We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Climate change, it is often said, is the greatest challenge of our time. As a global phenomenon with a long temporal reach, the impacts of climate change amplify challenges already faced across social, political, economic and ecological spheres. Similarly, constitutional theory is not immune from the impacts of climate change. Yet scholarly engagements between constitutional theory and climate change have thus far been targeted and disparate. This chapter represents an attempt to face up to the challenge of climate change from the perspective of constitutional theory. It takes seriously the discourse of “climate emergency” to argue that emergency is a theoretically defensible framing of the problem. Using the rule of law, rights and federalism as three examples of the challenges that climate change poses for constitutional theory, it highlights some strengths and limitations of existing literatures on these three concepts. Ultimately, it shows that the climate emergency points us to a theory of constitutionalism that builds on these strengths, responds to these limits and provides a path forward for thinking through the role of constitutional theory in a climate-disrupted world.
This chapter analyzes one of the most visible consequences of ecocide: eco-migration. The international criminal justice system does not include detrimental effects of ecocide or of social harm resulting in forced migration flows as a genuine crime capable of being prosecuted. However, a recent landmark United Nations Human Rights Committee decision claims that people should not be returned to their place of origin if climate change appears to constitute a threat. The United Nations Refugee Agency also welcomes such a pioneering ruling since it lays the ground for potentially effective international protection. This work examines the contemporary loophole regarding eco-displacements and ecocide and clamors for both legal and criminological international conceptualisation at ensuring the rights of eco-migrants, considering the future number of eco-migrants is unforeseeable.
Thousands of civil society organizations (CSOs) attend the Conferences of the Parties (COPs) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) every year. Through their advocacy work, CSOs define and redefine what “climate change” is really about. The Element focuses on climate advocacy for women and Indigenous peoples (IPs), two prominent climate justice frames at the UNFCCC. Which CSOs advocate for women and IPs? How and why do CSOs adopt gender and Indigenous framing? Bridging the literature on framing strategy and organizational ecology, it presents two mechanisms by which CSOs adopt climate justice frames: self-representation and surrogate-representation. The Element demonstrates that, while gender advocacy is developed primarily by women's CSOs, IPs advocacy is developed by a variety of CSOs beyond IPs organizations. It suggests that these different patterns of frame development may have long-term consequences for how we think about climate change in relation to gender and IPs.
Multispecies Justice (MSJ) is a theory and practice seeking to correct the defects making dominant theories of justice incapable of responding to current and emerging planetary disruptions and extinctions. Multispecies Justice starts with the assumption that justice is not limited to humans but includes all Earth others, and the relationships that enable their functioning and flourishing. This Element describes and imagines a set of institutions, across all scales and in different spheres, that respect, revere, and care for the relationships that make life on Earth possible and allow all natural entities, humans included, to flourish. It draws attention to the prefigurative work happening within societies otherwise dominated by institutions characterised by Multispecies Injustice, demonstrating historical and ongoing practices of MSJ in different contexts. It then sketches speculative possibilities that expand on existing institutional reforms and are more fundamentally transformational. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
This article discusses the history and the prospects of the climate change negotiations and seeks to show that they are structurally and systematically disadvantageous to the countries and the peoples of the Third World/Global South. The article uses the TWAIL approach to discuss the North-South divide and the differing approaches to climate justice. The article then discusses the history of climate change negotiations, in particular, climate finance and loss and damage, and shows that modes of these negotiations have been disadvantageous to the Third World and are unlikely to fulfil their aspirations. The article highlights the need for incorporating certain principles of fairness, not just in substantive law, but also in how negotiations are conducted. It concludes with thoughts on what these principles of fairness may look like, and the role international and domestic courts can play in evolving them.
This chapter analyzes the regional and sectoral differences in how cities and municipalities engage in climate change networks. Over the past 20 years, an increasing number of cities, regions, companies, investors, and other non-state and subnational actors have voluntarily committed to reducing their GHG emissions. Such actions could help reduce the implementation gap. Along with the increase in commitments and the growing number of venues through which non-state actors can cooperate in order to govern climate change, it is necessary to track and evaluate such efforts. This chapter assesses the voluntary commitments made by Swedish municipalities, regions and multistakeholder partnerships to decarbonize by reducing GHG emissions. It finds large differences in which cities and municipalities that engage in networks. Large and urban municipalities in the south and along the eastern coast are well represented, whereas more rural municipalities along the Norwegian border are less represented in the data. The findings are discussed in terms of climate justice, highlighting the importance of having everyone onboard to create acceptance and reduce inequality in the transformation toward decarbonization.
