Questions of justice and equity are central to the climate problem. In the context of international climate negotiations, justice is generally understood as distributive justice, dealing with effort sharing among nations for tackling climate change. However, a continuing lack of consensus between countries as to what equitable burden sharing would look like has led some to question the value of equity debates, suggesting that equity is “a potential distraction from addressing climate change and could undermine collective action”. Yet issues of equity and justice continue to figure centrally in, and are likely to influence and shape implementation of, the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Equity can be considered a principle of international environmental law that addresses fairness, which is crucial to generating agreement in any international regime. Equity is operationalised within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change through the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), which places the greater burden of action, including financial contributions, on industrialised countries based on their responsibility for historic greenhouse gas emissions (the developing country view), or alternatively their greater capacity to pay (the industrialised country view).  While the principles of equity and CBDR are included in the Paris Agreement, there is on-going disagreement around how differentiation will be determined and fair distribution of responsibilities achieved.

Equity approaches based on historical responsibility and capacity have failed to gain consensus as a basis for international action. The response to this has seen a resurgence of equity approaches that purport to take a neutral and ‘science based’ approach by relying on aggregation and quantification to bypass the need for consensus. Critiques of these approaches suggest that removing substantive debate obscures underlying assumptions in scientific methodologies and their political implications. Depending on choices made around which equity approaches to include, aggregation approaches can strongly skew results in favour of wealthier, higher emitting countries, raising questions over the role of science in making the deeply normative and ethical choices required for determining equitable burden-sharing. Rather than being side-lined for the sake of political consensus, discussion, debate and research into equity will be critical to establishing a morally defensible approach to distributing the climate change effort.

At the upcoming UTAS conference on climate justice, several speakers will be addressing the issue of equity and effort sharing between nations from different perspectives.

In the opening plenary of the conference on Thursday morning, Marcus Düvall of the University of Utrecht will present on Framings of Climate Justice, and Jeremy Moss from the University of New South Wales discusses Historical Justice and the Climate Transition. In the following sessions, Karey Harrison, University of Southern Queensland, tackles the question of Neoliberal economics in limits to growth and fair shares, while in a parallel session Patricia Galvao, University of Windsor, will look at Emerging Economies, Dwindling Differentiation and Elusive Climate Justice.

The second keynote session on Thursday will see Robyn Eckersley, University of Melbourne, talk about Democracy and Climate Justice, and Steve Vanderheiden from the University of Colorado at Boulder will present on Climate Justice: Beyond Burden Sharing. On Thursday night Steve Vanderheiden will present a public talk at the Hobart Town Hall on Climate Ethics Amidst Climate Injustice.

The second day of the conference will open with a keynote session with Lavanya Rajamani from the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, speaking on Equity and Differentiation in the 2015 Paris Agreement; Sivan Kartha of the Stockholm Environment Institute presenting the Civil Society Approach to Climate Equity through the Fair Shares approach, and Jan McDonald, University of Tasmania, discussing Fairness in Climate Adaptation Law.

Further sessions on Friday include Kate Dooley, University of Melbourne asking whether Equity Debates Function as an Enabler or barrier to Climate Action, and Peter Christoff, University of Melbourne taking a national perspective looking at Burden Sharing within Australia. On the final day of the conference, Matthew Stilwell, of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development will present International Civil Society Perspectives on Climate Justice.

These diverse perspectives from many internationally renowned speakers will contribute to a growing richness in understandings of equity. Avoiding equity debates will not solve the distributive justice problem inherent within international climate negotiations, challenging the argument that focusing on justice could undermine political will. Rather than being a distraction, a greater focus on equity is sorely needed, to increase ambition through deepened international cooperation, to improve comparison of effort between countries (and therefore greater willingness to participate), and to understand the trade-offs for diverse individual and groups of different types of climate action. As Klinsky et al recently wrote: “Equity is not a distraction to climate policy and analysis. Rigorous analysis that systematically considers the issue of justice is essential for our ability to understand and meaningfully inform the politics of climate action, especially in the post-Paris world”.

