Addressing climate justice calls for a “fundamental, decolonial constitutional change”, according to a new study published in Climate Policy.
While systemic change would only be possible in the long term, there is potential for progress within the constraints of current systems, says the study, which introduces a tool to guide this outcome.
The new “Indigenous climate justice policy analysis tool” is designed to facilitate a “qualitative assessment” of the policymaking process and individual policies.
It evaluates whether a policy encompasses Indigenous climate justice and includes mechanisms to move towards securing “just” outcomes.
While the authors acknowledge the limitations of the tool in providing a measure of true “justness”, the dimensions it tests can provide insight into whether a policy upholds Indigenous climate justice, they argue.
As such, it is designed to empower Indigenous communities to hold governments accountable and to guide non-Indigenous policymakers in improving their practices to achieve “inclusive” climate justice, the authors say.
The tool was designed for assessing policies in New Zealand – the Indigenous Māori use the term Aotearoa rather than the colonial-era name – but the authors say they have “endeavoured to make it adaptable for use in other settings”.
However, one of the study authors noted the “significant political resistance” that might be triggered by attempts to embed the tool in policymaking in New Zealand – and elsewhere.
Climate justice pathways
The new research is designed to help address the gaps in the inclusion of Indigenous climate justice policies within climate action.
Climate justice is a term used to explain efforts to reshape climate action from a technical effort to cut emissions into an approach that also focuses on human rights and social inequality. It includes an understanding that those least responsible for climate change often suffer the worst impacts.
In many parts of the world, Indigenous communities bear the brunt of adverse impacts from climate change, as well as facing systemic disadvantages in climate change mitigation efforts due to structural inequity.
The paper says that, even if a policy is deemed “just”, it will still be inadequate because “true” justice “cannot be achieved in the context of a dominant colonial, capitalist patriarchy whose associated hierarchical structures, oppressive dynamics…are antithetical to Indigenous ways of being”. However, recognising the long-term nature of systemic change, the authors highlight the potential to make progress within current systems.
The tool is, therefore, designed to empower Indigenous communities to realise progress within existing governance systems, even though the authors say they recognise that justice is conditional upon “system transformation”.
Historically, colonialism has significantly contributed to climate change, as revealed by Carbon Brief analysis published in 2023. As such, climate change action necessitates addressing colonial emissions and practices by integrating “decolonial” theories, which prioritise dismantling harmful structures over efforts to reform the status quo, the research argues.
“Climate injustice is inextricably linked to colonialism, capitalism and extractivism, yet dominant environmental justice frameworks often overlook the unique experiences of Indigenous communities,” says Harjeet Singh, global engagement director of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, who was not involved in the study. Singh tells Carbon Brief:
“The very countries and corporations responsible for the climate crisis are now positioning themselves as the arbiters of climate solutions. Yet, they steadfastly avoid addressing the broader polycrisis – manifestations of colonial, capitalist, extractive and patriarchal systems from which they have reaped immense benefits.”
Existing approaches have been insufficient in effectively guiding climate policy for Indigenous people’s health and equity, the research states. The authors note that conventional environmental justice literature does not explicitly prioritise kinship relationships (whakapapa), which they say are central to the Indigenous conception of climate justice.
The authors refer to the Māori creation story which follows that all beings “emerge from the realms of Ranginui, the Sky, and Papatūānuku, the Earth – our common ancestors”. These “more-than-human” relatives are central to kin-based systems which emphasise a shared ancestry between humans and the natural world.
This “inherently anti-colonial” conception of climate justice embraces the “restoration and maintenance of harmonious relationships between humans, ancestors of all current beings and those still to come”, the research says, in contrast to settler colonialism which is “a form of violence that disrupts relationships between humans and our more-than-human relations”.
According to the authors, this tenet has largely been overlooked in mainstream climate justice efforts. In fact, limitations within existing political and legal frameworks prevent Indigenous communities from fulfilling the responsibilities they have towards the environment and other beings.
