Climate Justice: If needed at all

CONTENTS

Introduction I. Climate Justice:

A. Why Climate negotiations need an ethical base? B. Defining Climate Justice

II. Focal points of Climate Justice: A. Determining factors of Vulnerability B. Who is most affected by Climate Change?

III. Criticism of Climate Justice and its reasonableness Conclusion Annex

ABSTRACT

The research finds out the effects of the concept “climate justice” which emerged to address the issues and concerns that arise from the intersection of climate change with race, poverty and pre-existing environmental risks. The analysis and discussions surrounds the climate negotiations, which needs an ethical base leading to emergence of climate justice. After determining the factors of vulnerability this research shows that the actual victims of climate change are the world’s poorest. It continues to discover the question about the necessity of climate justice. We will try to find the matter of hope which is lightening slowly like a “Firefly” showing how climate justice can actually prove to be an effective movement.

“We are on the precipice of climate system tipping points, Beyond which there is no redemption.”

–James Hansen INTRODUCTION

Imagine yourself finding out that your home; the only shelter of yours; is on fire. Will you take steps to save your living room only and leave your kitchen to burn? Such foolish action might end up in full destruction of your house. Now, if we consider Planet Earth to be that ‘home’ and such ‘fire’ to be caused by climate change, can we choose to save the Rich countries only leaving the Poor ones? That will lead to ruination of our planet as well. So, to save all of our lives from climate change our actions have to be reasonable and smart. Protection should be ensured first to those who need it most. That is exactly what Climate Justice is all about. It advocates for establishing a system based on ecological ethics and social justice in combating climate change.

Climate Change is perhaps the most far-reaching and detrimental global crisis the world is facing today. Increasing emission of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere is leading us to a disaster by upsetting the balance of the world’s environment. The latest report, Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1 clearly states that the world’s atmosphere and oceans have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.2 As a result over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass and glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide. The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (WGI AR5 2013). More and more extreme natural disasters are proving the effects of climate change worldwide. Describing how climate change is wrecking havoc on our lives can literally take whole day. The effects are so vast and visible that these can be hardly ignored.

Responsibility of all these shocking events is on our shoulders. Because ‘human influence’ has been proven to be the dominant cause of this observed warming since the mid-20th century (WGI AR5 2013). And the situation is worsening. According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), atmospheric Carbon dioxide (CO2) grew more rapidly last year than its average rise over the past decade (BBC News 2013).3 It is proven that we are bound to face a substantial multi-century climate change because of these incidents. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped now (WGI AR5 2013). In reality, continued emissions of greenhouse gases will enhance warming and changes in all components of the climate system. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of these greenhouse gas emissions (WGI AR5 2013). But that is not an easy task to do.

1 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change providing the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. One of the main IPCC activities is the preparation of comprehensive Assessment Reports about the state of scientific, technical and socio-economic knowledge on climate change, its causes, potential impacts and response strategies. The latest report, Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis; has been released on 27th September, 2013. It is the most comprehensive assessment of scientific knowledge on climate change since 2007 when Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was released. 2 See, Annex I, Figure I. 3 In the same report the WMO states there were 393.1ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2012, an increase of 2.2ppm over 2011. This was above the yearly average of 2.02ppm over the past decade.

The obstacles of limiting the increasing emissions are quite well known. The richest and most developed countries have emitted such a huge amount of harmful gases while paving their way to industrialization that the whole world is suffering too much for it. Even right now, the 50 most polluting power plants of America are producing 2% of all energy-related emissions worldwide (Schneider, Madsen & Boggs, 2013).4 Emissions like this serve the purposes of energy supply or production to affluent ones but the ultimate burden is being borne by the helpless poor population. For every degree Celsius rise in temperature above the growing season optimum, farmers can expect a 10% decline in grain yields (Naidoo, Kumi 2011). Such destruction of crops is one of the reasons for high cost of food. This is a serious threat to ecological and social stability which is upsetting the situations in developing countries.

Our fear about climate change can only be removed when a real solution comes forward. To achieve such solution, firstly unity has to be established among the Global population. The fact that the world has not yet come to a unified agreement about combating climate change has been described by Ms. Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as an immoral act of "condemning future generations before they are even born (BBC News 2013)". The fight against climate change is not a fight for any singular nation or community. It is the key to survival for everybody. It is about establishment of justice. We have to agree that ‘we are all accountable for the rising tides, the fragile soils, the drowning and hungry people and the devastated cultures. And that is why it is a question of justice and of rights; of saying we all need to change our lifestyles and change the rules of the game (Harcourt, Wendy 2008).’