Kate Dooley is undertaking a PhD in political science at the University of Melbourne, looking at the environmental integrity and equity implications of the accounting and practice of land-based climate mitigation.

Human beings have caused climate change with potentially irreversible impacts. But can human beings retrieve the situation and engineer a better future by using technologies to reverse the processes associated with climate change? Put differently, can human beings geo-engineer a different and brighter future than that which will flow from our current limited and snail-paced attempts to address climate change?

In the recent period, geo-engineering has been heralded as a solution to climate change. Indeed, recent reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assume the success of geo-engineering techniques as integral to efforts to keep global warming below the Paris agreement’s target of 1.5/2°C. Geo-engineering involves techniques such as artificial particles being released into the atmosphere to mimic a volcanic eruption and selectively block out the sun, or causing phytoplankton in the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide.

But geo-engineering gives rise to acute ethical and legal issues. After all, geo-engineering solutions may affect every living being across planet Earth. For example, scientists acknowledge side effects such as changes to the hydrological cycle and ozone depletion. How do we deal with any associated socio-economic risks which emanate from those environmental changes? And what about the capacity of disadvantaged countries and communities to adapt to those changes?

Any country or company, sufficiently funded, will be able to make geo-engineering happen unilaterally. This raises an ethical concern - is it okay to inflict the risks associated with geo-engineering upon all humanity without a fair negotiation involving all stakeholders? And what about the rights of future generations to a safe and stable climate system? Geo engineering involves potentially irreversible impacts which will remove choices for future generations.  But we are in a cleft stick here: the longer time marches by without strong climate mitigation efforts, a failure to utilise geo-engineering techniques may also inflict harm on future generations.

The international legal regulation of geo-engineering is also deeply challenging. Currently existing global treaties relating to the environment only deal with geo-engineering in an ad hoc inadequate manner. Some have called for a new treaty specifically addressing geo-engineering. But this could take too long to negotiate and we simply don’t have a lot of time up our sleeve on this issue.  Tweaking existing environmental treaties such as the London Dumping Convention which regulates dumping of polluting substances at sea may be a better way to go. But there are no obvious solutions here.

What sounds like a wild idea straight out of science fiction might be on the verge of realisation. There is a need for debate and action on this matter. We can’t just leave this to scientists as it impacts everybody. We all need to get involved. But how?

Geo-engineering is one of the many climate justice problems which will be discussed at the conference Imagining a Different Future: overcoming barriers to climate justice. At this conference there will be an international panel of experts coordinated by University of Tasmania Law’s Faculty Jeff McGee, and including Catriona McKinnon (University of Reading, UK), Kerryn Brent (University of Tasmania), Michelle Bourban (Kiel University, Germany), Lisa Broussois (Independent researcher, Lausanne,) Aylin Tofighi (IMAS, University of Tasmania). The panel will take place on Friday 9 February 4 PM. Find out more at www.climatejustice.network (click on “Preliminary program”).

Sources and more links:

• Kerryn Brent; Jeffrey McGee; Jan McDonald, ‘The Governance of Geoengineering: An Emerging Challenge for International and Domestic Legal Systems’

• Catrionna McKinnon ‘Sleepwalking into lock-in? Avoiding wrongs to future people in the governance of solar radiation management research’

• Stephen M. Gardiner, ‘Is “Arming the Future” with Geoengineering Really the Lesser Evil? Some Doubts about the Ethics of Intentionally Manipulating the Climate System’

• David Keith: A surprising idea for "solving" climate change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkEys3PeseA

Salman Shah is a 3rd year straight law student at the University of Tasmania and member of the Student Environmental Law Society.

Issues of equity are central to fair and effective solutions to the climate crisis. Not only does climate change disproportionately threaten future generations, but it is also disproportionally affecting the world’s poor and vulnerable on a daily basis.

