Low-carbon Technology Social Justice Legal Perspectives Dr Mandy Meikle Researcher, GCU

Low-carbon Technology

Social Justice

Legal Perspectives

Dr Mandy MeikleDr Mandy MeikleResearcher, GCUResearcher, GCU

Low-carbon technology Low-carbon technology 76 peer-reviewed papers on low-carbon technology,

published between 2002 and 2012

The main findings are:1. Strategies pursuing sustainable development and climate change

mitigation can be mutually reinforcing.2. A significant barrier to achieving energy change stems from modelling

inaccuracies and a lack of standard definitions.3. In addition to funding, issues such as compromise, trust, reliable data,

appropriate sustainable technologies and 'suitable policies‘ are key to success in reducing emissions.

4. Contemporary discourse must be shifted away from efficiency and back towards ethics and, in this case, climate justice.

5. The most common call was to review policy, from reforming ministries and implementing tax incentives to decoupling GHG emissions from economic growth.

Low-carbon technology Low-carbon technology Strategies pursuing sustainable development and climate

change mitigation can be mutually reinforcing

1. None of the Millennium Development Goals can be achieved without much greater access to energy services1.

2. Rural electrification through decentralised renewable energy (DRE) is an example2. That said, an increase in per capita consumption does not imply equitable distribution3.

3. Ideas from emerging economies must be built upon to escape the unidirectional flow of innovation from advanced to emerging economies4, 5, including agricultural research6.

Low-carbon technology Low-carbon technology A significant barrier to achieving energy change stems from

modelling inaccuracies and a lack of standard definitions

1. Definitions of renewable energy vary between authors and institutions1; concepts such as 'energy security' can acquire different meanings over time2, 3, and require standard metrics to evaluate4; and language itself can create limiting 'framing devices' such that only certain solutions are seen as possible - even those which are neither sustainable nor just5.

2. As for modelling, most energy forecasts fail to recognise the influence of hard-to-predict outcomes, such as resource scarcity3 , and assume that economic growth and environmental protection are compatible5.

3. The technologies and scenarios being modelled must be appropriate to basic, sustainable livelihood needs in developing countries, such as DRE projects which are simultaneously mitigative and adaptive responses to climate change6.

Low-carbon technology Low-carbon technology In addition to funding, issues such as compromise, trust, reliable data, appropriate sustainable technologies and

‘suitable policies’ are key to success in reducing emissions

1. Sponsored programmes of demonstration of low carbon technologies can create demand and minimise investor risk1.

2. Early entry also helps: front-runners like Costa Rica2 and Andhra Pradesh3 were among the first to become involved in the CDM market.

3. With respect to funding, not all financial measures are equally important. Commercial banking seems to deliver the best support for the realisation of non-hydro RE projects (119 non-OECD countries)4.

Low-carbon technology Low-carbon technology Contemporary discourse must be shifted away from efficiency

and back towards ethics and, in this case, climate justice

1. Those who are going to be the worst hit by climate change includes poor people in prosperous societies.

2. Burkett argues for supplementing the emerging cap-and-trade system with a domestic clean development mechanism (dCDM).

3. An adaptive response that does not reinforce inequality, but instead takes the first, crucial step to charting a path in which all solutions, however flawed, may be just. Is a flawed but just policy OK?

Social JusticeSocial Justice22 peer-reviewed papers on social justice,


The main findings are:1. Climate change impacts are socially and unevenly distributed, both

across nations and within them; "richer still means safer". 2. A shift of emphasis from emissions reduction to sustainable

development can reduce political resistance from developing countries.3. Dealing with climate change means to mitigate and to adapt. Assess

carbon mitigation strategies in terms of their co-benefits and enable individual countries to decide a development pathway that suits them.

4. To transition to a low-carbon society requires a ‘sustainability’ route which decouples economic growth not only from carbon but also from several key resources, including energy.

5. Clearly define social contracts to recognise the rights of distant people and future generations, and challenge modelling inaccuracies.

Climate change impacts are socially and unevenly distributed, both across nations and within them; “richer still means safer”

Social JusticeSocial Justice

1. Alario uses the phrase “Titanic risk” to acknowledge when actual risks are related to victims’ socioeconomic situation as well as their location.

2. Further consideration of the welfare implications of mitigation is needed, particularly since emissions and affluence are correlated. Welfare gain from additional emissions must equal the welfare losses of emission reductions1.

3. The potentially regressive2 or damaging3 effects of GHG emissions reduction strategies must be recognised.

A resilient social-ecological system fosters equity and fairness, which requires a fundamental shift from the usual

top-down approach to governance1, 2


1. A shift of emphasis from emissions reduction to sustainable development needs can reduce political resistance from developing countries3.

2. Local community-based organisations are well-placed to address energy efficiency in low-income communities within high-income countries4.

