Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 26 April 2013 Version of attached �le: Published Version Peer-review status of attached �le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Brooks, Thom (2013) 'Introduction to climate change justice.', PS : political science and politics., 46 (1). pp. 9-12. Further information on publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049096512001400 Publisher's copyright statement: Copyright c© American Political Science Association 2013. This paper has been published Cambridge University Press in 'PS : political science and politics'. (46: 1 (2013) 9-12). http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=PSC Additional information: Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro�t purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 http://dro.dur.ac.uk http://www.dur.ac.uk http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049096512001400 http://dro.dur.ac.uk/10764/ http://dro.dur.ac.uk/policies/usepolicy.pdf http://dro.dur.ac.uk Climate Change Justice ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Introduction to Climate Change Justice Thom Brooks, guest editor, Durham University .................................................................................................................... C limate change represents one of our great- est public policy challenges. A broad, well- established and international scientific consensus exists that our planet is undergoing climate change. The question is not whether there is climate change, but how best to respond to it. Climate change is a global phenomenon that requires a global effort unlike anything previously attempted. This global challenge is complicated by related and more controversial questions about causal responsibility. Although convincing evidence showsthatclimatechangeisaresultofhumanbehavior,much less agreement exists on how this should factor into policy. Thisintroductionprovidesageneraloverviewoftheglobal challenge of climate change that confronts us along with the distinctive contributions presented in this symposium on cli- mate change justice. Political science and related disciplines have much to contribute to how we understand the problems faced and policy considerations essential in best addressing climate change. CLIMATE CHANGE: MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS? Climate change, as a topic, appears to produce more ques- tionsthananswers.An“unequivocal”globalscientificconsen- sus confirms the existence of climate change (Pachauri and Reisinger 2008, 30). Human activities are responsible for the creation of greenhouse gases that have given rise to climate change: it has been at least 420,000 years since the Earth has had so much carbon dioxide and methane in its atmosphere (Singer 2002, 16). Climate change has contributed to multiple effects including, but not limited to, increasing threats to coastal wetlands from rising sea levels, greater likelihoods of droughts threatening agricultural production, and the spread oftropicaldiseasestonewgeographicalregions(Pachauriand Reisinger 2008, 33). Additional problems include the more recent phenomenon of “environmental refugees” as people are forced to move because of climate change (Byravan and Rajan 2010). The facts of climate change and its present effects are not in dispute. Current controversies center on two related issues. The first concerns how we should best respond to climate change. One response is to argue for mitigation. This view recommends reducing human impact on the environment through efforts such as conservation. For example, we might propose that each person should live within his or her “envi- ronmental footprint” and no more (Wackernagel and Rees 1996).Thisfootprintwouldbecalculatedtoensurethathuman beings taken collectively would have a much smaller foot- print and, thus, more sustainable environmental impact. Another example is the polluter pays principle (Caney 2008). This principle claims that polluters should pay because they polluteandthispollutionmaybeharmful intermsofits likely negativeenvironmentaleffects.Polluterspaytodeterthrough monetary disincentives that might help foster greater conser- vation; their payments could contribute to mitigation efforts. The second response argues for greater adaptation (Kahn 2010). The idea is that climate change might have less harm- ful effects if we could better adapt to expected future changes. If coastal communities are under threat from rising sea levels, then one way to adapt would be to create new flood defences or perhaps floating cities. Climate change can be managed throughfuturetechnologythatenablessuccessfuladaptation. There is no consensus on which response is most prefera- ble. In fact, most scholars argue that some combination of mitigation and adaptation is recommended, in part, because we must begin to adapt