Climate change combating can be the platform for the world’s inhabitants to make an equal footing. It can be the point of lifting up the suffered people from their misery. Rather than trembling in fear as we despoil our planet and suffer climate ‘crisis’, we can put in place a system based on ecological ethics and social justice (Harcourt, Wendy 2008). It is our responsibility to provide the future inhabitants of this Earth with a low carbon future. And that is the goal of ‘Climate Justice’. The following chapters of this article will define Climate Justice and explore the basic points that Climate Justice Movement focuses on. It will also assess the current questions it faces in order to explain its necessity.

I. CLIMATE JUSTICE

A. Why Climate negotiations need an ethical base?

On 2009, the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) had submitted a background report to UNESCO on the ‘Ethical Implications of Global Climate Change’ which stated “ethics is…not something added on top of other issues related to climate change, but rather a constitutive part of all of the reasonably justifiable responses to the challenges of climate change (Sarabhai, Kartikeya V.).”5 Ethical concepts like ‘justice’ are needed to enable an equitable distribution in conflict situations like climate change. So if we are to find solutions to climate change, we have to speak about justice. Issues of justice that arise in the context of climate change and poverty reduction need to be systematically considered in climate negotiations. Thus, a comprehensive concept of justice needs to be unfolded first (Wallacher & Reder 2008).

4 If the 50 most-polluting U.S. power plants were an independent nation, they would be the seventh-largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, behind Germany and ahead of South Korea. Julian Boggs says, “America's dirtiest power plants are the elephant in the room when it comes to global warming." 5 UNESCO Executive Board, 182 EX/INF.16, Paris, 2 September 2009. This report’s first conclusion was that “global climate change itself—not simply its possible impacts—constitutes an ethical challenge”, and second that “there is no simple basis for an ethical response to the challenges of global climate change”. The report ended by saying that ethics needs to be ‘a core and necessary element of any debate about climate change and its challenges’.

Because “climate change cannot be dealt with adequately and properly if the ethical dimensions…are not highlighted, well understood, and taken into account in decisions about responses.”6.

A general observation of the current world situation can readily prove that the poor in the South are mainly affected by climate change, and uneven distribution of energy consumption and prosperity is to blame for that (Ruf, Anja 2008). Worse part is that these poor people hardly contributed themselves in this mess. They are suffering punishment for a crime they did not commit. This injustice is a result of conscious steps of few policymakers from developed world. Because of them Climate change has reached such an extent today that it is impossible to eradicate the harms of it. But we can certainly keep a grasp over its spreading. Such steps can be effectuated only when ‘justice’ is sought.

Human dignity is a suitable starting point for a universal concept of global justice as it is justifiable in different ethical traditions and concepts (Wallacher & Reder 2008). All the people of the world have the dignity as human right to lead a healthy life. One who is responsible for the larger part of climate change has to pay the larger compensation to the affected communities who are innocent. We all know about a recognized principle of Environmental Law namely “Polluter pays Principle” – which says that remediation of the damaged environment is a part of the process of sustainable development and such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.7 This principle has to be applied. Now the polluters have to take responsibility for the greenhouse gas emissions. And to make them liable the climate negotiations definitely need a framework based of ethical relief.

It is a proven fact that protection and poverty reduction are mutually dependent. So, globally sustainable development requires both the alleviation of poverty and the preservation of our natural livelihoods. These targets cannot be easily harmonized. The problem of equity (across social groups living today and across generations) raised by climate change and the need for urgent and deep mitigation, are ethical problems, and should be informed by moral philosophy (Barker, Scrieciu & Taylor 2008). Therefore, the only way to address this crisis is to compel the historically responsible polluters to bear the responsibility of reducing pollutants. By ordering them to help the helpless in surviving the increasing disasters, the climate negotiations can buy a little more time for our Planet. Those who damaged our environment have to face the music now. The longer we keep these works undone, the sooner we lead towards doom.

