Environmental and Ecological Justice (original) (raw)
Related papers
Environmental Justice and International Environmental Law
2013
Environmental justice lies at the heart of many environmental disputes between the global North and the global South as well as grassroots environmental struggles within nations. However, the discourse of international environmental law is often ahistorical and technocratic. It neither educates the North about its inordinate contribution to global environmental problems nor provides an adequate response to the concerns of nations and communities disproportionately burdened by poverty and environmental degradation. This article examines some of the root causes of environmental injustice among and within nations from the colonial period to the present, and discusses several strategies that can be used to integrate environmental justice into the broader corpus of international law so as to promote social and economic justice while protecting the planet’s natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations.
Under the paradigm of sustainable development, contemporary international law has not been able to shape an effective, nor an equitable, answer to the global ecological crisis. There is widespread consensus that environmental governance requires a major overhaul if humankind wishes to meet that challenge. Our main point is that global patterns of ecologically unequal exchange will not be corrected just by minor adaptations of existing international regimes. Nor will change come through the formal enactment of a given set of principles. Rather, correction will require a profound reconceptualisation of global governance that is able to integrate counter-hegemonic claims for environmental justice. This report has four parts. The first one is a conceptual introduction that puts in context concepts emerging from the academic or social movements, such as ecological and climate debt, against the backdrop of the legal narratives that underpin the hegemonic model of development. The second p...
This paper takes ecological debt as a measure of environmental injustice, and appraises this idea as a driving force for change in the international legal system. Environmental justice is understood here as a fair distribution of charges and benefits derived from using natural resources, in order to provide minimal welfare standards to all human beings, including future generations. Ecological debt measures this injustice, as an unfair and illegitimate distribution of benefits and burdens within the social metabolism, including ecologically unequal exchange, as a disproportionate appropriation and impairment of common goods, such as the atmosphere. Structural features of the international system promote a lack of transparency, control and accountability of power, through a pro-growth and pro-freedom language. In theory, this discourse comes with the promise of compensation for ordinary people, but in fact it benefits only a few. Ecological debt, as a symptom of the pervasive injustice of the current balance of power, demands an equivalent response, unravelling and deconstructing real power behind the imagery of equally sovereign states. It claims a counterhegemonic agenda aiming at rebuilding international law from a pluralist, 'third world' or Southern perspective and improving the balance of power. Ecological debt should not only serve as a means of compensation, but as a conceptual definition of an unfair system of human relations, which needs change. It may also help to define the burdens to be assumed as costs for the change required in international relations, i.e. by promoting the constitutionalization of international law and providing appropriate protection to human beings under the paradigms of sustainability (not sustainable development) and equity. Ce document prend la dette écologique comme une mesure de l'injustice environnementale, et évalue cette idée comme une force motrice pour le changement dans le système juridique international. La justice environnementale est comprise ici comme une répartition équitable des charges et des avantages découlant de l'utilisation des ressources naturelles, dans le but de fournir des normes minimales de bien-être à l'humanité tout entière, y compris les générations futures. La dette écologique est une mesure de cette injustice, comme une distribution injuste et illégitime des avantages et des charges dans le métabolisme social. Il comprend l'échange écologiquement inégal, comme une appropriation disproportionnée et la dépréciation des biens communs, tels que l'atmosphère. Les caractéristiques structurelles du système international favorisent un manque de transparence, le contrôle et la responsabilité du pouvoir, par le biais d'un pro-croissance et la langue pro-liberté. En principe, ce discours est livré avec la promesse de compensation pour les gens Journal of Political Ecology Vol. 23, 2016 382 ordinaires, mais en fait, il ne profite qu'à quelques-uns. La dette écologique, comme un symptôme de l'injustice de l'équilibre actuel du pouvoir, exige une réponse équivalente, démêler le vrai pouvoir derrière l'imagerie des Etats également souverains. Il revendique un