Key criteria
The research is underpinned by Kaupapa Māori – Māori customary practice and principles. This includes “wellbeing, priorities and aspirations, social and cultural contexts, and Indigenous rights”, the authors say, as well as policy frameworks, health impact assessments, ecological models and Indigenous understanding of environmental justice.
This was the basis for the tool, which incorporates 13 essential criteria (C1-C13) shown in the table below and classified under five key dimensions of justice.
Specifically, these five dimensions are relational justice, procedural justice, distributive justice, recognitional justice and restorative justice, described in more detail underneath the table.
The first three criteria focus on relational justice, including on relationships and how they form rights and responsibilities. In this context, it also extends “cosmopolitanism”, the notion that emphasises equal moral worth and respect for all humans.
Next, there are three criteria on procedural justice. These emphasise transparency and active and fair participation of all in the decision-making process. The paper extends the notion of active participation to non-human entities, such as land, air and water, providing them with political agency through human guardians who represent their interests.
For example, the Whanganui River in New Zealand has been granted legal personhood, represented by the respective local Indigenous people who are imbued with guardianship obligations. This translates to a legal right of recourse if harm is caused to the natural entity by human activities, such as releasing pollution.
The next three criteria focus on distributive justice, including the disproportionate impact of climate change on Indigenous communities who contribute least to greenhouse gas emissions. The authors advocate for free and fair distribution of burdens and benefits across groups.
Criteria 10 and 11 focus on recognitional justice. These emphasise recognition of and respect for diverse cultures, experiences and identities, validating multiple ways of knowledge production and dissemination, including Indigenous epistemologies alongside traditional Western knowledge.
The final two criteria are about restorative justice, focusing on repairing harm to individuals, communities and the environment. The paper’s conceptualisation encompasses correcting the harms against “people, other living things and the natural world” and distinguishes between reparations (financial) and remedying underlying injustices (restoration of land).
Each of the above criterion is graded against three levels of achievement:
- Unacceptable, indicating harmful impacts or no change.
- Progress towards justice, indicating some improvement usually within current systems and norms.
- Climate justice, signifying complete justice for all human and non-human entities beyond the constraints of current frameworks.
The paper notes that the tool’s multidimensional nature often extends the analysis to matters outside the purview of policymakers.
For example, the case of political agency for non-human entities is useful in understanding the constraints of policymaking within existing frameworks, they note. This, essentially, means that the tool evaluates policies by standards that are currently “impossible to meet within the context in which policy development currently occurs”.
Applying the tool
The tool was piloted in New Zealand by analysing the 2021 advice to the government produced by the country’s Climate Change Commission.
Using 11 questions – six about the criteria and five about the tool as a whole – the authors identified gaps, shortcomings, redundancy and duplication issues for improvement.
The pilot also assessed the feasibility of embedding the framework in the policymaking process, whereby the tool could have continued benefits.
The research is “well-grounded in climate justice theory”, says Dr Zoha Shawoo, a scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute, who was not involved in the study.
She says the tool could be “particularly useful in conducting gap analyses and to guide the implementation of climate finance, to ensure that climate finance projects are also advancing justice”.
Shawoo adds the tool faces many challenges including not “getting a buy-in from decision-makers and those in power, who have a vested interest in not undoing the existing systems that they actively benefit from”.
The tool was designed primarily for the political and geographical context of New Zealand, but the authors say they have “endeavoured to make it adaptable for use in other settings”.
In particular, it could be applied to other settler-colonial nations, the authors add.
Dr Rhys Jones, one of the study authors and associate professor at the University of Auckland, tells Carbon Brief about the challenges to embedding the tool within policymaking:
“First, using the tool requires particular capabilities, knowledge and expertise, which may not always be present in policymaking agencies. Second, it can be quite resource-intensive to undertake a comprehensive analysis using the tool. Third, some of the issues addressed by the tool are beyond the scope of conventional policy considerations, such as the capacity for all (human and non-human) entities to express political agency. Fourth, particularly in the current political climate in many countries, including Aotearoa New Zealand, there may be significant political resistance to the focus on Indigenous rights and recognition of Indigenous values and knowledges in policymaking processes.”
