Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research

TLDR: The authors argue that analyses of equity and justice are essential for our ability to understand climate politics and contribute to concrete efforts to achieve adequate, fair and enduring climate action for present and future generations.

Abstract: The editorial article rebuts the common assertions that equity is irrelevant in a post Paris climate research and argue that analyses of equity and justice are essential for our ability to understand climate politics and contribute to concrete efforts to achieve adequate, fair and enduring climate action for present and future generations.

Full text

Editorial
Why
equity
is
fundamental
in
climate
change
policy
research
In
a
recent
keynote
address
at
a
major
international
conference
on
climate
change
governance,
1
renowned
political
scientist
Robert
O.
Keohane
argued
that
research
on
the
politics
of
climate
change
is
urgently
needed
(Keohane,
2016
2
).
However,
when
providing
an
overview
for
the
ideal
direction
of
the
field,
he
argued
against
focusing
scholarship
on
the
normative
dimensions
of
climate
policy.
In
response
to
questions
afterwards
we
understood
him
to
argue
that
while
equity
is
important
generally,
it
is
a
potential
distraction
from
addressing
climate
change,
and
could
undermine
collective
action
in
the
face
of
this
urgent
public
goods
crises.
3
We
believe
it
is
important
to
respond
to
Keohane's
comments
because
they
seemed
to
fit
within
an
established
line
of
argument
that
we
have
heard
from
very
influential
players
in
U.N.
negotiation
halls,
academic
journals,
and
within
think-tanks
and
government
ministries.
As
Todd
Stern,
US
Special
Envoy
for
Climate
Change
purportedly
declared
during
the
Durban
Platform
negotiations,
“if
equity's
in,
we’re
out”
(Pickering
et
al.,
2012).
Posner
and
Weisbach
(2010)
similarly
argue
that
discussions
of
justice
ought
to
be
left
out
of
both
academic
work
and
policy
discussions
because
they
are
conceptually
flawed,
could
“derail
the
negotiations,”
and
erode
political
will
(2010).
These
sentiments
are
particularly
problematic
when
combined
with
an
emerging
post-Paris
discourse
that
suggests
that
we
are
in
a
post-equity
era
of
a
voluntary
and
universal
climate
agreement.
In
this
post-equity
world,
issues
can
be
addressed
by
national
contributions
that
will
be
self-deter-
mined.
Despite
strong
references
to
justice,
human
rights,
and
equity
in
the
Paris
Agreement’s
preamble,
the
concept
of
equity
is
largely
absent
from
its
substantive
components.
Paris
recognized
that
the
agreement
will
reflect
“equity
and
common
but
differentiated
responsibilities
(CBDR-RC)
in
the
light
of
national
circumstances,”
a
softening
of
the
original
principle
of
equity
and
CBDR-RC.
The
global
stocktake
on
progress
towards
Paris’
goals
must
be
conducted
“in
light
of
equity,”
but
further
definitions
or
declarations
are
avoided
(UNFCCC,
2015).
The
Paris
outcome
reflected
the
desires
of
some
powerful
countries,
including
the
United
States,
who
have
long
resisted
the
inclusion
of
equity
and
justice
in
multilateral
environmental
agreements.
However
the
massive
bloc
of
134
developing
countries
insisted
from
the
first
environmental
summit
in
Stock-
holm
in
1972
that
the
nations
who
caused
global
environmental
problems
–
and
the
ones
who
had
the
money
to
address
them
–
should
carry
the
greatest
burden
in
cleaning
them
up.
Considering
that
adequate
global
action
requires
deeper
mitigation
effort
from
more
actors
than
ever
before,
regardless
of
their
historical
emissions
levels,
and
that
climate
impacts
are
increasingly
threatening
those
who
have
typically
contributed
little
to
the
problem
and
who
often
lack
the
resources
to
adapt,
it
is
clear
that
justice
remains
as
central
to
climate
change
politics
and
decision-
making
as
ever.
In
stating
that
equity
is
either
irrelevant
or
dangerous
in
a
post-
Paris
world,
Keohane
revisited
three
common
assertions
repeat-
edly
used
to
downplay
equity
in
the
climate
context.
First,
that
a
focus
on
equity
risks
encouraging
lower
-quality
research
that
is
muddled
by
researchers’
normative
stances.
Second,
that
a
focus
on
equity
could
seduce
scholars
into
devoting
unwarranted
time
to
issues
less
central
for
politics
and
climate
action.
And
third,
that
an
inherent
trade-off
between
climate
change
and
equity
precludes
a
focus
on
the
latter
at
the
expense
of
the
former.
As
scholars
committed
to
climate
action,
we
suggest
that
these
claims
warrant
explicit
interrogation,
particularly
now
as
we
face
the
dire
need
for
immediate
and
deep
action
on
climate
change
just
at
the
time
that
equity
provisions
are
sidelined
in
the
Paris
Agreement.
In
this
commentary
we
rebut
these
common
assertions
and
argue
that
analyses
of
equity
and
justice
are
essential
for
our
ability
to
understand
climate
politics
and
contribute
to
concrete
efforts
to
achieve
adequate,
fair
and
enduring
climate
action
for
present
and
future
generations.
Climate
change
action
is
too
important
not
to
address
the
issue
of
equity;
failing
to
do
so
risks
the
collapse
of
the
new
regime.
1.
Why
we
need
research
on
equity
and
climate
Given
scientific
and
political
calls
for
more
ambitious
climate
action,
we
suggest
four
distinct
but
overlapping
reasons
why
we
need
more
research
on
climate
change
and
equity,
not
less.
1
"2016
Berlin
Conference
on
the
Human
Dimensions
of
Global
Environmental
Change:
Transformative
global
climate
governance
après
Paris".
2
http://www.berlinconference.org/2016/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Keo-
hane-Robert-O.pdf.
3
As
a
result
of
our
correspondence
with
him,
Keohane
has
written
a
brief
essay
clarifying
his
views.
His
essay
can
be
found
HERE
(link:
http://www.climate-
changenews.com/2016/09/06/keohane-on-climate-what-price-equity-and-jus-
tice/).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.08.002
0959-3780/ã
2016
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
Global
Environmental
Change
xxx
(2016)
xxx–xxx
G
Model
JGEC
1619
No.
of
Pages
4
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
S.
Klinsky,
et
al.,
Why
equity
is
fundamental
in
climate
change
policy
research,
Global
Environmental
Change
(2016),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.08.002
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
Global
Environmental
Change
journa
l
home
page
:
www.e
lsevier.com/loca
te/gloenv
cha