As was starkly demonstrated over the past year, those in the global South with the least responsibility for causing climate change, and least capacity to withstand its impacts, are bearing the brunt of the droughts, floods, fires and storms that continue to devastate communities.

It is this fundamental injustice that has motivated us both to work towards equitable solutions to climate change, and lead to our interest in the upcoming conference on overcoming barriers to climate justice.

While at law school in Tasmania, we have begun pursuing this goal through the International Justice Initiative. The Initiative provides the opportunity for University of Tasmania law students to pursue public interest law careers and experience the practice of international law and policy making first hand, including opportunities to attend the United Nations climate change negotiations.

While providing poor and vulnerable countries and groups with support, and linking up with others in civil society, six members of the Initiative have travelled internationally to the UN negotiations in recent years.

Through attending these negotiations – which have been playing out since before we were born – we have gained an insight into the power relations at play, why some groups continue to feel a disproportionate burden, and which countries profit from that.

We have witnessed the importance of elevating voices from the global South if we are to achieve a truly global response, and learned about the need to support these countries as they work to simultaneously tackle climate change and meet the hopes and needs of their people.

We have also seen the negotiations provide one critical meeting place and platform for likeminded groups to come together, create networks, and plan next steps forward. Conferences such as Imagining a Different Future can provide similar opportunities to catalyse action for global change that addresses the root causes of climate change to protect present and future generations.

We look forward to learning from the experts and academics in attendance.

Brook Dambacher and Frances Medlock are both part of the International Justice Initiative at the University of Tasmania.

Brook recently completed her undergraduate studies with a combined degree in Science and Law, and has attended the UN climate change negotiations since 2015.

Frances is in her fifth year of study at the Faculty of Law, and attended the UN climate change negotiations for the first time in 2017.

Climate change raises challenging issues of justice or fairness between generations- so called intergenerational justice. This occurs because a continued failure by current generations to take action on climate change unfairly shifts the burden of climate change onto the next generation, who have done nothing to cause the problem. Furthermore, failure by this generation to address climate change means that more must be done by the next generation, pushing up the costs of action.

But what do we owe future generations? A “no harm principle” applied by us all in many contexts suggests that we should refrain from action that will harm the interests of others where we have viable alternatives to this action. Renewables are clearly now a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

A further basis is the principle (following Simon Caney and Henry Shue) that all persons, regardless of when and where they are born, possess basic human rights (to life, health and subsistence), which are threatened by climate change.

Implementing intergenerational justice is impossible without also considering international justice. Developing countries, struggling to address poverty, tend to see the responsibility for future generations as resting on the shoulders of the wealthy industrialised countries who created the problem in the first place. With developing country emissions overtaking those of the developed countries, there is an urgent need to build trust between the North and the South by addressing structural inequalities in the global economic system, including, for example, in relation to agricultural subsidies. Responsibility towards future generations needs to become a responsibility shared by the entire global community. But this will only occur if mistrust between North and South is addressed by genuine reform. 

It is also worth noting that intergenerational justice also involves questions of justice within societies.  With the move away from fossil fuels, structural economic change entailed in the necessary transitions will have variable distributional social impacts, also giving rise to important issues of justice.

Implementing justice for future generations requires us to imagine different futures. Ethical action is only possible if we consider the future to be rich in possibilities and not predetermined in doomsday, self-fulfilling prophesies. At the conference Imagining a different future: overcoming barriers to climate justice, Marcus Duwall and Catriona McKinnon will address these issues.

(See https://www.climatejustice.network – click on provisional agenda- see plenary day one – 8 February)

Peter Lawrence is Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania and author of Justice for Future Generations: Climate Change and International Law (Edward Elgar)

Considering the impact of heatwaves on recent sporting events, in a recent article Peter Boyer reflects on how the world of elite sport must react to climate change. It is evident that all aspects of life will be affected by extreme weather conditions. This leads to a discussion of how the world's poorest people will be forced to cope and survive in a changing climate, when they lack the resources that the developed world has.