So the climate change negotiations shouldn’t be kept inside the air-conditioned corridors of the conference centers. As popular journalist Naomi Klein described in her article, “Responding to climate change requires that we break every rule in the free-market playbook,” She wrote, “We will need to rebuild the public sphere, reverse privatizations, relocalize large parts of economies, scale back overconsumption, bring back long-term planning, heavily regulate and tax corporations, maybe even nationalize some of them, cut military spending and recognize our debts to the global South.” To achieve this, the leaders of the world must introduce an ethical base breaking the regular trend by feeling the need for justice earnestly. The climate negotiations will appease only when it gets an ethical base redressing the damages and answering the concerns of the worst victims. And that is where Climate Justice appears. B. Defining Climate Justice: The movement to integrate ethical values in the framework for fighting against climate change is known as Climate Justice. The organization Mobilization of Climate Justice8 explains it as ‘…a vision to dissolve and alleviate the unequal burdens created by climate change. It aims for the fair treatment of all people and freedom from discrimination with the creation of policies and projects that address climate change.’ 6 UNESCO Executive Board, 182 EX/INF.16, Paris, 2 September 2009. 7 Indian Council for Enviro-legal action vs. Union of India 1996(3) SCC 212 8 It is a North America-based network of organizations and activists who have joined together to build a North American climate justice movement. Available from: http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/about/what-is-climate-justice/

Climate Justice as Evaluative Model has been defined as ‘a struggle over land, forest, water, culture, food sovereignty, collective and social rights. It is a struggle that considers “justice” at the basis of any solution; a struggle that supports climate solutions found in the practices and knowledge of those already fighting to protect and defend their livelihoods and the environment. This struggle insists on a genuine systematic transformation in order to tackle the real causes of climate change.’9

In a theoretical perspective, the first acknowledged reference to the concept of climate justice appeared in a 1999 report titled Greenhouse Gangsters vs. Climate Justice by the San Francisco-based Corporate Watch group. The report was mainly an examination of the petroleum industry and its disproportionate political influence, but it also made an initial attempt to define a multifaceted approach to climate justice (Tokar, Brian 2013). The term is also used with reference to legal systems where justice is achieved through application and development of law in the area of climate change. Recognizing and addressing the fact that those least responsible for climate change experience its greatest impacts is the central concern of this movement. It establishes that charity is no substitute for justice. That is how climate justice is generally used as a term for viewing climate change as an ethical issue and considering how its causes and effects relate to concepts of justice. Although climate justice is a different concept from environmental justice, it remains a sub-discipline of environmental justice. Environmental justice framework has five essential elements, which are:

(1) A right of all individuals to be protected from pollution; (2) A preference for prevention strategies; (3) A shift to polluters and dischargers of the burdens of proof; (4) A definition of discrimination that includes disparate impacts and statistical evidence; and (5) An emphasis on targeted action to redress unequal risk burdens.

In light of this rights foundation and the theoretical and practical framework built upon it, environmental justice demands just solutions to climate change which is named as “Climate Justice”.

To understand why Climate Justice Movement addresses the inequality affecting our environment, we can compare the per capita Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions of the Industrialized Countries and the Developing ones from Figure I.10 It is evident that the real polluters are members of the elite communities of our world and they are better equipped with measures to face the increasing climate change impacts. While the poor and under developed countries suffer the most from drastic weather events. Whilst

Figure: I climate change will exact a price on most of humanity; it seems manifestly unjust that the ‘perpetrators’ face a lesser penalty than the ‘victims’ (Baskin, Jeremy 2009).

9 Hoodwinked in the Hothouse, Available from: http://www.risingtidenorthamerica.org/special/hoodwinkedv2_WEB.pdf 10 Baskin, Jeremy. The impossible necessity of climate justice? p 7.

The mechanism of Climate Justice aims to redress these true victims. The objectives of climate justice action which represents the answer of the crucial question how climate justice combats climate change are: 11

Focusing on actions for prevention, mitigations and adaptation to climate change, Networking with governments, inter-governmental agencies, non-government organizations

(NGOs) and community groups through community-based training and workshops for awareness and capacity building,

Building low-carbon, climate-resilient cities by mobilizing direct finance and expertise and helping fast growing cities avoid locking in carbon intensive infrastructure,

Moving forward on climate-smart agriculture through building an Action Alliance to realize the triple win of increasing yields and income, making farms more resilient to climate change, and helping to sequester carbon in the soil,

Working with others to accelerate energy efficiency, and universal access to modern energy, Laying the groundwork for placing a robust value on carbon, Reducing consumption in the global North, Enabling huge financial transfers from North to South based on historical responsibility and

Ecological debt, paid for by redirecting military budgets, innovative taxes and debt cancellation, Supporting the removal of fossil fuels in the ground and investing in energy-efficiency and

community- led renewable energy, Maintaining sustainable family farming and food sovereignty and Carrying out any other activities incidental to, or conducive of, the above missions and

objectives.

