The Paradox of Climate Justice
Climate justice has gained increasing prominence in both public discourse and the academic literature. This reflects a shift in how climate change is understood, from primarily an environmental issue to a deeply social challenge. While ensuring a minimal degree of equity in the distribution of clima...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2026 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
| Repositorio: | Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:dnet:uabarcelona_::855c465aedc0e731edf8ce583087d616 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://ddd.uab.cat/record/328656 https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.1002/wcc.70060 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Effectiveness Distributional equity Fairness Political feasibility Policy instruments |
| Sumario: | Climate justice has gained increasing prominence in both public discourse and the academic literature. This reflects a shift in how climate change is understood, from primarily an environmental issue to a deeply social challenge. While ensuring a minimal degree of equity in the distribution of climate policy impacts is crucial for stable political support in democratic societies, it remains unclear whether win- win solutions can be achieved universally-or even in many instances. This paper argues that ambitious climate justice goals may inadvertently reduce support for policies capable of substantially cutting emissions. This could result in greater long- term intra- and intergenerational injustice due to insufficient climate action. To explore this paradox, the paper examines how the interplay between justice, effectiveness of emissions reduction, and political feasibility plays out across specific climate policy instruments. To this end, it compares mainstream and heterodox strategies, with a focus on distributive justice. Many heterodox proposals turn out to face challenges in terms of political feasibility and systemic impact-often relying more on pull than push mechanisms and being vulnerable to rebound effects. Certain mainstream instruments appear better positioned to balance the three criteria. How the trade- off plays out when combining mainstream and heterodox instruments in a policy mix remains largely unexplored. The paper concludes by outlining a research agenda to advance our understanding of these issues. |
|---|