Prof Alexandra Macmillan, an environmental health researcher at the University of Otago, another author involved with the study, tells Carbon Brief:
“[The] current structures, processes and distribution of power in climate policy…are not keeping the world’s populations safe from climate change, instead, continuing to subsidise and support an insupportable status quo.”
She adds that the tool is also “relevant to countries who consider themselves to be post-colonial, including high income countries like the UK whose wealth has accumulated from colonial extractivism, and whose current climate policies risk relying upon ongoing colonial violence in other countries”.
The post Study offers new policy tool for considering ‘Indigenous climate justice’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Study offers new policy tool for considering ‘Indigenous climate justice’
Australia’s new environmental standards are supposed to protect wildlife. Right now, they don’t.
We have one of the worst mammal extinction rates in the world. We’ve already lost 39 species, including the Christmas Island Shrew and the desert rat-kangaroo, while iconic species like the Hairy-Nosed Wombat, Pygmy blue whale and Swift Parrot continue to slide towards extinction. Forests are still being bulldozed at an alarming rate. Rivers and reefs are under serious pressure.
Fixing this sorry state of affairs was why the Federal Government promised to fix Australia’s broken national nature laws—a promise that culminated in the nature law reforms passed late last year.
A big part of these reforms is the creation of new “National Environmental Standards” — rules intended to guide decisions on projects that could damage nature.
But the Government’s latest draft standards—open for consultation until May 29th—fall dangerously short.
Instead of setting clear environmental guardrails, the draft rules risk making it easier for damaging projects to get approved, while nature continues to decline. Legal experts are warning that unless the standards are changed, they could weaken protections rather than strengthen them.
So what are these standards, exactly?
The new standards are a centrepiece of major reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act), which were passed late last year and are designed to fix a broken environmental regulatory system. They are meant to set clear rules for what environmental protection should actually look like.
In simple terms, they’re supposed to answer questions like:
- What measures should developers be made to put in place to protect threatened species?
- How do we ensure the most important habitats and natural places are not hacked away, “death-by-a-thousand-cuts”-style, from ongoing development proposals?
- When should a project simply not go ahead?
- What rules should states follow if they’re in charge of assessing development projects?
- How do we make sure nature is actually improving, not just declining more slowly?
If designed and implemented properly, these standards could become the backbone of strong, effective reformed nature laws.
But right now, they leave huge loopholes open.
The biggest problem: process over outcomes
The biggest problem with the draft standards is that they focus too heavily on whether companies follow a process—not whether nature is genuinely protected in the end. That might sound technical, but it has real-world consequences.
Imagine a company wants to clear critical habitat for a threatened species. Under a strong system, the key question should be: Will this project cause unacceptable or significant environmental harm?
But under the current draft standards, if the company follows the required steps and paperwork, the project could still be considered acceptable — even if the damage to nature is clear.
This is deeply ineffective. Destruction that checks bureaucratic check-boxes is still destruction. The standards should enforce the protection of nature—not just the ticking of procedural boxes.
A smaller definition of habitat could leave wildlife exposed
Another alarming change in the draft standards is the narrowing of how “habitat” is defined, which could have serious consequences for wildlife protection.
Habitat is more than just the exact spot where an animal is seen sleeping, nesting or feeding today; we need to think more holistically about habitat as a connected network of ecosystems that species may rely on to survive, including breeding grounds, migration corridors, areas used during drought or fire, and places they may need to move to as the climate changes.
But the draft standards effectively shrink the areas considered important enough to protect by defining habitat as only very small areas that if destroyed would certainly send the species extinct, rather than habitat which maintains and restores healthy populations able to thrive well into the future.