In achieving these objectives movements for climate justice are clearly multifaceted and draw upon perhaps unprecedented diversity of perspectives and strategies. In many ways, their diversity is their greatest strength, given the multiplicity of peoples affected by extreme weather and increasing climate chaos, as well as the need to develop appropriate strategies for a wide variety of political contexts. But the climate crisis is also inherently global in scope, and the lack of progress toward global reductions in greenhouse pollution speaks to the need for ever greater coordination, determination, and commonality of vision (Tokar, Brian 2013). Jeremy Baskin rightly states, “By Climate Justice I mean something both beyond and different from the notion of climate law… (It) involves looking at the extent to which our responses to climate change, whether by cutting emissions (mitigation) or by adapting to it, are fair and equitable.”12

To date, issues of climate justice have been widely overlooked in policy circles and underappreciated in the legal academic arena as well. But the movement is progressing. There are some NGO’s which play an imperative role in the way of Climate Justice. Around 750 international organizations, including numerous grassroots groups throughout the global South have joined the Climate Justice Movement, namely: Greenpeace, Climate Justice Now! (CJN!), European Climate Justice Action Network (CJA), Climate Action Network (CAN), Grassroots Global Justice, Friends of the Earth, Indigenous Environment Network, and 350.org and many more.

11 Climate Justice Now press statement, Bali, Indonesia, December 14, 2007 12 Baskin, Jeremy. The impossible necessity of climate justice? p 1.

II. FOCAL POINTS OF CLIMATE JUSTICE A. Determining Factors of Vulnerability: The mission of Climate Justice is to save the vulnerable communities. It is clear that every single being on Earth faces the effects of Climate Change. But some of them are the worst victims. And they are sorted out in terms of vulnerability. As it is already mentioned that poor communities are the most vulnerable ones, let us find out how this factor has been decided. The IPCC Third Assessment Report defined vulnerability as “…a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity.”13

Vulnerability can also be broadly understood as a measure of how strongly a population group is threatened by an external hazard. But determining who is especially vulnerable is a critical job. The main reason behind this is that the future climate change cannot really be predicted with certainty. And another important thing is that in determining the vulnerability of climate change the socio-economic stipulations are very imperative. If we see deeply, we realize that in comparison to the developed countries, developing and poor countries are plagued with more problems due to the process of their industrial development, the rate of population growth, use of technology etc. When a hazard comes, the endurance power of the affected also varies. So, due to these difficulties, it is not scientifically possible to precisely rank regions as to their vulnerability to climate change (Füssel, Hans Martin 2008). Several studies have attempted to conceptualize vulnerability to environmental hazards and climate change. It is found that an individual or group’s vulnerability to climate change and climate related disasters is influenced by the complex array of social, economic, political, and environmental factors operating at a variety of levels that in combination affect vulnerability (O’Brien et al. 2008). Actually, it is not nevertheless necessary to estimate the risks of climate change for each and every countries but it will be more effective if to compare with each other. By the estimated risk of specific countries it is possible to consider the threat of other countries in the same category such information is used among others to:

1. determine the overall threat posed by climate change, 2. set priorities in supporting poor regions to adapt to climate change and 3. make recommendations for the consideration of climate change in on economic development

projects and program. Any assessment of the impacts of climate change is compounded by a set of methodological difficulties. Even though there is no accurate definition of vulnerability, we can identify three main elements that constitute the conceptual framework of vulnerability—exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (Adger, W.N 2003). Dr. Hans Martin Füssel, member of the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has successfully pointed out the factors by which the vulnerability of different regions and population groups to man-made climate change is determined:

Magnitude of regional climate change: Global climate change manifests differently in different world regions. For example, warming in the Arctic region is much more pronounced than any other regions in the world. Sometimes it is noticed

13 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. In Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by R. T. Watson and the core writing team. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

that some regions where climate change rate is too much slow whereas other regions will experience strong decreases or increases. Sensitivity to climate change: The same magnitude of climate change may have very different impacts in different regions. For instance, a warming of several degrees would increase the agricultural potential in a cold region like Northern Europe but decrease it in an already hot region like India. Coping and adaptive capacity: The social impacts of climate change severally depend on how much populations have the capacity to cope and adapt. For instance, Australia could compensate a climate-induced decrease in food production by one-fifth quite well by additional purchases from the world market due to its economic power, whereas the same decrease in India would cause deep poverty and hunger for large parts of the population.

