132
6
Lately, climate injustice has become an issue within countries in the Global
North. The protests against increased fuel costs by the so-called ‘yellow vests’ in
France represent an early example of low-income groups in affluent societies protesting against new taxation, partly initiated for climate mitigation reasons, that
have adverse economic effects on these groups.
By the focus in this chapter on climate justice in time and space, we concentrate
on the one hand on injustice against people in the future who will be seriously
affected if effective mitigation measures are not implemented today. On the other
hand, we are also concerned with injustice against people who today are confronted
with mitigation measures that deprive them of meeting their basic needs. While the
first group of victims of climate injustice is highly present in climate discussions
today, the second group is seldom mentioned. In this group, there are people living
in remote rural areas of the world, and they are for various reasons ignored in most
policy and media discussions of measures for climate mitigation.
Concern for climate justice is to some extent reflected in the international climate change regime. In the Paris Agreement, the Parties to the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change agreed to a goal of limiting global warming to
well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and also trying to limit it to 1.5 °C. With
reference to concern for equity, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate
poverty, the Paris Agreement recognizes that developing countries need longer
time than other countries to reach the peak in greenhouse gas emissions (United
Nations 2015). Thus, the Paris Agreement can be seen to provide a recognition of
norms of climate justice between countries, although each country government
decides the size of their contributions to emissions cuts. In a special report in
2018, the IPCC argued that in order to limit global warming to 1.5 °C, global
human- caused emissions of CO 2 would need to have fallen by about 45% from
2010 levels by 2030 and down to zero around 2050, and this would need much
faster reductions than the total promises from the countries in the Paris agreement (IPCC 2018). Greta Thunberg often refers to the urgency expressed in the
Paris Agreement and the IPCC’s special report on 1.5 °C from 2018, and she
emphasizes the need for rich countries to implement immediate cuts and thereby
provide opportunities for people in poorer countries to continue to increase their
infrastructure (Thunberg 2019).
So, what are the main types of choices for climate mitigation? First of all, there
is the choice of cutting emissions from using fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) as energy
sources. For the production of the same amount of energy, of these three sources,
coal is responsible for the largest climate emissions, followed by oil and then gas.
The use of fossil fuels can be reduced in many ways, such as by restrictions on
production and use, fees and taxes, and efforts to change to renewable energy
sources such as wind, solar and hydro power. There are also ongoing efforts to
develop technology to capture CO 2 emissions as part of the production of fossil
fuels and turn it into matter that can be stored permanently, and there are even
efforts to capture and store CO 2 that has earlier been released into the atmosphere.
Some advocate the need to direct strategies at reducing private consumption, in
terms of vacation habits with long flights and changing diets away from meat and
food transported over long distances. Some climate action is connected to radical
Chapter 6 · Climate Mitigation Choices: Reducing Deforestation ...
6
Lately, climate injustice has become an issue within countries in the Global
North. The protests against increased fuel costs by the so-called ‘yellow vests’ in
France represent an early example of low-income groups in affluent societies protesting against new taxation, partly initiated for climate mitigation reasons, that
have adverse economic effects on these groups.
By the focus in this chapter on climate justice in time and space, we concentrate
on the one hand on injustice against people in the future who will be seriously
affected if effective mitigation measures are not implemented today. On the other
hand, we are also concerned with injustice against people who today are confronted
with mitigation measures that deprive them of meeting their basic needs. While the
first group of victims of climate injustice is highly present in climate discussions
today, the second group is seldom mentioned. In this group, there are people living
in remote rural areas of the world, and they are for various reasons ignored in most
policy and media discussions of measures for climate mitigation.
Concern for climate justice is to some extent reflected in the international climate change regime. In the Paris Agreement, the Parties to the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change agreed to a goal of limiting global warming to
well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and also trying to limit it to 1.5 °C. With
reference to concern for equity, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate
poverty, the Paris Agreement recognizes that developing countries need longer
time than other countries to reach the peak in greenhouse gas emissions (United
Nations 2015). Thus, the Paris Agreement can be seen to provide a recognition of
norms of climate justice between countries, although each country government
decides the size of their contributions to emissions cuts. In a special report in
2018, the IPCC argued that in order to limit global warming to 1.5 °C, global
human- caused emissions of CO 2 would need to have fallen by about 45% from
2010 levels by 2030 and down to zero around 2050, and this would need much
faster reductions than the total promises from the countries in the Paris agreement (IPCC 2018). Greta Thunberg often refers to the urgency expressed in the
Paris Agreement and the IPCC’s special report on 1.5 °C from 2018, and she
emphasizes the need for rich countries to implement immediate cuts and thereby
provide opportunities for people in poorer countries to continue to increase their
infrastructure (Thunberg 2019).
So, what are the main types of choices for climate mitigation? First of all, there
is the choice of cutting emissions from using fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) as energy
sources. For the production of the same amount of energy, of these three sources,
coal is responsible for the largest climate emissions, followed by oil and then gas.
The use of fossil fuels can be reduced in many ways, such as by restrictions on
production and use, fees and taxes, and efforts to change to renewable energy
sources such as wind, solar and hydro power. There are also ongoing efforts to
develop technology to capture CO 2 emissions as part of the production of fossil
fuels and turn it into matter that can be stored permanently, and there are even
efforts to capture and store CO 2 that has earlier been released into the atmosphere.
Some advocate the need to direct strategies at reducing private consumption, in
terms of vacation habits with long flights and changing diets away from meat and
food transported over long distances. Some climate action is connected to radical
Chapter 6 · Climate Mitigation Choices: Reducing Deforestation ...