A conversation starter, by Jeanne

With COP31 approaching in November, we'll be hearing plenty about what needs to change, how quickly, and who should pay for it as we transition to a greener future. There's another aspect I wasn't very familiar with and that I'd love for us to explore together: what would make the green transition just? What do you mean by "just", you may ask... Well, after looking into it, I found that researchers looking at a “just transition” identify four different ways of thinking about fairness:

Distributional justice: Who pays and who benefits? If electricity prices rise, jobs disappear or new green industries create wealth, are those costs and benefits being shared fairly?

Restorative justice: Who should be compensated? If a coal town loses its economic base because society decides coal has to go, do the rest of us owe that community something in return? This becomes a nationwide question when you think of Australia, where entire communities have built their livelihoods around coal mining and other fossil fuel industries.

Procedural justice: Who gets to decide? A policy might produce a fair-looking outcome, but is it still fair if the people whose livelihoods are affected had virtually no say in designing it?

Recognition justice: What might compensation fail to capture? A mine, farm or particular landscape might represent more than its economic value. It can be tied to identity, culture, knowledge, security and belonging. Paying someone for losing it doesn’t necessarily replace those things.

Which of these dimensions of justice had you least thought about before? Was there one that made you think again? Share it in the comments :)

****

Remember, you don’t need to be an expert to join the conversation. Questions, reactions and different perspectives are all welcome. Comment below👇🏻