We are not all equally exposed to the effects of climate change. The poorest and future generations are the main victims of a warming to which developed countries have greatly contributed. Hence a moral and political problem that is rarely considered.
Climate justice is arguably one of the most important issues of the XXIe century. However, the issue has attracted little interest in France until now. Michel Bourban fills this gap with the first complete book devoted in French to this particular dimension of environmental inequalities: Thinking about climate justice. This substantial (429 pages) and well-documented work seeks first to develop a moral diagnosis of climate change, before developing political proposals to respond to this immense challenge. Far from a philosophy disconnected from reality, the author develops an applied approach to ethics and political philosophy, which is not afraid to confront scientific and economic data, or to take a position for concrete policies.
Thinking about climate injustices
The book begins with a serious synthesis of scientific data, thus fully assuming the need for a multidisciplinary approach to the subject. Beyond the classic alarms, what emerges and makes the specificity of the issue of justice is to question climate change through the prism of inequalities. Mr. Bourban clearly shows the existence of a double inequality, relating to both the contribution to the causes and the effects of global warming. On the one hand, greenhouse gas emissions are very unequally distributed between countries. On the other hand, the effects of climate change are also very unequal and primarily affect the most disadvantaged as well as future generations. Thus, the populations of developing countries and future generations are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, while they have contributed little or not at all to its causes, unlike the present and past populations of developed countries.
But how then can we distinguish unjust inequalities from those that are tolerable? How can we move from the term inequalities to that of injustices? This is where the philosopher complements the data from economics and the social sciences with a questioning of legitimate value judgments. Mr. Bourban’s approach is based on human rights (p. 71), the effects of climate change threatening the rights to life, health and subsistence. This uncontroversial moral foundation has the advantage of defining a universal threshold of dignity. Moreover, human rights are in turn based on an incontestable principle that is not based on any particular theory of justice: the principle of non-harm. This principle is also reinterpreted in order to encompass the harm caused by simple participation in a system that promotes “structural injustices” (p. 91).
Since inequalities related to climate change violate both human rights and the principle of non-harm, it is therefore necessary to implement policies to reduce emissions, adapt and compensate. In a distributive approach to justice, Mr. Bourban questions the fair distribution of the costs of such policies. He studies various distributive principles in order to interpret the UN standard of “common but differentiated responsibilities” and “respective capabilities”. At the end of this analysis, he advocates a hybrid approach combining the polluter pays principle applied to recent and future emissions and the beneficiary pays principle for so-called historical emissions, i.e. emissions prior to the publication of the first report of the IPCC in 1990 (p. 116). Such a fair sharing of the effort would make it possible to reconcile the fight against climate change and the development demands of the poorest countries.
Added to this problem of global justice is that of intergenerational justice, the tragic nature of which the author underlines. After having defused the formidable philosophical problems of the non-existence and non-identity of future persons, the author resorts to cinematographic and literary works of science fiction such as The Day After, Snowpiercer or even Mad Max to illustrate the responsibility of present generations towards future generations. These post-apocalyptic stories allow us to conceive of the extent of our responsibility for the various “possible worlds” that we can bequeath to those who will follow us (p. 163). Imagination then becomes a means of compensating for our deficit of moral appreciation of the consequences of our daily actions.
Ideal, feasibility and motivations
This first step in clarifying the moral issues of climate change is already important because of the contrast it offers with the dominant discourses, mainly economic and technical. But Mr. Bourban’s book goes further by focusing on the policies to be implemented to reduce climate injustices. In this perspective, he seeks to reconcile the ideal of justice and political feasibility. Two major obstacles to climate justice are identified: the institutional inadequacies of international climate governance and the lack of motivation affecting States when it comes to fulfilling their climate-related duties (p. 197).
Recognizing that the Paris Agreement signed in 2015 at the COP 21 is certainly a step forward but is largely insufficient to meet the demands of climate justice, Mr. Bourban proposes to reform UN climate governance. Two proposals stand out in particular. The first is to institutionalize the use of tools to monitor voluntary national contributions from States in order to ensure that they respect their commitments, but also that they each take a fair share of the global effort (p. 233). The second is to abandon the concept of “climate debt”, considered too divisive and responsible for the stagnation of international negotiations on the issue of effort sharing. The author suggests replacing it with the concept of “carbon budget”, which he believes will meet the demands of justice while gaining the support of developed and emerging countries (p. 213).