For animals already under pressure from habitat destruction and climate change, protecting only the bare minimum is a dangerous approach. In practice, that could mean that places which are essential for threatened species to recover and survive long term are destroyed just because they are not classified under the standards as ‘habitat’—a lose-lose outcome for biodiversity and the Australian government’s nature protection goals.
Offsets are still doing too much heavy lifting
Australians have heard the promise before: “Yes, this area will be damaged — but it’ll be offset somewhere else.” In practice, environmental offsets have severely failed to replace what was lost.
You can’t instantly recreate a centuries-old forest. You can’t quickly rebuild complex wildlife habitat. And some ecosystems simply cannot be replaced once destroyed. Yet the draft standards still rely heavily on offsets rather than prioritising avoiding harm in the first place.
The standards must reduce their reliance on offsets, and instead prioritise actual habitat protection. Because once extinction happens, there’s no offset for it.
Australia cannot afford another backwards step on nature
The Albanese Government came to office promising to end Australia’s extinction crisis and repair national nature laws. But this will be a broken promise if the huge loopholes in the National Environmental Standards aren’t addressed.
Right now, Australia is losing wildlife and ecosystems faster than they can recover. Scientists have warned for years that incremental change is no longer enough.
Strong standards could help turn things around by:
- stopping destruction in critical habitat,
- setting firm limits on environmental harm,
- requiring genuine recovery for nature,
- and making decision-makers accountable for real outcomes rather than process.
If the Government locks in rules that prioritise process over protection, Australia risks entrenching the very system that caused the crisis in the first place.
What needs to change?
The Government still has time to fix the draft standards before they are finalised over the next month.
Greenpeace Australia Pacific is calling on the government to:
- ensure decisions are based on outcomes, not just process
- ensure that all important habitat is protected, not just narrow areas
- ensuring that death-by-a-thousand-cuts is avoided by considering the “cumulative impacts” of multiple projects in a region
- ensuring offsets are only used as an absolute last resort
Australians were promised stronger nature laws—not more loopholes. Australia’s wildlife cannot afford another missed opportunity.You can help ensure the Federal Government’s final standards put to parliament are as strong as possible by putting in a quick submission here.
Climate Change
Duke University Plans a Data Center It Says Will Boost ‘Environmental Responsibility and Sustainability’
The small project is underway at Central Campus, with room for expansion. Its energy usage could complicate the university’s climate goals.
DURHAM, N.C.—Duke University plans to build a small data center at Central Campus, potentially the first of several similar-size projects, which has raised questions among some faculty about whether the energy- and water-intensive endeavors could derail the institution’s climate commitments.
The UN General Assembly on Wednesday adopted a “historic” resolution calling on countries to comply with their climate obligations, as outlined in a landmark advisory opinion issued last year by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Last July, in the opinion first requested by the Pacific island state of Vanuatu, the world’s top court ruled that harming the climate by increasing fossil fuel production may constitute an “international wrongful act”. This could result in affected countries claiming compensation from those responsible, the court said.
To follow up on the ICJ ruling, a dozen nations led by Vanuatu submitted a proposal to the UN’s main deliberative body to recognise the advisory opinion and identify ways of implementing it.
Several large oil-producing nations mounted a late push to weaken the text by introducing last-minute amendments, but the General Assembly rejected those and adopted the resolution with 141 countries in favour at a plenary session in New York.
The resolution urges countries to implement measures to cut carbon emissions, including by tripling renewable energy capacity, “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”, and phasing out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies.
It also requests the UN Secretary-General to draft a report “containing ways to advance compliance with all obligations in relation to the court’s findings” by next year’s UN General Assembly in September 2027.
Pacific islands celebrate “historic” resolution
The group of Pacific island nations, which led the diplomatic push for the resolution, as well as Latin American nations and the European Union, celebrated its adoption as a “historic” moment, while some countries noted the persistence of diverging views.