As the absolute way of determining the vulnerability of climate change are vague but by applying the determining factors it is clearly drawn that the poor countries are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Dr. Füssel described this matter as follows-

1. The world’s poor are not necessarily concentrated in regions where climate change is especially pronounced. Most of them are living in such regions which already have a marginal climate (hot, dry, high variability) that are strongly affected by extreme weather events (hurricanes, floods). 2. Almost all the poor and developing countries are highly dependent on climate-sensitive activities, especially agriculture for their livelihood. 3. Poor countries are not highly equipped with modern technology. For this they have only a few scopes to observe and analyze climate data, and they have only very limited access to this information. Hence, the poor are not fully alert about the imminent threats and become worst victims. 4. Poor countries have fewer resources for protecting themselves against gigantic climatic hazards. 5. Sometimes is seen that the countries which are politically marginalized, they fails to achieve public aid after a natural disaster. It should therefore be obvious that the poor countries have a moral claim for support in adapting to climate change and in managing its impacts. This is all the more true since the poor have contributed very little to man-made climate change. The unequal distribution of causes and effects of climate change is a key challenge for international climate negotiations. So for an effective climate protection, a system based on “climate justice” must emerge not only for the worlds’ poorest but also for other inhabitants of Earth. B. Who is most affected by climate change? It is quite clear now that Climate change will target systematically and mercilessly the vulnerable, the poor and the extremely poor. As the impacts are direct upon developing countries and regions located in highly climate sensitive areas and their inhabitants, most of them relying on subsistence farming or very low income activities with little scope for diversification. These communities are the first to experience the scary face climate change through as heat-related illness, respiratory illness, infectious diseases, unaffordable rises in energy costs, extreme natural disasters and finally death. They do not only bear disproportionate burdens from climate change itself, but also from ill-designed policies to prevent climate change and the side effects of the energy systems that cause it as well.

The Assessment Reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have clearly stated that developing countries and the poorer sections of the population are being hit particularly hard by climate change impacts. Their prospects of fair access to food, clean water and other resources are continuing to deteriorate and their health suffers. Scientific studies such as the Climate Change Index (CCI) published in 2007 by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology made the same point: the poor suffer disproportionately from climate change. It is always more difficult for them to adapt to changed circumstances and their situation is already bleak (Loster, Thomas 2008). Stephen Schneider, a Stanford scientist, has wittingly pointed out; "Don't be poor in a hot country, don't live in hurricane alley, watch out about being on the coasts or in the Arctic, and it's a bad idea to be on high mountains with glaciers melting (Max, Arthur 2007)." This situation has been proven again in a very recent study, published in the scientific journal Nature on October 10th this year.14 This study predicts the time for “Climate Departure” for different locations. “Climate Departure” is the moment when average temperatures, either in a specific location or worldwide, become so impacted by climate change that the old climate is left behind (Fisher, Max 2013). In other words, A city hits "climate departure" when the average temperature of its coolest year from then on is projected to be warmer than the average temperature of its hottest year in the baseline between 1960 and 2005. For example, the climate departure point for Mumbai is 2034. After 2034, even Mumbai's coldest year will still be hotter than any year from before 2005.

The matter of hope is that, the study reveals the projected time for climate departure can be delayed if CO2 emissions are mitigated. The estimated year of climate change departure of some places and the places mostly affected are: 15

Country/Places

Projected Year to reach climate departure Without Carbon dioxide Mitigation

(2023-2063)

Projected Year to reach Climate Departure With

Carbon dioxide Mitigation (2033-2083)

Manokwari 2020 2025 Kingstone 2023 2028 Ngerulmud 2023 2025 Singapore 2028 2037 Mumbai 2034 2051

Washington DC 2047 2071 Los Angles 2048 2079

London 2056 2088

Table: I

This table clearly shows that the developing countries are mostly vulnerable than the developed countries and if the carbon dioxide is not mitigated the estimated year of climate departure is 2023-2063 and if mitigation is accomplished it will stretch to 2033-2083. Such a timely warning establishes the importance of climate justice movement and its correct objectives. 14 The Article is titled: The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability. Available from: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7470/full/nature12540.html 15 See Annex; Map I & II

III. CRITICISM OF CLIMATE JUSTICE AND ITS REASONABLENESS Being a movement vast enough to challenge capitalism and free market economy; Climate Justice faces various criticisms. The wealthy elites from developed world often find the structure of Climate Justice to be defective. Claims have been made that demands of Climate Justice Movement are ignoring basic practicalities. After all, the popular belief is that, reliance on cheap fossil fuel is the key to development. And it has brought developing countries like China, India or Brazil in the forefront of Economic Development as well. So, now the demand to keep fossil fuels under earth scares many. Redistribution of global wealth or increasing use of renewable energy is also suggested as strong obstacle to economic progress in all countries. Equating environmentalism with communism, the capitalists brand Climate Justice Movement to be archaic and openly hostile to ‘development’. It is also feared that if Climate justice initiatives are successful, it would introduce uncertainty factors into the energy markets which would dwarf all developments. Moreover resulting lawsuits against energy producing companies would be catastrophic (Horn, Art 2011).