programme qui est anti-hégémonique, visant à la reconstruction du droit international d'un «tiers monde» ou la perspective du Sud, et l'amélioration de l'équilibre du pouvoir. La dette écologique ne doit pas seulement servir comme un moyen de compensation, mais comme une définition conceptuelle d'un système injuste des relations humaines, qui a besoin de changement. Il peut également aider à définir les charges, qui sont en fait les frais, pour le changement nécessaire dans les relations internationales, à savoir par la promotion de la constitutionnalisation du droit international et de fournir une protection appropriée aux êtres humains dans les paradigmes de la durabilité (mais pas le développement durable) et l'équité. Este artículo ve la deuda ecológica como una medida de la injusticia ambiental y considera que es una idea que puede llevar a cambios en el sistema legal internacional. La justicia ambiental sería una distribución equitativa de los beneficios y de los daños que derivan de usar los recursos naturales para conseguir unos standards mínimos de bienestar para todos los seres humanos, incluidas las próximas generaciones. La deuda ecológica se ve entonces como una herramienta para medir la injusticia ambiental. La deuda ecológica expresa una distribución no equitativa e ilegítima de los beneficios y las cargas del metabolismo social, incluidos el intercambio ecológicamente desigual y la apropiación y los daños a los bienes comunes como, por ejemplo, la atmósfera. El actual sistema de relaciones internacionales tiene características estructurales que promueven falta de transparencia, control y responsabilidad del poder, disimulada por un lenguaje de libertad y crecimiento económico. En teoría, este discurso viene junto con la promesa de compensación para la gente pero de hecho solo beneficia a unos pocos. La deuda ecológica, como síntoma de la injusticia generalizada en la actual balanza de poder, requiere una respuesta equivalente que explicite y deconstruya el poder real que está detrás de la imagen de los estados soberanos. Reclama una agenda contra-hegemónica dirigida a edificar un nuevo derecho internacional pluralista desde una perspectiva del Sur o del "tercer mundo" que mejore y aumente el control del poder. La deuda ecológica no debe servir meramente como un método de compensación sino que define un sistema injusto de relaciones humanas que debe cambiar. Por tanto, el concepto de deuda ecológica debe ayudar a definir los daños que han de ser considerados costos para que haya ese cambio en las relaciones internacionales, es decir, promover la constitucionalización del derecho internacional y dar la protección adecuada a los seres humanos bajo los paradigmas de la sustentabilidad (no del "desarrollo sustentable") y de la equidad.
South African Journal of Philosophy, 2019
While a relativist view of environmental ethics could be quite difficult to justify, it is also difficult to be so strict about the quest for global environmental justice. At the same time, even though the reality of environmental degradation is plain to see, most African traditional communities, and even their respective states at large, still wallow in poverty such that they remain in need of developing themselves if they are to reach the level of development of the countries in the global North. More so, the majority of indigenous and mostly poor and underrepresented African people in the global South are faced with disproportionate amounts of environmental benefits and burdens compared to their counterparts in the global North. In this article, I therefore seek to examine a normative framework for conceptualising global environmental justice within different environmental, social, political and economic contexts. I consider how best environmental benefits and burdens could be fairly distributed across communities with different environmental, social, political and economic advantages. In the end, I appeal to John Rawls's conception of distributive justice as a framework for arriving at an acceptable view of global environmental justice that takes into account the circumstances of the global South.
Towards a Theory of Global Environmental Justice
Theories of global justice and environmental justice, have developed parallel theories over the last two decades. Both have been motivated by a social justice consideration for the worst off. Increasingly, theories of global justice are tackling questions of environmental concern, and theories of environmental concern have begun to investigate global ramifications of their claims. This paper presents a preliminary investigation into how insights developed on the global justice side can be fruitfully applied to the question of global environmental justice, and can thereby begin to bridge the gap.
I t is no longer seriously disputed that, in the face of climate change, carbon emissions must be reduced. There is agreement internationally that responsibility for making these reductions should be shared with equitable differentiation. In contemporary debates, however, the question of how responsibilities should be differentiated has been all but eclipsed by contestation over how emissions rights should be apportioned.