151
6
as to its own citizens as a leader in climate mitigation, while at the same time maintaining a high level of fossil fuel production.
6.11 Political Ecology from Hatchet to Seed
Through Climate Justice
In 7 Chap. 1, we introduced Robbins’ (2020) distinction between political ecology
as ‘hatchet’ and as ‘seed’, in other words, as critical and constructive analyses. In
light of the climate crisis, we see a pressing need for ‘seed’ research to identify the
best actions to curb global warming. Nevertheless, action-oriented research has to
be based on solid knowledge of problems and causes. In order to sow, one first
needs to use a hatchet to clear the ground.
In this chapter, we have discussed whether a country’s climate change mitigation programme can be seen as temporal and spatial climate justice. When
considering both the Norwegian context of the programme and evidence from the
case study from Tanzania, we conclude that this may be seen as a case of climate
colonialism (also called carbon colonialism by some) implying that land and natural resources in a foreign country are appropriated for climate mitigation through
the use of financial power.
In line with scholarly work in general, critical and constructive analyses in
political ecology will always be normative. However, political ecology is one of the
fields where scholars aim to expose the values they bring to a discussion, instead of
pretending their research is value-free. On climate change, we see a need for research
that illuminates how various countries can play a positive role to counteract global
warming in ways that provide temporal as well as spatial climate justice.
What would be the best choices for a country to cut climate emissions? This
may vary between countries. In the case of Norway, we will mention three possible
types of emission cuts that can be made in accordance with the two basic principles
for climate justice.
The first option is that fossil fuel producing countries such as Norway initiate a
close-down of this industry reducing emissions to zero as soon as possible. Such a
policy would mean taking climate justice in time and space seriously.
Second, as we have shown in this chapter, forest-related climate interventions in
the Global South cannot be seen as a just alternative. In order to ensure climate
justice of such interventions, there need to be measures in place to avoid causing
harm for forest adjacent communities. However, such measures would be expensive
with costs such as real compensation, genuine participation by local communities
in decision-making as well a serious and transparent system of knowledge production. But by taking such measures seriously, REDD could not anymore be seen as
a cost-effective way of mitigating climate change. Hence, a ‘cheap’ and cost- effective
REDD depends on there being a gap between a win-win discourse that pays lipservice to Social and Environmental Principles and Criteria (a UN framework
often referred to) and practices that neglect these principles and criteria.
A third possible and even more ground-breaking way towards emissions cuts
for a country like Norway would be to start elaborating alternatives to the neolib6.11 · Political Ecology from Hatchet to Seed Through Climate Justice
6
as to its own citizens as a leader in climate mitigation, while at the same time maintaining a high level of fossil fuel production.
6.11 Political Ecology from Hatchet to Seed
Through Climate Justice
In 7 Chap. 1, we introduced Robbins’ (2020) distinction between political ecology
as ‘hatchet’ and as ‘seed’, in other words, as critical and constructive analyses. In
light of the climate crisis, we see a pressing need for ‘seed’ research to identify the
best actions to curb global warming. Nevertheless, action-oriented research has to
be based on solid knowledge of problems and causes. In order to sow, one first
needs to use a hatchet to clear the ground.
In this chapter, we have discussed whether a country’s climate change mitigation programme can be seen as temporal and spatial climate justice. When
considering both the Norwegian context of the programme and evidence from the
case study from Tanzania, we conclude that this may be seen as a case of climate
colonialism (also called carbon colonialism by some) implying that land and natural resources in a foreign country are appropriated for climate mitigation through
the use of financial power.
In line with scholarly work in general, critical and constructive analyses in
political ecology will always be normative. However, political ecology is one of the
fields where scholars aim to expose the values they bring to a discussion, instead of
pretending their research is value-free. On climate change, we see a need for research
that illuminates how various countries can play a positive role to counteract global
warming in ways that provide temporal as well as spatial climate justice.
What would be the best choices for a country to cut climate emissions? This
may vary between countries. In the case of Norway, we will mention three possible
types of emission cuts that can be made in accordance with the two basic principles
for climate justice.
The first option is that fossil fuel producing countries such as Norway initiate a
close-down of this industry reducing emissions to zero as soon as possible. Such a
policy would mean taking climate justice in time and space seriously.
Second, as we have shown in this chapter, forest-related climate interventions in
the Global South cannot be seen as a just alternative. In order to ensure climate
justice of such interventions, there need to be measures in place to avoid causing
harm for forest adjacent communities. However, such measures would be expensive
with costs such as real compensation, genuine participation by local communities
in decision-making as well a serious and transparent system of knowledge production. But by taking such measures seriously, REDD could not anymore be seen as
a cost-effective way of mitigating climate change. Hence, a ‘cheap’ and cost- effective
REDD depends on there being a gap between a win-win discourse that pays lipservice to Social and Environmental Principles and Criteria (a UN framework
often referred to) and practices that neglect these principles and criteria.
A third possible and even more ground-breaking way towards emissions cuts
for a country like Norway would be to start elaborating alternatives to the neolib6.11 · Political Ecology from Hatchet to Seed Through Climate Justice