Chris Foreman, Director of the Social Policy Program at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, puts up a question in the winter issue of The Breakthrough Journal in 2013 that if the West should compensate the rest for past damages, what is to be done about the ongoing harmful emissions from the developing world? He answers his own question by supporting such copious emissions as in his view it would make the developing countries more resilient to the natural disasters and other climate impacts through alleviating poverty. He states “Rich nations and communities handle extreme natural disasters much better than poor countries do even modest disasters.” He rightly points out that the 20-year effort to establish a global limit on carbon emissions has not had much appreciable impact on climate change or global poverty. He continues to claim that environmental policies specifically targeting disparities in exposure based on race or class or financial solvency are often found ineffective.

As a solution Mr. Foreman suggests to advocate efforts that help alleviate poverty and might also provide benefits that help in mitigation and adaptation to climate change, rather than the other way around as Climate Justice suggests. Measures that are worth keeping separate from climate concerns like; disease control and bathroom-equipped schools for girls, etc. are considered by him to be a good place to start. And he states that greater cooperation between governments and corporations is the only way to expand access to energy and modern living standards. (Foreman, Chris 2013)

May be at this point we need to reconsider the concept of ‘modern living standards’, ‘growth’ and ‘development’. As Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist, explains, Growth is now being measured through conversion of nature into cash, and commons into commodities. It is an inevitable truth that economic growth hides the poverty it creates through the destruction of nature. Because now “a living forest does not contribute to growth, but when trees are cut down and sold as timber, we have growth” (Shiva, Vandana 2013). And Mr. Foreman like all those who oppose Climate Justice Movement is praising this hollow achievement. We can no more justify destruction of nature on grounds of creating such growth. Because such approach give a non-sustainable solution which is also economically unjust. And that is the central concern of Climate Justice Movement.

The real situation of our environment is far more dangerous and needs to be spoken with utmost urgency. There is not time enough to separate the issues of climate change and poverty. The ‘economic development’ we earn through expansion of industries causing increased emissions might buy few of us few more oxygen masks. But it will deprive all of us to breathe in the fresh air, the real Oxygen, which no factories can produce. Rapid growth of Global economy fueled by cheap fossil energy is not desirable anymore.

But financial crisis is not any negligible issue in the Climate Justice Movement. The Working Group III showed in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) that a conversion of the global energy system is possible at acceptable economic costs and can also be accepted by society (Edenhofer, Ottmar & Lotze-Campen, Hermann 2008). Climate Justice promotes that Climate Change and global poverty might be tackled through a win-win deployment of low-carbon renewable energy that avoids emissions, meets the growing energy needs of the developing world, and lifts the poor out of poverty all at once. As Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, puts it “…the struggle to end global poverty and the struggle to avoid catastrophic climate change are two sides of the same coin (Broder, John M. 2011).” Climate Justice confers that, to address the financial and ecological crisis at the same time, coalitions have to be built with people, not corporations (Jason, Mark. 2013) This argument as to the utility of Climate Justice regarding development and poverty can be presented through a practical example. Let us draw the ending line by observing the current global situation regarding ‘Fracking’.16 It is a controversial effort for shale gas extraction. This controversy arises from the fact that fracking leads to transportation of gallons of water to the fracking site at high environmental costs. Risk of contamination of ground water by the carcinogenic chemicals used at the site is prevalent. Risks of spreading of radioactive material released with the gas are also there. Last but not the least; fracking process is also known to have caused small earth tremors. Two small earthquakes of 1.5 and 2.2 magnitudes hit the Blackpool area in England on 2011 following fracking (BBC News 2013). As this process kills the balance of our environment, Climate Justice Activists have condemned the increasing use of it accordingly. The supporters of fracking also accept that there are potential risks to public health from exposure to these emissions. But they hope these risks to be “low if the operations are properly run and regulated”. They declare that these problems reported are only the result of operational failure or poor regulation. (Shukman, David 2013) Recently, fracking has been praised as one of the main reasons in showing the signs of ‘permanent slowdown’ in the rate of emission increase as well (McGrath, Matt 2013). While this point is true that shift to shale gas for energy in the US from cheap coal reduced CO2 emissions; this is not the permanent solution. Because no matter how much productivity is increased by using up the shale gas, its supply will end one day. And the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere will keep rising as well. One moment will come when then there will be no way to reverse that action. In the same way, by ignoring the urgency of Climate Justice Movement we will be heading towards an irreversible doom. The answer lies in active steps to save our planet through implementing Climate Justice. Not in attempts to continue the luxurious life style few years longer. CONCLUSION Climate Justice has been here for more than 20 years. And now its failure is being highlighted frequently. The Developed countries are not being flexible about their economic standing. The rich countries have lost the political will to address climate change at the speed needed to avoid catastrophic change in years to come. As a result the bad effects have become even worse. Unimaginably strong Typhoons like Haiyan17, hits us as a taste of what is to come, bringing death to thousands of people. Whether the world hits climate departure a few years before 2050 or a few years after, it is clear the world is changing. Our time is slipping out. 16 Fracking is the shorthand for hydraulic fracturing, which is the process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside. Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure which allows the gas to flow out to the head of the well. The process is carried out vertically or, more commonly, by drilling horizontally to the rock layer. The process can create new pathways to release gas or can be used to extend existing channels. 17 Haiyan is the fourth most intense tropical cyclone ever recorded and possibly the strongest to have ever hit land. It is a Category 5 "super typhoon “which hit the Philippines on November 10, 2013. According to the Philippine government, the area's typhoons have been getting stronger. "Menacingly, the Filipino typhoons are getting stronger and stronger, especially since the 90s," Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/08/typhoon-haiyan-biggest-storms