He says, 'when you think about it, questions of justice, or fairness, creep into pretty well everything we are faced with in dealing with human-induced climate change.'

This is especially pertinent with an election coming up in Tasmania, as it is an important time to 'challenge the assumptions and pose the questions that politicians and the rest of us need to be asking.'

Imagining a Different Future is a perfect opportunity for this to take place.

To read more, find the full article at http://southwind.com.au/2018/01/23/imagining-a-future-where-justice-prevails/ 

Imagining a Different Future is a conference to be held from the 8th– 10th of February in Hobart, Tasmania. International and local experts will analyse climate change looking at three themes: justice and ethics, barriers to action, and strategies for moving forward. The conference also involves a vibrant climate change art and music program and a strong focus on public engagement with free community events, such as a Public Talk and an afternoon for the local community.

Climate change gives rise to questions of justice and ethics because it will severely impact future generations who did not create the problem. Further, inadequate action on climate change involves unavoidable distributional fairness issues, most notably between developing and developed countries. In Australia and many other countries, the justice and ethics dimensions of climate change have been largely absent from the political debate. Despite the Paris Agreement coming into force, the withdrawal of the United States and the rise of more insular politics pose real challenges for concerted international action. The Conference will look at the ethical issues raised by climate change and the implications of the neoliberal model of economics and politics that emphasises economic growth over environmental and social concerns.

The conference will also examine a wide range of barriers to achieving justice in addressing climate change, including barriers relating to communication of climate science, social psychology, legal and governance structures, and fossil fuel subsidies.  Strategies for moving forward that will be explored include fossil fuel divestment, use of the courts, and some case studies from success stories from different parts of the world.

The conference involves keynote addresses and parallel sessions on these three themes: climate justice and ethics, barriers, and strategies. With more than 12 keynote speakers and 60 international and local speakers it is hard to single out particular presentations. We will be writing more on the blog https://www.climatejustice.network about the various presentations and speakers. Here we want to start by mentioning a few highlights, such as a keynote address by Marcus Duwall (University of Utrecht) on what human dignity means in the context of climate justice, Lavanya Rajamani (New Delhi) addressing equity in the Paris agreement, and Robyn Eckersley (University of Melbourne) on whether democracy hinders or helps climate action. There will be multiple sessions on different themes, as well as panels on climate litigation, human rights, and the ethics of geo-engineering. Many people will be very interested in both the Saturday morning session on media and psychology involving talks by David Holmes from Monash University and Linda Steg from Groningen, and a presentation that afternoon by Jack Gilding from the Renewable Energy Alliance that considers what the Tasmanian energy system could look like if it were seriously decarbonising and equitable.

The conference includes a strong focus on expanding engagement with climate justice and so is open to the public. There are also free public events, such as a public talk Climate Ethics Amidst Climate Injustice by Steve Vanderheiden from the University of Colorado at Boulder on the evening of Thursday 8 February at the historic Hobart Town Hall and an afternoon of community discussion on Saturday at the conference venue.

Dr Peter Lawrence researches in the field of climate change, international law and justice. He is author of ‘Justice for Future Generations, Climate Change and International Law’ (2014). 

Jan Linehan is a lawyer with broad experience in multilateral negotiations, who has also written on international law and climate change. She is particularly interested in community engagement and the arts in the areas of climate change and human rights.

Yesterday I spent the day sea-kayaking – something I’ve never done before - with my 16 year old grandson visiting from Western Australia. We were in a group paddling along the beautiful D’Entrecasteaux Channel and the Derwent River. My shoulder muscles are really stiff today. The day was a poignant reminder for me of the beauties of the natural world and the vulnerability of the future that my grandson is entering.

