent decision-making processes related to climate policies. | Inclusivity in Decision-Making:
|
3. Compensatory Justice Definition: Providing reparations or compensation to those who have been disproportionately harmed by climate change. | Reparation Mechanisms:
|
4. Transformative Justice Definition: Addressing systemic inequalities and creating structural changes to prevent future injustices and ensure sustainable, equitable climate action. | Institutional Reform:
|
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Islam, M.S. Rethinking Climate Justice: Insights from Environmental Sociology. Climate 2024, 12, 203. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli12120203
Islam MS. Rethinking Climate Justice: Insights from Environmental Sociology. Climate. 2024; 12(12):203. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli12120203
Chicago/Turabian StyleIslam, Md Saidul. 2024. "Rethinking Climate Justice: Insights from Environmental Sociology" Climate 12, no. 12: 203. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli12120203
APA StyleIslam, M. S. (2024). Rethinking Climate Justice: Insights from Environmental Sociology. Climate, 12(12), 203. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli12120203