Lecture 12: Change theories and practices for climate justice

Question 1

Introduction to the climate crisis

Answer 1

• The 1.5°C target is a safety boundary — impacts beyond this are unmanageable
• Staying within 1.5°C requires limiting total emissions (carbon budget)
• Later action = sharper emission cuts required
• Climate models underestimate actual impacts
• Tipping points: thresholds where change becomes self-perpetuating
• Risk assessments of tipping points have become more urgent over time
• The problem is political, not technical
• Fight is about money and power, not facts

Question 2

Climate injustice

Answer 2

• A rights-based way to address climate change
• Linked to development and human rights
• Applies both to how we deal with impacts and solutions
  Dimensions of climate justice:
• Recognitional: Respecting identities, knowledge systems, and values
• Procedural: Inclusion in decision-making
• Distributive: Fair sharing of benefits and burdens

Question 3

Distributional climate justice

Answer 3

• Top 1% emit almost twice as much as bottom 50%
• Top 10% cause ~50% of emissions
• Bringing top 10% down to EU average would cut 1/3 of global emissions
  Growth mainly due to:
• People escaping poverty (~16%)
• Top 1% lifestyles (~23%)
  Other examples:
• Burden-shifting to future generations (“climate debt”)
• Unequal exposure to climate impacts (e.g. Niger floods)
  Economic Injustice
• Corporations benefit most from pollution, while society bears the cost
• IEA: No new oil/gas projects allowed to meet 1.5°C
• Fossil fuel firms continue to explore new reserves
  Agricultural Sector
• Livestock industry avoids discussing reductions in consumption/herd size
  Climate scientists confirm: mitigation is incompatible with status quo

Question 4

Procedural climate justice

Answer 4

• Corporate capture of policymaking (e.g. lobbying, setting research agendas)
• Lack of community participation in decisions

Question 5

Recognitional climate justice

Answer 5

• Indigenous communities framed as “carbon stewards”
  Example: 30x30 conservation plan
• Risk of eviction, violence and livelihood loss (distributive)
• Reduced identities to functional use (recognitional)
• No seat at the table (procedural)

Question 6

Strategies for change:

Answer 6

1. Grassroots action: bottom-up organising
2. NGO work and court cases: institutional political action
3. Corporate: pushing for change within corporations

Question 7

Grassroots action: bottom-up organising

Answer 7

• Creates political dilemma (e.g. road blockades, airport protests)
• Cut the Ties Campaign: VU Amsterdam cut fossil fuel funding ties

Question 8

NGO work and court cases: institutional political action

Answer 8

• Institutional approach: striving for better policy
• Lobbying, campaigning, research, lawsuits
• Milieudefensie vs Shell: Shell ordered to reduce emissions based on duty of care
• Milieudefensie vs ING: similar lawsuit against financial sector

Question 9

Corporate: pushing for change within corporations

Answer 9

• Roundtables for defining net-zero alignment standards
• Ongoing debates: offsets, reduction pathways, budget distribution

Question 10

Change theories

Answer 10

Overton Window
Radical Flanking
Synergy and Conflict

Question 11

Overton window

Answer 11

• Public discourse defines what is politically acceptable
• Grassroots and NGOs shift the window
• Politicians and companies operate within it

Question 12

Radical Flanking

Answer 12

• Radical activists make moderate voices seem more reasonable
• E.g. climate radicals push demands: normalize stronger policy proposals

Question 13

Synergie and conflict

Answer 13

• Different strategies can reinforce each other
• But not all are useful — some may backfire