Belize’s UN representative Janine Coye-Felson said in a statement on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) that the General Assembly resolution, as well as the ICJ advisory opinion, are important because “climate change is not governed only” by the Paris Agreement, but that “climate justice requires the application of the full breath of international law”.
“When future generations look back at this moment, they will ask whether we rose to meet the defining crisis of our time with the full force of international law. Today, this General Assembly answers: yes,” she told the plenary.
-
Electrification emerges as COP31 priority
The Turkish COP31 President has called for “a truly global conversation” about shifting the global energy system from fossil fuels to electricity -
Santa Marta summit kick-starts work on key steps for fossil fuel transition
The conference offers some 60 nations help to develop roadmaps to shift their economies away from coal, oil and gas, and make international trade green
The EU said in a statement during the session that, with the adoption of the resolution, countries are moving beyond “simply recognising” the ICJ’s work and instead “actively upholding the legal integrity” of the multilateral system by seeking to implement the court’s recommendations.
Yet the bloc also warned the process that follows must not “seek to establish new mechanisms or engage in any determination of state responsibility”, referring in particular to the upcoming report by the Secretary-General. Earlier drafts of the resolution contained proposals to establish a register of climate-driven loss and damage and a dedicated compensation mechanism, but these were removed during negotiations on the text.
France’s ambassador to the UN, Jérôme Bonnafont, highlighted the resolution’s provision to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and said “science clearly establishes their role in climate change”. The recent increase in oil and gas prices, which have soared because of the war in Iran, “underscores the cost vulnerability of this dependence”, he added.
Push-back by oil-producing nations
Some oil-producing countries – among them the US, Saudi Arabia and Russia – were critical of the new resolution, arguing that it creates “quasi-binding” obligations from an advisory opinion that should be non-binding, and rejected the request for a report from the Secretary-General.
“This is a direct duplication of work that is being done at the [UN climate convention],” said Russia’s delegate. “Creating a parallel process will waste resources, will undermine the fragile consensus at the conference of the parties and will lead to the fragmentation of the climate regime.”
In an effort to weaken the resolution, a group of seven oil-producing Middle Eastern states – including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran – tabled four last-minute amendments proposing to delete certain paragraphs and softening the language on the obligations of states.
Webinar: From Santa Marta to Bonn – where next for the fossil fuel transition?
In response, Pacific island nations said these amendments sought to “reopen provisions that were [the] subject of extensive negotiation”, while the EU added that they were “difficult to reconcile with the spirit of cooperation”. They were all rejected in a series of votes.
The US, for its part, described the resolution as “highly problematic” and denied the obligation of preventing climate harm beyond its borders, as well as the assertion that climate change is an “unprecedented civilizational challenge”. The country urged others to vote against the resolution.
India, which abstained, said the text failed to address the need for climate finance flows from developed to developing countries, which is “a serious omission”. The Indian delegate pointed to the absence of the term “climate finance” in the text, which “deserves more attention in a resolution that deals with the obligations of states”.
“Turning point in accountability”, activists say
WWF’s climate chief and former COP president Manuel Pulgar-Vidal said the General Assembly’s vote was a step forward that “raises the pressure on all states to act in line with their obligations”.
Rebecca Brown, CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), said the UN resolution shows that “multilateralism works” and with it, countries “carry the ICJ’s historic ruling forward as a roadmap for climate action and accountability”.
“By acting together, we can prevent further climate harm, in line with science and the law, by speeding up a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels, protecting climate-vulnerable communities, and advancing climate justice,” she added in a statement.
Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change – a group of young people who first made the push for an advisory opinion from the ICJ – said “the world has not only reaffirmed that ruling, but committed to making it a reality”.
“This must be a turning point in accountability for damaging the climate. Communities on the frontlines, like in the Pacific, have been waiting far too long and continue to pay too high a price for the actions of others,” he said. “The journey of this idea from classrooms in the Pacific to The Hague and the United Nations gives us continued hope that when people organise, the world can be moved to act.”
The post UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court appeared first on Climate Home News.
UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测