A new way of thinking about environmental problems has emerged since the 1980s. Environmental problems are increasingly seen as systematically entwined, with human action as their primary cause. We are in a new epoch in Earth’s history, the Anthropocene, and climate change is its most immediate and dramatic manifestation. The drivers of the Anthropocene can be seen through the lens of a simple equation: Environmental impact is the product of population, affluence, and technology. Nations and individuals vary greatly in their impacts, so questions of justice are unavoidable. Questions of justice extend across generations as well as among nations and individuals. Ultimately, we must ask what kind of world we want for ourselves and our children.
This chapter employs narrative analysis to examine how people who live in the shadow of carbon-intensive industries imagine a just transition to net-zero emissions. The analysis rests upon an interview study with local politicians, civil servants, union representatives, and citizen groups in the Swedish west-coast city of Lysekil, home to Scandinavia’s largest oil refinery. By mapping stories of climate (in)justice told in view of Sweden’s efforts to decarbonize, this chapter illustrates the cultural dimensions of carbon lock-ins and why some people resist transformative change. In the city of Lysekil, the refinery is not only an important source of local employment but also deeply entangled with community identity and sense of place. However, the chapter also points to the multiple interpretations of just transitions to climate neutrality and the power of narrative to open-up possibilities for decarbonized futures.
The concept of degrowth aligns with the principles of Climate and Environmental Justice (CEJ) in significant aspects. Both frameworks underline the need for new global structures and social movements that promote ecological conservation, local economic regeneration, and social well-being that goes beyond material accumulation. Therefore, degrowth can reinforce the pursuit of transformative global climate justice. However, I contend that significant contradictions remain between degrowth and North–South climate justice. I argue that on both conceptual and policy grounds, a ‘strong version’ of the green economy provides a better foundation for seeking international climate justice for Africa than degrowth. I also contend that green growth is a more pragmatic and realistic approach to global climate justice because it is more sensitive to the norms, structures, and dynamics of global politics.
Edited by
Olaf Zenker, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Germany,Cherryl Walker, Stellenbosch University, South Africa,Zsa-Zsa Boggenpoel, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
State- and market-centric approaches to land redistribution have not worked in South Africa. Instead, South Africa has an agrarian structure marked by concentrated ownership in a shock-prone globalised food system. This chapter argues climate extremes and famines require a new approach to land redistribution and food systems thinking. Critical lessons can be learned about food provisioning from pre-capitalist South Africa’s commons mode of production, which exemplified the first attempts at food sovereignty. This is a decolonial imperative. Moreover, South Africa’s globalised industrial food system is premised on the destruction of nature and has engendered several ecological rifts, including famines and continued starvation faced by many. Campaigning for a food sovereignty commons system, through democratic systemic reform and as part of the deep and just transition, represents an alternative approach to re-agrarianise South Africa on a national and local scale in a heating world. In this regard, large-scale commercial farmers and the state face the challenge of thinking and behaving like commoners to ensure land, climate and more generally ecological justice.
As the human right to a healthy environment is codified around the globe, some systems still lag behind. One noticeable straggler is the Council of Europe, which is currently undergoing its fourth attempt to recognize the right. This article examines the proposals tabled within this system in light of overarching debates about climate justice and environmental rights, before focusing specifically on the spatial and temporal limits of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the institutional features of its Court. First, the article describes what the author sees as the current liminal moment in the development of human rights law, a time of transition in which established legal concepts can be questioned or reaffirmed. Second, it sketches recent proposals for locating and conceptualizing the right to a healthy environment within the Council of Europe. Evaluating different options, it makes the case for including this right in the ECHR. Third, the article discusses the right's potential to reshape the spatial and temporal limitations on legal subjectivity and Convention protections. These proposals come at a crucial time when the system's ability to protect human rights from environment-related impacts is being tested by climate litigation. The article understands these developments as interrelated and discusses whether current proposals could deliver on demands for climate justice by extending protection to future generations and for extraterritorial environmental impacts.
This chapter addresses the legal dimensions of the European Union’s response to the climate change crisis. It introduces the EU’s climate governance strategy for 2030 and 2050, and reviews the key Regulations, Directives and legislative proposals adopted in its pursuit, including the European Climate Law, the Emissions Trading Directive, the Renewable Energy Directive and the proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism Regulation. The chapter discusses the position of the EU both as a key contributor to and a subject of international climate change law, and considers the relation between climate change as a governance challenge and the general principles of EU law, with a focus on solidarity, transparency and public participation. The chapter also examines the regulatory and enforcement strategies that characterise EU climate change law. To this end, the EU Emissions Trading System is examined as an example of the EU approach to market-based regulation, and the Governance Regulation demonstrates the EU’s reliance on ‘soft’, proceduralised enforcement in the climate policy sphere. The chapter’s final section illustrates the difficulty of coherent climate change decision-making, as EU authorities must reconcile internal market goals with energy security demands, sustainability concerns and global fairness concerns.