to the climate change that has already taken hold (Gardiner 2004, 573). Nonetheless, where to draw the line and which side to emphasize is widely contested, including the issue of which particular proposal to endorse amongenvironmentalfootprints,polluterpaysprinciples,and much more. The debate about climate change is not about whether it exists, but what to do because it exists. A related second issue concerns how causal responsibility figures into our analysis. The global scientific consensus con- firms that human beings are largely responsible for climate change today. However, some human beings are more respon- sible for it than others. More affluent countries, such as the United States, have contributed more greenhouse gas emis- sions than much less affluent countries, such as the develop- ing world. Although the first issue is what should we do to bestaddressclimatechange, thesecondissueiswhethersome countries should do more about climate change because, col- lectively, they are more responsible for it. This second issue is particularly thorny. For example, car- bon emissions may remain in the atmosphere for decades. We normally hold persons responsible for what they could have foreseen. But the link between human activities and climate change is more recent. So earlier generations might ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SYMPOSIUM ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... doi:10.1017/S1049096512001400 PS • January 2013 9 Brooks, Thom. 2013b. “In Defence of Political Theory: Impact, Opportunities, and Potential Threats.” Political Studies Review. Byravan, Sujatha, and Sudhir Chella Rajan. 2010. “The Ethical Implications of Sea-Level Rise Due to Climate Change.” Ethics and International Affairs 24: 239–60. Caney, Simon. 2008. “Cosmopolitan Justice, Responsibility, and Global Cli- mate Change.” In The Global Justice Reader, ed. T. Brooks, 689–713. Oxford: Blackwell. Gardiner, Stephen M. 2004. “Ethics and Global Climate Change.” Ethics 114 (April): 555–600. Gardiner, Stephen M. 2013. “The Desperation Argument for Geoengineer- ing.” PS: Political Science and Politics 46 (1), this issue. Heyward, Clare. 2013. “Situating and Abandoning Geoengineering: A Typol- ogy of Five Responses to Dangerous Climate Change.” PS: Political Science and Politics 46 (1), this issue. Kahn, Matthew E. 2010. Climatopolis: How Our CitiesWillThrive in the Hotter Future. New York: Basic Books. Pachauri, Rajendra K., and Andy Reisinger, eds. 2008. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Posner, Eric A., and Cass R. Sunstein. 2008. “Climate Change Justice.” George- town Law Journal 96: 1565–1612. Schlosberg, David. 2013. “Political Challenges of the Climate-Changed Soci- ety.” PS: Political Science and Politics 46 (1), this issue. Singer, Peter. 2002. OneWorld:The Ethics of Globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale Univeristy Press. Shepherd, J., P. Cox, J. Haigh, D. Keith, B. Launder, G. Mace, G. MacKerron, J. Pyle, S. Rayner, C. Redgwell, and A. Watson. 2009. Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty. London: The Royal Society. Vanderheiden, Steve. 2013. “What Justice Theory and Climate Change Politics Can Learn from Each Other.” PS: Political Science and Politics 46 (1), this issue. Wackernagel, Mathis, and William E. Rees. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. SYMPOSIUM AUTHORS ThomBrooks isreaderinlawatDurhamLawSchool. Hewaspreviouslyreaderinpoliticalandlegalphilos- ophyatNewcastleUniversity,andBrooksheldvis- itingappointmentsatOxford,StAndrews,andUppsala. HeholdsavisitingscholarshipatStJohn’sCollege, Oxford. Brooks is an academician in the Academy of SocialScienceandafellowoftheRoyalHistorical SocietyandtheRoyalSocietyofArts.Brooksworks broadlyintheareasofethics, law,andpublicpolicy. Currentresearchinterestsincludecriminaljustice,cit- izenshipandimmigration,globaljustice,andpublic policyreform.Brooksistheauthoroftworecentbooks includingHegel’sPoliticalPhilosophy(2007,2012) and Punishment (2012). He has edited several books andafive-volumecollectiononpapersincriminal lawandphilosophy( forthcoming).Hiscurrentbook project is Rawls’ Political Liberalism coedited with MarthaC.Nussbaum.Hisresearchoncriminaljus- ticehasfeaturedintheRCUKReportonthetop100 Big Ideas for the Future. He can be reached at thom.brooks@durham.ac.uk. Stephen M. Gardiner is the Ben Rabinowitz En- dowed Professor of the Human Dimensions of the Environment at the University ofWashington, Seat- tle. He specializes in ethics, political philosophy and environmental ethics. He also has interests in ancient philosophy, bioethics, and the philosophy of econom- ics. His current research focuses on global environ- mental problems (especially climate change), future generations, and Aristotelian virtue ethics. He is the author of A Perfect Moral Storm: the Ethical Trag- edy of Climate