3. Stop higher income countries partially externalising environmental impacts to lower income locations5 and ensure that less developed regions are not vulnerable to protectionist policies from more developed nations6.

Dealing with climate change means to mitigate and to adapt


1. Assess carbon mitigation strategies in terms of their co-benefits, which address poverty at the local scale, rather than whether they are economically ‘efficient’1.

2. Enable individual countries to decide a development pathway that suits them, even if it is significantly different from the global trend2.

3. Social protection can reduce the impact of climate change and strengthen people’s resilience and adaptive capacity - integrating social protection with disaster risk management, climate change adaptation and food security3.

To transition to a low-carbon society requires a ‘sustainability’ route which decouples economic growth not only from carbon

but also from several key resources, including energy


1. A development model needs to follow a distinct ‘sustainability’ rationale, have a long-term perspective, and aim to deliver intergenerational justice by decoupling economic growth from the highly resource-intensive and environmentally unsound conventional path1.

2. Decoupling growth from carbon emissions and energy is raised in several sections: e.g. low-carbon technology2, 3, agriculture4 and food security5.

3. There is a positive role, requiring further investigation, for third sector campaigning groups and norm entrepreneurs in progressing justice approaches which might break the North-South stalemate6.

Legal PerspectivesLegal Perspectives15 peer-reviewed papers on social justice,


The main findings are:1. Pollution through human causes is a relatively new phenomenon. 2. There is a 'disconnect' between the law and the politics of climate

change, which reflects the ‘disconnect’ between the pragmatic perspective and climate change viewed through an ethical lens.

3. The detrimental consequences of climate change on vulnerable groups are not considered as violations of their human rights in the legal sense.

4. Climate justice could provide a middle ground in a shift from potentially-disastrous ‘business as usual’ and the global justice movement’s radicalised ‘politics of the impossible’.

5. All environmental refugees should be included in a new law, which should not be specific to 'climate refugees'.

Severe destruction of the environment through human causes is a relatively new phenomenon

Legal PerspectivesLegal Perspectives

1. Current systems of law and governance are poorly equipped to address climate justice1 and there are concerns over the speed with which law can react2.

2. The global community has not prepared itself for the inundation of island and coastal countries3.

3. Anthropogenic climate change is a threat to life4, and world leaders have a responsibility to minimise threat5. There is a need to further the role of law, which could include a law relating to planetary malpractice4.

4. Existing laws may be used but will most likely redistribute wealth to the middle classes affected by climate impacts rather than the poor6.

Climate change and global justice must be addressed together rather than considered as separate domains1, 2


1. There is a 'disconnect' between the law and the politics of climate change, which reflects the ‘disconnect’ between those who take a pragmatic perspective and those who view climate change through an ethical lens1.

2. There are adequate grounds to establish that future generations have legal protection from climate change harms, and ecological rights that can define the duties of present generations3.

3. All environmental refugees should be included in a new law, which should not be specific to 'climate refugees' as determining whether unexpected events are the result of climatic changes or not is difficult4.

The detrimental consequences of climate change on vulnerable groups are not considered as violations

of their human rights in the legal sense


1. It is almost impossible to link a specific country’s emissions to a specific effect.

2. Global warming is not the only contributing factor to climate-related effects.

3. Adverse effects of climate change are often projections of future impacts, while human rights violations are normally after the fact.

Climate justice could provide a middle ground in a shift from potentially-disastrous ‘business as usual’ and the global justice movement’s radicalised ‘politics of the impossible’


1. Cooperation is currently an integral principle within climate change law but it lacks nuance regarding variations in capacity and focus on redistribution in relation to justice-based outcomes1.

2. Boosting international agreement between governments on the acceptance of environmental refugees will to a great extent decrease mutual hostility regarding mass immigration2.

3. Any just agreement must not increase material inequality between nations and people, nor trigger global conflict and international instability (in which weaker states are likely to lose)3.

ConclusionsConclusions1. Alleviation of poverty in all countries requires greater access to

energy. If that energy comes from fossil fuels, GHG emissions will rise. 2. Mitigation and adaptation can and must be co-beneficial.3. We need to standardise models and definitions.4. Is there a balance to be struck between efficiency and ethics? Are

‘flawed but just’ policies what we want?5. Welfare gain from additional emissions must equal the welfare losses

of emission reductions - ‘politics of the impossible’?6. Intergovernmental agreement on environmental refugees and a shift

of emphasis from emissions reduction to sustainable development needs will decrease resistance from, and conflict in, developing countries.

7. Rural electrification through appropriate, decentralised renewable energy systems seems an obvious first step and we have to ask why this is not happening, given what we know.

Documents

Low-carbon Technology Social Justice Legal Perspectives Dr Mandy Meikle Researcher, GCU