Humanity is currently in the grip of deep institutional denial concerning the adequacy of its institutions for dealing with serious intergenerational challenges, such as global climate change. In response, we should call for a global constitutional convention focused on developing new institutions to protect future generations and further their interests. This chapter presents ten initial guidelines for how to construct such a global constitutional convention. Although each follows as a fairly modest and natural inference (a ‘baby step’) from the purposes of the convention itself, the implications stand in sharp contrast to the status quo and to most conventional discussions of reform. The guidelines are, thus, both modest and radical. As a result, the global constitutional convention is, perhaps, just the kind of realistic utopia that we need.
Explores how sea level rise and flooding are amplified by the design of cities, presents built environment strategies to manage flood risk, and considers issues of climate justice.
This paper defends strong emissions sufficientarianism as an approach to assigning moral rights to generate greenhouse gas emissions. Strong emissions sufficientarianism holds that only subsistence emitting is morally permissible. This paper argues that, since it is uncertain how many subsistence emissions there will be, the present generation owes it to future generations to refrain from generating non-subsistence emissions, not to risk imposing on them a tragic choice between sacrificing themselves and contributing to very dangerous climate change. The paper also addresses the charge that emissions sufficientarianism, in general, is too permissive since it entails a right to contribute to very dangerous climate change. The overall message is that, given the moral urgency posed by climate change, there is little room for distributive principles besides emissions sufficientarianism. This casts doubt on the appropriateness of relying on carbon budgets in assigning rights to emit.
This book considers the everyday conduits through which climate instability is revealing itself: the storm sewer drain on your street, the powerlines transporting your electricity, the mix of vegetation in your backyard or neighborhood park – these are the pathways through which climate change is most likely to impact your life. For many, these are the last places we expect it to. The first book to establish a framework for climate change adaptation, Stone's aim is to understand how climate change is altering our lives in the present period – this period of transition between the ancient, stable climate of our ancestors and the unfolding, no longer stable climate of our children – and how our cities might adapt to these changes. Stone's concern is with the risks posed by a new environmental regime for which our modes of living are ill-adapted, and with how these modes of living must be altered – radically altered – to persist in a climate changed world.
The urgency of climate change has never been greater, nor the moral case for responding to it more compelling. This review essay critically compares Darrel Moellendorf's Mobilizing Hope and Catriona McKinnon's Climate Change and Political Theory. Moellendorf's book defends the moral importance of poverty alleviation through sustainable economic growth and argues for a mass climate movement based on the promise of a more prosperous future. By contrast, McKinnon provides a political vocabulary to articulate the many faces of climate injustice, and to critically examine proposed policy solutions—notably including the indefinite pursuit of economic growth. While both find reasons to be hopeful, their wide-ranging accounts reflect different visions of what a just and sustainable future might look like. They reflect different understandings of sustainable development and the significance of environmental values; the scope of permissible climate activism; and the ethics of geoengineering. Building upon them, I argue in favor of a more pluralistic vision of a just climate future, one that is capable of speaking to the range of moral interests bearing upon the climate and biodiversity crises, and that supports sustainable development that is inclusive of diverse human-nature relationships.
The recent polycrises of COVID-19, economic recession, and energy price increases have reinforced the critical importance of energy services – such as heating, information and communications technology, and refrigeration – to everyday societal functioning. Compromising access to these energy services, or energy poverty, limits social and economic development affecting education, health, and social participation. Energy poverty is impacted by climate change and climate-related policies – however, this nexus has been marginalised within social policy. We critically review literature at the intersection of climate change and energy poverty identifying policy approaches, tensions, and solutions of relevance for social policy. While tensions exist between efforts to mitigate climate change and energy poverty, climate-friendly mitigation of energy poverty requires better integration of social perspectives to disrupt current technical biases, recognising the characteristics and needs of individuals in energy poverty, and holistic governance approaches, especially involving the health and housing sectors.
This policy-oriented article explores the sustainability dimension of digitalisation and artificial intelligence (AI). While AI can contribute to halting climate change via targeted applications in specific domains, AI technology in general could also have detrimental effects for climate policy goals. Moreover, digitalisation and AI can have an indirect effect on climate policy via their impact on political processes. It will be argued that, if certain conditions are fulfilled, AI-facilitated digital tools could help with setting up frameworks for bottom-up citizen participation that could generate the legitimacy and popular buy-in required for speedy transformations needed to reach net zero such as radically revamping the energy infrastructure among other crucial elements of the green transition. This could help with ameliorating a potential dilemma of voice versus speed regarding the green transition. The article will further address the nexus between digital applications such as AI and climate justice. Finally, the article will consider whether innovative governance methods could instil new dynamism into the multi-level global climate regime, such as by facilitating interlinkages and integration between different levels. Before implementing innovative governance arrangements, it is crucial to assess whether they do not exacerbate old or even generate new inequalities of access and participation.