Change (2011), a coeditor of Climate Ethics: Essential Readings (2011), and the editor of Virtue Ethics: Old and New (2005). He has also published more than 20 articles, on topics as diverse as climate ethics, geoengineering, precaution in inter- national law, nuclear protection, Aristotle’s doctrine of the unity of the virtues, and Socrates’ pessimism about politics. He can be reached at smgard@uw.edu. Clare Heyward is a James Martin Research Fellow in the Oxford Geoengineering Programme, Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, and the Institute for Sci- ence Innovation and Society at the University of Oxford. Heyward is interested in issues of global justice and climate change, especially the cultural dimensions of climate justice and justice toward future generations. She conducts research into the ethical and governance issues associated with the broad range of proposed geoengineering techniques, working at the interface between the governance and ethics of geoengineering. She can be reached at Jennifer.heyward@philosophy.ox.ac.uk. David Schlosberg is professor of environmental politics in the department of government and inter- national relations at the University of Sydney. Schlos- berg is author of Defining Environmental Justice and Environmental Justice and the New Plural- ism, co-author of Green States and Social Move- ments, and co-editor of The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society and Debating the Earth, all with Oxford University Press. Known for his work in environmental politics and theory, he has held visiting appointments at the London School of Economics, Australian National University, and Princeton University. Current work includes climate justice, the place of the non-human world in justice theory and practice, and the foci of a new generation of environmental and environmental justice move- ments on sustainable materialism. He can be reached at david.schlosberg@sydney.edu.au. SteveVanderheiden isassociateprofessorofpolitical scienceandenvironmentalstudiesattheUniversity ofColoradoatBoulder,aswellasprofessorialfellowat theCentreforAppliedPhilosophyandPublicEthics inAustralia.Hespecializesinnormativepoliticaltheory andenvironmentalpolitics,withaparticularfocus onglobalgovernanceandclimatechange.Inaddition tonumerouspublishedarticlesandbookchapters on topics ranging from Rousseau’s environmental thoughttothepoliticsofSUVs,andeditedbooksonpolit- icaltheoryapproachestoclimatechange,energypol- itics,andenvironmentalrights,hisAtmospheric Justice:APoliticalTheoryofClimateChange(Oxford, 2008)wonthe2009HaroldandMargaretSprout awardfromtheInternationalStudiesAssociationfor thebestbookoninternationalenvironmentalpoli- tics.HeiscompletingabooktitledDoingOurBit:Indi- vidual Responsibility for Climate Change. He can bereachedatSteven.Vanderheiden@colorado.edu. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Symposium: Climate Change Justice ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 PS • January 2013 Vanderheiden provides a compelling litany of examples that illustrate the importance of justice theories for climate- change policy development, but also shows the pressing need for these theories to become more attenuated and responsive to the practical issues where they might be applied. The prob- lem is not that any view of justice may support multiple conclusions per se, but that the potential applications are ill-defined and should be concretized more substantively. In the next two essays Heyward and Gardiner examine the relation between science, justice, and climate-change public policythroughthecasestudyofgeoengineering.Geoengineer- ing is about efforts to deliberately manipulate the climate on a global scale to counteract anthropogenic climate change (Shepherd et al. 2009, 1). Geoengineering is seen as a poten- tial “third way” that may complement adaptation and mitiga- tion strategies. Clare Heyward (2013) critically examines the idea of geoengineering. She considers so-called geoengineering proposals, such as carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). Heyward argues that these proposals are not best understood together, but instead as separate proposals to address climate change. One reason is that these offer different kinds of approaches. For example, CDR extracts carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and so reduces concentrations of greenhouse gases. SRM, in con- trast, reduces not greenhouse gas concentrations, but rather reduces the amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere. So both CDR and SRM offer different kinds of approaches to addressing the challenges posed by climate change. These are also both different from standard adaptation efforts where the focus is on reducing harm by environmental effects— whereas CDR and SRM each aim in different ways to funda- mentally change the effects