Maybe this global inaction is caused because each nation holds conflicting views about the role justice should play. In the absence of a strong global push towards a green economy, global movements for climate justice have similarly remained weak. But as the scientific evidence for manmade climate change has strengthened year by year, it leaves fewer uncertainties about the serious consequence of this inaction (Porter, Eduardo 2013). It is evident that climate change is not bringing any marginal effect. It is pushing us to a war for our survival. It is an existential threat to the poor nations and is the reason of disastrous future for everyone. It is already clear that the unequal distribution of climate change burden is being exacerbated because developing countries are least able to insulate themselves from the effects of climate change. Those nations that are the most geographically and economically vulnerable also has the least impact on mechanisms to halt the progress of this impending disaster (Gordon, Ruth 2007).This Third World powerlessness has to be addressed in line with Climate Justice Movement. As it is now proven that improvement of the living conditions of the people that are mostly affected by climate change will also improve the living conditions of the entire human society and of coming generations (Ruf, Anja 2008). Such targets can be achieved through distribution of resources more even and by supporting the people in the South in coping with the impacts of Climate Change (Ruf, Anja 2008). As Wendy Harcourt puts it, now the first and foremost duty is to reduce consumption and end the environmentally degrading lifestyles of the northern and southern elites and shortening production chains to reduce transportation and increase energy efficiency. At the same time, it is critical to restore biodiversity and community control of the commons and to support sustainable peasant and family farming and the principles of food sovereignty in order to tackle the growing hunger and poverty in the world. These solutions are exactly what Climate Justice describes. Therefore, at this moment, Climate Justice Movement alone can be the savior of humankind. It has to be well understood that climate justice is not an abstract aspiration, it is a moral imperative. The whole world has to wake up now to the crude reality that prevalent injustice is leading our Earth to certain destruction. Only by actively ensuring justice for the affected population the rest of the world can reduce own risk of climate change. Just as a mother puts wet cloth on her sick child’s forehead to ease the heat of his fever, we are supposed to ease pain of our dear Earth. But instead if we keep fighting over what the colour of the cloth should be, the ultimate harm will be done. That’s why we have to immediately recognize the need for ethics based climate negotiations and the importance of Climate Justice Movement. We have to work upon the principles laid down by Climate Justice Activists. Only then we can dream of a better future. A safer future based on the effective principles of Climate Justice.

___________________________________________

REFERENCES

1. INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE. (2013) Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers. [Online] 27 September, 2013. Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.Un0O5yf4uic

2. BBC NEWS (2013) Concentrations of warming gases break record. [Online] Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24833148

3. SCHNEIDER, J., MADSEN, T & BOGGS, J. (2013) America’s Dirtiest Power Plants: their oversized contribution to global warming and what we can do about it. [Online] Available from: http://environmentamericacenter.org/reports/amc/america%E2%80%99s-dirtiest-power-plants 4. NAIDOO, K. (2011) Please don’t squander this moment. [Online] December 9th 2011. Available from: Greenpeace International http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/climate/please-dont-squander-this-moment/blog/38324/ [Accessed: November 9th 2013]

5. BBC NEWS (2013) UN’s climate chief’s tears over future generations. [Online] Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24615946