‘Imagining a Different Future’ – that is the phrase that captured me when I became involved in helping to organise a community half day, as part of the Climate Justice conference. For years we (activists, scientists, technical experts and community folk) have been telling people about the reality of climate change with its future risks and climate-change impacted events in the here and now. And here we are in 2018 with frighteningly inadequate policies and deeply engrained avoidance behaviours.

It is easy (and quite therapeutic!) to rail against the powers that be and critically important to engage in the grassroots actions that are fencing in the likes of Adani , but we also need to have an energising vision of a climate-safe future and a pathway that we can follow now. What if we just got to it?

That is the motivation behind my involvement in the community workshops on the afternoon of Feb.10 as the final event of the conference. We will continue the conversation started with the speakers at the Conference and explore how Tasmanians can have a just and sustainable future, keeping the whole world in mind.  We will discuss food, energy, economy, communication, work, and what we can learn from indigenous knowledge - with ‘Imagining a different future’ as the focus. Please join us. Register here for the community event

---

Margaret Steadman was the executive officer of Sustainable Living Tasmania for 13 years. Since retiring, she has continued as a community activist and is a member of Climate Action Hobart, administration support person for Climate Tasmania, a Tasmanian councillor for the Australian Conservation Council, board member of Sustainable Living Tasmania and a volunteer with the refugee settlement program of the Migrant Resource Centre, as well as turning her inner city garden into a food forest.

Balancing affordability for people who struggle with costs of energy with the imperative to reduce climate impacts of our energy use is a well-known challenge. Affordability and de-carbonisaton (or clean energy) are two parts of the so-called ‘energy trilemma’. The third is security – having enough energy available to meet the needs of households, businesses and industries. The challenge faced everywhere is to maintain a good enough standard – and preferably to make substantial improvements - on each of the three dimensions without compromising the others. And as any changes to the energy system have the potential to benefit some more than others, fairness will always be a central concern.

In Tasmania, the tension between two priorities of affordability and clean energy has a particular flavour: roof top solar is one of the popular forms of clean energy, but is imperfectly matched with Tasmania’s climate. By their nature, sun-based systems generate less energy in winter, when Tasmanian households have the highest energy needs. Winter bills are typically twice as high as summer bills in Tasmania, unlike many parts of the mainland, where the peak costs are in summer.

Appropriate storage, such as batteries, or using solar energy for hot water, can help. But the products are costly, which pushes back on affordability.

Affordability of energy challenges many households. Tasmanians report intense difficulties meeting the cost of energy during winter months when heating is needed. Some families are forced to choose whether to heat or eat, some stop having visitors because they can’t afford to heat their living spaces. People have told us they stop going out, they huddle under blankets on the couch, and go to bed much earlier in winter.

These experiences of energy hardship are partly explained by high poverty rates.  Tasmania is the poorest state of Australia: 31.3% of Tasmania’s population are in the most disadvantaged socioeconomic status quintile (one-fifth) of Australia’s population, a higher proportion than for any other State or Territory.[1] The median household weekly income in Tasmania is $1,100 compared to the Australian figure of $1,438, and 26.3% of households had a weekly household income of less than $650.[2]

Another piece of the affordability puzzle is that much of the housing stock in Tasmania is old and not well insulated. Heating a draughty home can be unmanageably expensive.  Many households who would benefit most from more energy-efficient homes lack the financial resources for the necessary investment in insulation and appliances.

Affordability is only one piece of the energy trilemma, but is complicated in its own right. These complexities vary within and between locations. Understanding complex affordability challenges, and especially what they mean for how people live, is a critical part of approaching the energy trilemma with justice in mind.

[1] Eslake, S. Education, Productivity and Economic Performance: Tasmania Then, Now and Tomorrow Address to the Launceston Historical Society, 16 March 2017, p 9.

[2] ABS 2016 Census Quickstats Tasmania available at http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/6?opendocument

Cynthia Townley currently works for the Tasmania Council of Social Service as a Policy Analyst and Advocate for Essential Services.