Non-ideal climate justice

What is it about?

This is a review of a recent turn in the academic discussion of climate justice, that is, the idea of a fair distribution of the costs and benefits of doing something about climate change. Theories of climate justice have previously often been formulated in an idealised way, that is, by neglecting the political reality. But now more and more theorists seek a different kind of theory: non-ideal climate justice. I discuss three different ways in which one can understand that ambition. First, as wanting to focus on non-compliance, that is, on the fact that many politicians, businesses and individuals fail to do what they should do. Secondly, as wanting to make proposals about what to do on the basis of climate politics, for instance, in relation to policies discussed internationally. Thirdly, as wanting to theorise the transition rather than the end state, such as the grievances a transition to a low-carbon economy will raise. With this classification, I also discuss the more general question of what contribution academic discussions of climate justice could make to climate politics.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

International climate politics have until recently been deadlocked. Few countries and other actors have shown a willingness to do anything about the problem. This seems patently unjust in that it allows the harmful effects of climate change fall on vulnerable people. But if we want a more precise answer as to who should do what we may need to more closely connect normative theorising to climate politics. This article contributes to understanding the difficulties and potentials in doing that.