On Intrahuman and Human-Nature Equity in Climate Policy

1/17/20230 min read

Equity and justice analyses are and should be pillars of climate change policy and research.

According to Klinsky et al (2017), incorporating equity and justice concerns would support human welfare and human rights (Klinsky et al 2017:171), produce well-informed climate strategies (Klinsky et al 2017:171), and enrich policymakers’ understanding of the implications of proposed trade-offs on different individuals and communities (Klinsky et al 2017:172). Attention to equity and justice would also inspire compliance and stability through greater public acceptance (Klinsky et al 2017:171).

Okereke (2017) argues specifically that procedural justice is necessary in the proceedings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) because the IPCC’s reports have the indirect power to shape climate policy (Okereke 2017:518). Given the IPCC’s “hybrid” position straddling science and government, its interpretations of climate change are sculpted by both scientific and policy priorities (Okereke 2017:511). Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Okereke (2017) also highlights the likely increased legitimacy of a process regarded as procedurally equitable (Okereke 2017:512; 518). Procedural fairness also has inherent worth in any social interaction, let alone interactions of such immense consequence as the IPCC process (Okereke 2017:512).

Despite references to inter alia human wellbeing and human rights (Klinsky et al 2017:171), different levels of vulnerability (Klinsky et al 2017:171), and the North-South divide (Okereke 2017:510), the two papers do not set out explicitly what the authors understand to constitute equity or justice.

Crucially, while both papers situate human wellbeing at the forefront, humans do not exist in isolation from nature but in a metacoupled environment of socio-economic and environmental interdependence (Liu et al 2018:471).

A human-security framing of climate change, recognizing the indivisibility of and reciprocity between nature and society (O’Brien et al 2007:76), would also take account of the need for environmental conservation and sustainability.

(302 words)

References:

  • Klinsky, S., T. Roberts, S. Huq, C. Okereke, P. Newell, P. Dauvergne, K. O’Brien, H. Schroeder, P. Tschakert, J. Clapp, M. Keck, F. Biermann, D. Liverman, J. Gupta, A. Rahman, D. Messner, D. Pellow, and S. Bauer. (2017). ‘Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research’. Global Environmental Change 44 2017, pp.170–173.

  • Liu, J., V. Hull, H.C.J. Godfray, D. Tilman, P. Gleick, H. Hoff, C. Pahl-Wostl, Z. Xu, M.G. Chung, J. Sun, and S. Li. (2018). ‘Nexus approaches to global sustainable development’. Nature Sustainability, Vol. 1, September 2018, 466-476. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0135-8

  • O’Brien, K., S. Eriksen, L.P. Nygaard, and A. Schjolden. (2007). ‘Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourse’. Climate Policy 7 (2007) 73–88.

  • Okereke, C. (2017). ‘A six-component model for assessing procedural fairness in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’. Climatic Change 145(3-4) 2017, pp.509–522.