themselves. Heyward argues that CRD and SRM take the “‘danger’ out of ‘dangerous climate change’” (Brooks 2013a). Stephen Gardiner (2013) offers a different angle. Geoengi- neering is often presented as the lesser evil, but without much consideration of the ethical and political issues geoengineer- ing raises. Instead, the justification of geoengineering is often based on little more than necessity in the face of global emer- gency: we face an eminent catastrophe that requires greater resources for geoengineering research because it may ensure global climate security. Such claims from desperation are unconvincing. Gardiner argues that we should first consider the condi- tions under which geoengineering might be justified and, sec- ond, the context within which any geoengineering arises and whether this makes any difference to its justification. In par- ticular, Gardiner highlights the special case of paternalism that geoengineering might accept where global climate prob- lems largely created by the most wealthy might be addressed through complete subjugation of the most vulnerable. This position requires a more stringent justification than is often provided.Geoengineeringcontributestoaperfectmoralstorm that demands greater critical scrutiny. Thom Brooks (2013a) concludes the symposium by argu- ing that we must reassess our possible horizons. Often public policy proposals are presented as the solution that will solve the problems presented by climate change. For example, if only we lived within a set “ecological footprint” that set a cap on global emissions, then climate change would stop. Or that it is possible to remove the “danger” out of “dangerous cli- mate change.” Most proposals, unfortunately, view themselves as solu- tions. Climate change is a global phenomenon that humans mightneversuspend,butonlybettermanage.Climatechange is more of a problem because of anthropocentric causes, but climatechangewouldhappeneveniftherewerenosuchcauses. Ourgoalsmustbemorelimitedtoreducingeffectsandimprov- ing adaptability, but avoid higher ambitions to “end” future change.The real challenge of climate change is not about how itmightend,butratherhowitmightbebettermanaged.Issues of justice remain, but these must be understood within a more realistic context. CONCLUSION Climate change presents major global challenges. This intro- duction surveyed the general research and provided an over- view of the distinctive contributions presented in this symposium. Climate change appears to raise more questions than answers rendering policy recommendations difficult or even beyond our reach. Nonetheless, this symposium illumi- nates new grounds for more optimism about the challenges we face and the public policy possibilities for our future. Cli- mate change justice is one of many areas where political sci- ence, and more specifically political theory, provides substantive contributions and significant impact on the major social and political issues that confront us all.2 n N O T E S 1. For example, the idea that negative duties support conservationist or miti- gation efforts alone rests on false assumptions about negative duties and climate change that require greater critical examination (Brooks 2012). 2. See Brooks (2013b) for a more general critical examination of the distinc- tive contributions and impact political theory has for pressing social and political issues. R E F E R E N C E S Brooks, Thom (ed.). 2008. The Global Justice Reader. Oxford: Blackwell. Brooks, Thom. 2012. “Climate Change and Negative Duties,” Politics 32: 1–9. Brooks, Thom. 2013a. “The Real Challenge of Climate Change,” PS: Political Science and Politics 46 (1), this issue. Geoengineering is often presented as the lesser evil, but without much consideration of the ethical and political issues geoengineering raises. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PS • January 2013 11 not have known about the long-term future effects of their activities. This raises questions about whether they should be held responsible for their contributions to climate change. Furthermore, many people might have died while their car- bon emissions remain in the atmosphere. If they should be held responsible, how might this be pursued? Is it wise to hold responsible the offspring of those now dead that unknow- ingly contributed to climate change? Note, that some will readily claim we should argue that such gross negligence is no excuse. The intent here is not to take sides, but to illus- trate that there are sides to take and longstanding debates that continue. This issue becomes murkier when we consider more radi- cal arguments that claim that it is not yet in the interest of some countries, such as the United States, to reduce carbon emissions (Posner and Sunstein 2008). The argument is that although some countries may suffer heavy costs, such as becoming submerged, some countries