This is paper I have written for university. I have expanded it a bit further and changed a few parts. It has a bit more existing theory compared to usual posts but it is good to engage with them and both theories I present here are quite recent and popular. Have been quite busy these days but there are  couple of really interesting ideas coming up in the next few Posts.

Introduction

What is climate justice? The term climate justice has become one of the most frequent words people use to describe how we should approach the issue of ecological destruction and climate change. It is generally accepted to combine sustainability and environmental justice as well as social justice. There are however many different understandings of climate justice and no coherent philosophical justification for it. To employ it properly we therefore need a justification and conceptualization of climate justice. We have to figure out the “why” and “what” for climate justice.

Although there are plenty of ways to approach this issue, I will rely on probably the most influential author in modern political philosophy, John Rawls. His theory on justice offers principles that justify most features of modern welfare states and has reignited the discussions on contract theory and political philosophy in general. In his work Rawls however barely explores the implications of his justice system on a global scale and its consequences for climate and environment.

After quickly explaining core features of Rawls theory, I will use it to develop and justify a new conceptualization of climate justice which will give us two main principles to act on. To get there I will first solve the issue of conflicting ideas of justice and then integrate ideas of both generational and global justice to arrive at the principles.

Rawls theory

Rawls theory is far to big to cover in its entirety for this paper and I will therefore only explain some key features here. Rawls considers the social construct to be the main subject of justice for his theory since it influences and shapes the perception of justice within society. To achieve a perception of justice we must assume the original position. This is done through the veil of ignorance, a thought experiment in which we forget all our economic and social positions. The idea is that we can only determine principles for a just society if we do not know where in this society, we will find ourselves. We must forget our social statuses. Slavery would be a clear feature of an unjust society since no person would support it if they would not know whether they end up as slave or slave owner. Rawls derives two main principles from the original position for a just society.

1. Liberty Principle: Equal basic rights and liberties for everyone
2. Difference Principle:
   1. Redistribution where those worst off receive most,
   1. which is attached to positions and offices open to all

Rawls theory expanded

Now that we understand the issue of the term climate justice and some core features of Rawls theory, we can get to the expansion of Rawls theory. Based on the original position and the veil of ignorance I will first develop a federal understanding of justice which will enable us to think of climate justice as an issue requiring global justice principle, while other domains of justice remain limited to a particular society. Then the idea of generational justice will be used to justify principles from the original position that tackle the issue of sustainability. Lastly, I will discuss the society we are born in as a status we must forget behind the veil of ignorance and the implications of that. In combination with Rawls principles of justice these to arguments will enable us to develop principles of climate justice.

Federal understanding of justice

There are conceptions of justice especially if we think about it in terms of climate justice that I would consider to be universal for all societies whereas other features of justice might be limited to a very specific group of only a couple of people. Trying to come up with one set of principles that apply equally to all members of a chosen group is therefore misleading and creates challenges that can be avoided. In Europe for example we can at least say that Rawls principles are reasonable, they work for us. Rawls principles do presuppose however inequality, wealth and laws just to give a few examples which are simply not a feature of all societies that exist, and one can be part of.

I think we are therefore part of multiple societies with different features and therefore different perception of justice. This is well reflected by Nancy Fraser’s theory of abnormal justice where each of us has a different conception of justice. Her argument is quite interesting because she introduces the idea that we need to have two debates on justice at the same time. By that she means what is just can currently not be universally defined however at the injustices are present nonetheless and must be tackled. This leads us to having at the same time a metadebate on who is affected by justice, what we mean by justice, and how we should realize them. At the same time, we also decide in specific issues based on our current understanding of the three dimensions. This means something just in the past might be unjust today and vice versa, it changes and that makes a lot of sense. In Rawls theory maybe if we had a perfect veil of ignorance, we might be able to conceive principles that are universal however for the time being it is in my eyes reasonable to stick with: as little universality as possible and as much as necessary. That is why I would argue for an understanding of justice as a federal structure. Since the subject of justice is the basic social construct that means that the different principles would be overlapping. One principle might apply to a global social structure and therefore effect everyone. Another principle where only one country can agree on from the original position would only affect them, all citizens of this country would however still be part of the global social structure and the principles of it.