1.1.
Obligation
to
address
human
wellbeing
We
agree
with
Keohane
about
the
urgent
need
for
scholarship
on
climate
change
within
political
science
and
its
cognate
disciplines
because
scholars
have
an
obligation
to
do
intellectually
rigorous
work
on
issues
affecting
human
wellbeing.
However,
to
take
equity
and
justice
issues
out
of
scholarship
on
climate
change
policy
ignores
the
differential
impact
of
both
climate
change
and
policies
to
address
it.
This
is
problematic
not
only
because
of
our
obligations
to
address
human
wellbeing,
but
also
because
of
the
imperatives
of
international
law,
including
those
of
human
rights.
In
a
world
characterized
by
vast
disparities
of
wellbeing,
it
is
naive
and
dangerous
to
analyse
climate
policies
(or
the
lack
of
them)
without
considering
how
humans
in
starkly
different
structural
positions
are
affected
by
them
differently
(Kasperson
and
Kasperson,
2001).
By
excluding
equity
we
risk
ignoring,
or
willfully
omitting,
the
implications
of
decision-making
on
those
who
are
most
vulnerable
and
are
most
likely
to
face
severe
costs
of
any
action
(or
inaction).
In
order
to
focus
on
human
wellbeing,
scholarship
should
include
work
that
explores
how
communities
themselves
articulate
the
justice
dimensions
of
climate
change
(including
procedural
justice),
and
how
human
rights
could
be
differentially
impacted
by
climate
change
and
climate
policy.
If
the
risk
to
human
wellbeing
is
why
scholars
should
focus
on
climate
change
generally,
then
scholarship
must
also
feature
explicit
consideration
for
those
whose
wellbeing
is
most
threatened
in
the
context
of
differential
impacts
and
capacities.
1.2.
Understandings
of
justice
are
essential
to
political
analysis
Like
Keohane,
we
know
we
need
rigorous
studies
of
politics
in
order
to
understand
and
support
climate
action.
However,
far
from
being
irrelevant
to
political
analysis,
we
believe
that
paying
attention
to
equity
in
climate
change
scholarship
illuminates
crucial
political
dynamics.
Perceptions
and
experiences
of
injustice
lead
people
to
take
action,
to
build
coalitions,
and
to
articulate
and
fight
for
visions
and
outcomes
that
they
see
as
more
equitable
and
desirable.
They
demand
compensation
for
the
harm
caused
by
others
or
experienced
by
those
with
whom
they
identify.
Excluding
equity
or
justice
claims
from
the
scope
of
study
sharply
hampers
our
ability
to
conduct
rigorous
political
analysis.
The
centrality
of
justice
claims
to
political
processes
is
evident
in
the
politics
of
climate
action
at
all
scales.
Diversity
in
the
contexts
and
aspirations
of
countries
that
are
party
to
the
UNFCCC
animates
political
debates
within
and
beyond
the
Convention
(Gupta
2014;
Ciplet
et
al.,
2015).
Structural
inequality
and
different
worldviews
are
mutually
constituted
and
have
systematically
hampered
agreement
on
fairness
in
climate
action
for
decades
(Roberts
and
Parks,
2006).
These
structural
inequalities
are
amplified
by
demonstrable
inequalities
in
the
causes
of
climate
change,
in
biophysical
impacts,
and
in
vulnerabilities.
For
these
reasons,
differentiation
of
effort
by
nations
has
been,
and
continues
to
be,
one
of
the
most
difficult
political
issues
within
the
climate
regime
(Gupta
2012;
Rajamani
2012;
Pauw
et
al.,
2014).
An
account
of
global
negotiations
that
overlooked
justice
claims
would
miss
crucial
political
elements
of
the
climate
regime’s
past,
present
and
future.
We
have
also
seen
actors
organize
domestically
around
ideas
of
justice.
Failing
to
account
for
the
equity
implications
of
policy
actions
required
for
rapid
decarbonization
leaves
climate
policy
efforts
vulnerable
to
attack
from
such
pro-status
quo
actors
as
fossil
fuel
companies,
who
exploit
equity
concerns
to
generate
political
opposition
to
action.
To
ignore
the
justice