may enjoy net gains in the next few decades through incremental climate change. Whilelong-termclimatechangeis innoone’s interest, thecur- rent century is an exception. This position has faced heated criticismintheliterature, inpart,becauseofthewaythatcosts and benefits are calculated and also for the view that it is not too late (nor perhaps even desirable) to cease climate change. Climate change is happening, but what to do? Deep con- troversies about the pursuit of mitigation and/or adaptation strategiesdivideus.Therearedeepercontroversiesabouthow toincorporatesomeviewonresponsibilityforclimatechange, especially by past generations, in light of national interest. We may appear to have a better grasp of the questions rather than a convincing set of answers. Climate change is a chal- lenge that offers more problems than solutions. SYMPOSIUM CONTRIBUTIONS This symposium brings together important new perspectives on the global challenge that climate change presents and how we might best consider policy implications. DavidSchlosberg(2013)opensthesymposiumarguingthat werequireanew“climate-challengedpolitics.”Climatechange is happening. Our politics need to move away from past dis- courses about preventing climate change arising in the first place to refocus on best addressing the pressing political chal- lenges that confront us today. This move, from prevention policies to adaptation strategies, is not a retreat or surrender, but a realistic and necessary policy shift that preventing cli- mate change is no longer an option. Adaptationstrategiesareoftenill-definedandunderdevel- oped especially at a political level. What is the relationship between science and electoral politics? Evidence-based policy benefiting the public interest often fails to become public pol- icy. Schlosberg correctly highlights that good science does not always lead to good policy agreements (2013: this issue). This argumentisexplained, inpart,bythepowerfulcorporateinter- ests and political supporters that attempted to discredit the global scientific consensus on climate change in the eyes of theelectorate.Thescientificcommunityhasrespondedbypro- ducing ever more reams of data to support the global consen- sus that climate change is a reality, but with little benefit in winning over the public. Schlosberg argues for a more constructive and dialogic engagement between experts and advocates with the general public. It is not enough that the data is presented to the pub- lic; it isessential thatthepublicengageswiththesciencecom- munity and available evidence to help support their ability to contest and confirm conclusions in a communicative relation- ship that might better control the distortion effects posed by corporate interests. Furthermore, climate-challenged politics must be a poli- tics about climate justice. Adaptation should be considered within a framework of justice with commitments to clear gen- eralprinciples,suchasequity,responsibility,andcapacity.Cli- mate change is more than about avoiding a major global catastrophe, but represents an injustice that most threatens those who are the most vulnerable. Climate change should not be a debate about the science, but about the pursuit of globaljusticewithinthecontextofaglobalscientificconsensus. SteveVanderheiden(2013)exploresthisgapbetweentheo- riesaboutjusticeandtheirrelationtoconcretesocialandpolit- ical issues, such as the global challenge of climate change.Too often theories about justice provide static principles for appli- cation in cases where theory and practice lack a responsive relation with the other. This has led to a stand-off. Theorists develop imaginative constructions independently of concrete practical implementation; likewise,practitionersborrowprin- ciples from theorists without greater engagement with their deeper philosophical commitments. Vanderheiden argues that theorists and practitioners have muchtolearnfromeachother.Hefocusesontheparticularcon- tributions that justice theory offers to current debates on cli- matechange.Forexample,lookatthe1992UNConventionon Climate Change. The Convention specifies key principles of justicesuchasequityand“commonbutdifferentiatedrespon- sibilities,” but it fails to clarify how these principles might be applied in international climate-policy development. Dif- ferent ways of conceiving justice principles may lead to different, perhaps even opposing, policy recommendations.1 Nonetheless, where to draw the line and which side to emphasize is widely contested, including the issue of which particular proposal to endorse among environmental footprints, polluter pays principles, and much more. The debate about climate change is not about whether it exists, but what to do because it exists. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Symposium: Climate Change Justice ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 PS • January 2013