Status of time and space

If we try to reason for principles from Rawls framework, we have to use the original position in which we apply the veil of ignorance making us unaware of our own status in society. What this status is can however be argued. One status Rawls considers himself is the “status of time” and the issue of generational justice. The idea Rawls presents is essentially to assume the original position with the addition of not knowing at what time one will be born into society. For Rawls this means that in the original position all could agree that some form of saving for future generations can be expected from all generations and is thus necessary for generational justice although the extent of these savings is highly debatable. Rawls stated himself that “it is immediately obvious that every generation […] gains when a reasonable rate of saving is maintained”. Rawls therefore supports the idea that actions now and, in the past, will affect future generations and consequently in the original position all would agree that everyone benefits if previous generations have certain responsibilities towards those that come after them.

This idea can be easily applied to issues of climate and ecological destruction. Doing less ecological harm so that future generations have at least the same quality of earth to live on. This is probably best represented by overshoot days which are the moment we are using more resources than earth can replenish and thus making it worse for future generations. Therefore, if we think about climate from the original position without the knowledge in which generation, we will be born in any rational person would argue that it is unjust if one generation exploits natural resources for their benefit to the extent where future generations will find the planet in substantially worse conditions. Since live on earth is interconnected best illustrated by CO2 emissions which do not harm one particular ecosystem and the humans within but the atmosphere and consequently all humans, this principle must apply to all. It is a concern for all societies. We can therefore formulate the first principle which is that all generations have an equal right to earth’s resources. By that I mean everything from a rock to the atmosphere but for the lack of a better word I am calling it resources. This means I can take from nature until anything more would diminish earth for future generations.

The previous paragraph covers the idea of sustainability however it does not, as climate justice implies, address social issues. Addressing this issue means removing another status in the original position, the status of space. Simply by being born in Europe in difference to Africa my average life expectancy, income, health and so on improves. Everyone who is born into a society assumes consequently the status of it. Any consideration within the original position should therefore be independent of the knowledge of which society I will live in. This implies a high level of universality for all justice principles which I am trying to avoid give the large disagreement on what justice is. The issue is that the differences I have described are injustices caused to a large extent by exploitation of earth and the injustices that arise while we are trying to fix it. It is therefore not a contradiction with the theory that must be amended but with reality. If we would have stuck with the first principle 1000 years ago, we would significantly less injustices than we do have today. The theory has to account for that out of pragmatic reasons.

To strike a balance between as little universality as possible but as much as necessary I would link this principle to the first. If we accept that each society must take action to ensure the first principle than the consequences of these actions or the lack thereof are also concern the global community. All social issues caused by action or non-action against climate change and the destruction of ecosystems therefore also fall under a global principle of justice. As already explained, I will rely on the difference principle that Rawls presents which is that we must have redistribution to those worse of and have equal opportunity to influence these decisions through positions and offices open to all. In the context of climate justice this means that not every society must follow these principles for the general organisation of justice but instead only to injustices that arise from the first principle. The final principles therefore are that:

1. Every generation has equal rights to earths
2. Redistribution to those effected worst by the consequences of both inaction and action against existing violations of the first principle, by the global community, attached to offices and positions open to all

In practice this means that a country like the Netherlands which has profited so far from breaking the first principle must stop doing so in the future. But also has a duty towards those affected worse by the consequences of breaking the first principle to support them. The extent of redistribution should be organized by a supranational organization that allows all to participate equally. If all societies would implement this into their basic social structure, we would have climate justice at least in the way one can derive it from Rawls theory.

Conclusion

We needed a conceptualization and justification for climate justice. The two principles offer this conceptualization while the arguments leading up provide the justification at least based on Rawls theory. By thinking of justice as having a federal structure where we are part of different societies, we are able to think of some justice principles as universal while others are dependent on specific society and we can therefore account for the argument of abnormal justice. The concept of generational justice in terms of sustainability justifies the first principle by which every generation benefits from finding earth in an inhabitable state similar to pre-industrial or better even pre-civilization state. The second principle only applies to already existing injustices caused by violations of the first and therefore does not claim a theoretical universality but a pragmatic one. It requires redistribution to those worst off because by removing the status of society all would agree that no one should find themselves in a society substantially worse of due to violations of the first principle and thus all have interest in some redistribution.

I lastly want to mention briefly the human status. I have focussed here on humans being the only ones concerned by justice however this dualistic world view can be challenged. There is no room for this discussion here, but it is interesting to think of a society that is both just for humans as well as all other beings on this planet. Maybe even the notion of justice already implies dualism, is a justice system even necessary then?

John Rawls [1971], A Theory of Justice

Nancy Fraser [2008], Abnormal Justice