The book also departs from classical theories of justice on the question of motivations. Recognizing that the duty to fight injustices has so far been insufficient to push states to act, the author suggests distinguishing between moral justification and motivation. He then identifies “prudential” or amoral motivations that could push states to action, while seeking their own interest. The prospect of catastrophic climate change beyond certain tipping points and global systemic risks such as armed conflict, terrorism, or uncontrolled migration should encourage even the least vulnerable and most emitting states to implement ambitious climate policies (p. 241).
Putting a price on carbon
More concretely, the author disqualifies certain climate policies and seeks to justify others. He thus rejects geoengineering, that is, the intentional manipulation of the climate to counter global warming, among the false, dangerous solutions. In addition to the risks that such practices would pose to humanity, geoengineering poses significant problems of international governance and equity, since it could be implemented unilaterally, to the benefit of certain populations and to the detriment of others (p. 258). This analysis is welcome, because the subject is of increasing interest to political decision-makers and entrepreneurs, but remains little known to the general public.
Mr. Bourban argues, on the contrary, in favor of a “hybrid market mechanism”, combining a global market of emission quotas for heavy industries and a carbon tax for more diffuse emissions. He therefore considers that a carbon price is necessary to enable a global energy transition (pp. 284-7). Both a signal and an incentive, the latter would push economic actors to reorient their activities. Such a mechanism would also reflect the demands of justice through the allocation of quotas and the variation of the tax between States. This proposal is accompanied by the necessary elimination of the immense subsidies that fossil fuels still enjoy in the world.
To support these reforms, the author nevertheless believes that it is also necessary to rely on civil society, in which he places great hopes. AroundNGO like 350.org and initiatives like Blockadia or Alternatiba, an international social movement in favor of climate justice has gradually formed. For the author, this force could change the situation by putting an end to political inertia.
A problematic framing
While Mr. Bourban’s moral diagnosis is convincing overall, one can nevertheless express certain reservations concerning the relevance of his practical proposals. First of all, one can doubt the real convergence between the demands of climate justice and the prudential motivations put forward to achieve them. Is it really wise to rely on this kind of passion (fear of migration or terrorism without a precise causal link with climate change) to motivate action in favor of climate justice? Here the hypothesis of convergence between amoral motivations and justice runs the risk of being shattered. Do not human rights prescribe, for example, that we welcome climate exiles, whose interests the author also defends (p. 83)?
One can also be skeptical about the relevance of a global carbon price. While this solution is very attractive in theory, since it aims to reorient all behaviors based on a single signal, is it not precisely too simple and impractical in reality? After the failures of the market mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol and the European quota system (pp. 308-14), should we really place our hopes in such mechanisms? Given the state of international climate negotiations, one can doubt the capacity of States to agree on a reformed global emissions market, an allocation of quotas and a global carbon tax. Some people also see the obsession with a global carbon price as the pursuit of a “chimera” that feeds the status quo of climate policies. Wouldn’t our time and energy be better spent promoting policies that are less perfect in theory but more realistic, such as sectoral policies in favour of renewable energies, less carbon-intensive mobility or less meat-based diets?
Finally, it is regrettable that the book remains focused on a very state-based and international approach to climate justice. Mr. Bourban rightly considers that states are best placed to embody the primarily collective responsibility for the climate (p. 93) and that global governance is necessary (p. 347). However, the weakness of the Paris Agreement and Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from it in spite of everything illustrate the importance of the secondary duties of other collective entities (regions, cities, businesses) and individuals in the fight for climate justice. These different types of actors are now often setting an example to states that refuse to tackle the climate problem head on.
Conclusion
While Mr. Bourban’s moral diagnosis is convincing and welcome, his political proposals may disappoint. One can thus regret a certain framing that prevents the author from paying more attention to the responsibility of non-state actors, to the detriment of the practicability of the proposed solutions. One could also have expected an approach that seeks to be concerned with political feasibility to be more interested in the different scales of climate justice, from local to global.