The role of rights, risks and responsibilities in the climate justice debate

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to use the results of a synthesis of six social science fellowships to explore how alternative framings of the climate justice debate can support fairer climate policies. Design/methodology/approach The original fellowships drew on sociology, economics, geography, psychology and international relations. Cross-cutting themes of rights, risks and responsibilities were identified following a series of workshops. Results of these workshops were discussed in a number of policy fora. Analysis of the feedback from that fora is used to propose the case for a rights, risks and responsibilities approach to building a more accessible climate justice debate. Findings Existing climate policy unjustly displaces a) responsibility for emission reductions, b) risks from climate impacts and c) loss of rights. Foundational questions of acceptable risk have been ignored and a just climate policy requires procedurally just ways of revisiting this first-order question. Research limitations/implications The contribution a rights, risks and responsibilities framework can bring to a process of educating for climate stewardship is at this stage theoretical. It is only through trialling a rights, risks and responsibilities approach to climate justice debates with the relevant stakeholders that its true potential can be assessed. Practical implications Policy actors expressed strong resistance to the idea of overhauling current decision-making processes and policy frameworks. However, moving forward from this point with a more nuanced and tactical understanding of the dialectical relationship between rights, risks and responsibilities has the potential to improve those processes. Social implications Educating for climate stewardship will be more effective if it adopts an approach which seeks a co-production of knowledge. Beginning with the foundational question of what counts as an acceptable level of climate risk offers an inclusive entry point into the debate. Originality/value Reveals limits to public engagement with climate policy generated by a ‘justice’ framing.