6. HARCOURT, W. (2008) Walk the Talk – Putting climate justice into action. Development. 51, (307–309) 7. SARABHAI, KARTIKEYA V. (2010) An Ethical Framework for a Sustainable World. [Online] Available from: http://jsd.sagepub.com/content/4/2/155.citation 8. WALLACHER, J & REDER, M. (2008) Principles of justice. Climate Change and Poverty: A challenge for a fair world policy. Available from: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/services/infodesk/books_brochures/climate-change-and-poverty 9. RUF, A. (2008) Editorial, Climate Change and Poverty: A challenge for a fair world policy. Available from: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/services/infodesk/books_brochures/climate-change-and-poverty 10. BARKER, T., SCRIECIU, S¸. & TAYLOR, D. (2008) Climate Change, Social Justice and Development. Development. 51, (317–324) 11. KLEIN, N. (2011) Capitalism vs. The Climate. [Online] November 28th. Available from: The Nation. http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,0. 12. TOKAR, B. (2013) Movements for Climate Justice. M. Dietz, ed., Handbook of the Climate Movement.

13. BASKIN, J. (2009) The impossible necessity of climate justice? [Online] August 26th. University of Cambridge, Programme for Sustainability Leadership. Available from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1439283

14. FÜSSEL, HANS M. (2008) Who is most affected by the impacts of climate change? [Online] Welt-sichten. Climate Change and Poverty, A challenge for a fair world policy. Available from: http://www.welt-sichten.org/dossiers-2008 15.. O’BRIEN, K. et al. (2008) Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation and Human Security. A Commissioned Report for the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Oslo: University of Oslo. 16. ADGER, W. N. et al. (2003) Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies 3 (3):179–95. 17. LOSTER, T. (2008) Poor people are the real losers. [Online] Welt-sichten. Climate Change and Poverty, A Challenge for a fair world policy. Available from: http://www.welt-sichten.org/dossiers-2008 18. MAX, A. (2007) Poor will suffer most. [Online] April 6th. Available from: Global Policy Forum http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/212/45315.html 19. FISHER, M. (2013) Map: These are the cities that climate change will hit first. [Online] October 9th. Available from: The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/09/map-these-are-the-cities-that-climate-change-will-hit-first/ 20. HORN, A. (2011) Skinning the Cat with climate justice. [Online] September 12th. Available from: http://www.energytribune.com/8808/skinning-the-cat-with-climate-justice#sthash.8y44yYsY.BeQfOxpg.dpuf

21. FOREMAN, C. (2013) On Justice Movements: Why they fail the environment and the poor. Breakthrough Journal. [Online] Winter. Available from: http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/issue-3/on-justice-movements/

22. VANDANA, S. (2013) How Economic growth has become anti-life. [Online] November 1st. The Guardian. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/how-economic-growth-has-become-anti-life?CMP=fb_gu

23. EDENHOFER, O & LOTZE-CAMPEN, H. (2008) Emissions must have a price. Climate Change and Poverty: A challenge for a fair world policy. Available from: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/services/infodesk/books_brochures/climate-change-and-poverty

24. BRODER, J.M. (2011) Greenpeace Leader Visits Boardroom, Without Forsaking Social Activism.[Online] December 6th. The New York Times. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/science/earth/kumi-naidoo-greenpeace-director-forges-a-broader-path-to-activism.html?_r=2&

25. MARK, J. (2013) Naomi Klein: 'Big green groups are more damaging than climate deniers'. [Online] September 10th. The Guardian. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/10/naomi-klein-green-groups-climate-deniers

26. BBC NEWS (2013) What is fracking and why is it controversial? [Online] Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14432401

27. SHUKMAN, D. (2013) ‘Low health’ risk from fracking, says UK agency. [Online] Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24761980

28. McGRATH, M. (2013) Report suggests slowdown in CO2 emissions rise. [Online] Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770

29. PORTER, E. (2013) The Cost of Climate Change. [Online] Available from: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/the-cost-of-climate-change/?ref=globalwarming

30. GORDON, R. (2007) Climate Change and the Poorest Nations: Further Reflections on Global Inequality, 78 U. COLO. L. REV. 1559, 1590–91

ANNEX

I. Observed change in average surface temperature:

Figure: II

II. Climate Departure:

Map: I

Map: II

This article was published in ELCOP Yearbook of Human Rights in December, 2013

ISBN 978-984-33-6133-2 Published by: Empowerment through Law of the Common People (ELCOP)

Sagorica Complex-B, Suite #1/South, 46, Mirpur Road (Basundhara Goli)

Dhaka-1205, Bangladesh