claims
posed
by
communities
with
very
different
basic
characteristics
in
a
world
attempting
to
achieve
deep
decarbonization
is
to
risk
committing
to
politically
irrelevant
analysis.
A
common
argument
used
to
oppose
a
scholarly
focus
on
equity
is
that
equity
claims
can
be
used
to
block
collective
action.
Actors
trying
to
shirk
their
obligations
certainly
have
invoked
equity
concerns
to
slow
the
political
momentum
of
policy
change.
However,
equity
claims
can
also
be
used
to
exhort
action
from
actors
who
may
not
immediately
benefit,
but
who
are
part
of
a
shared
socio-ecological
system
nonetheless.
The
power
of
strategic
and
political
uses
of
justice
claims
to
promote
or
undermine
climate
action
is
the
very
thing
that
demands
attention
from
climate
scholars:
who
is
using
these
claims,
in
what
situations,
and
why?
1.3.
Equity
is
not
always
in
tension
with
strong
climate
action
or
collective
action
Contrary
to
assumptions
that
concerns
for
equity
necessarily
thwart
strong
climate
action,
attention
to
equity
can
help
to
identify
compromises
that
take
the
interests
of
all
players
into
account,
enhancing
the
political
process
by
and
establishing
long-
term
legitimacy
for
agreements
(Biermann
et
al.,
2012).
In
an
international
system
of
sovereign
states,
governments’
perceptions
of
what
is
“fair
enough”
are
central
to
their
negotiation
mandates
and
affect
the
likelihood
of
meeting
their
commitments
and
cooperating
with
others.
As
Keohane
noted,
practices
of
reciprocity
are
key
to
cooperation,
but
reciprocity
is
connected
to
actors’
perceptions
of
fairness.
Cooperating
actors
are
less
inclined
to
behave
in
a
reciprocal
manner
if
they
consider
the
institution
unjust
or
the
outcomes
it
is
expected
to
provide
inequitable
(Ostrom
and
Walker,
2003).
In
addition,
governments
are
less
likely
to
game
the
regime
or
circumvent
rules
if
they
perceive
these
rules,
and
the
processes
of
generating
them,
as
equitable.
Tensions
over
inequality
in
emissions
or
in
experiences
of
climate
impacts
could
also
trigger
responses
that
threaten
international
stability,
such
as
trade
wars
or
large
migration
flows.
Scholarship
that
takes
equity
concerns
seriously
can
inform
efforts
to
make
the
global
regime
more
effective
and
durable,
enhancing
international
security
and
stability.
A
positive
overlap
between
equity
and
climate
action
is
also
seen
from
the
perspective
of
those
who
stand
to
lose
most
unities
will
be
irrevocably
harmed.
For
these
communities
there
is
not
a
trade-off
between
equity
and
climate
action:
climate
action
is
necessary
for
survival,
which
is
surely
included
in
the
realm
of
equity.
These
communities
will
strive
for
more
ambitious
action
on
climate
than
most
actors
in
powerful
and
wealthy
nations,
and
a
more
equitable
process
will
provide
them
more
leverage.
And
beyond
highly
vulnerable
nations,
environmental
justice
and
climate
justice
declarations
have
for
25
years
called
for
drastic
reshaping
of
the
energy
system
to
achieve
rapid
decarbonization
(FNPCELS,
1991;
ICJN,
2002).
1.4.
Understanding
trade-offs
requires
taking
equity
into
account
When
writing
about
climate
change
policy
in
1992,
Henry
Shue
argued
that
existing
inequalities
in
economic
development,
political
power,
and
resources
make
consideration
of
justice
“unavoidable”
(Shue,
1992).
Contrary
to
Keohane’s
concern
that
a
focus
on
equity
would
propel
tendencies
to
“trade-off
climate
change
for
equity”,
we
argue
that
we
can
neither
understand
nor
address
climate
action
trade-offs
without
taking
equity
into
account.
To
be
able
to
identify
and
weigh
the
nature
and
magnitude
of
trade-offs
being
proposed
for
different
actors,
we
need
analytically
rigorous
accounts
of
equity
and
human
security.
There
is
no
representative
or
average
global
citizen
or
country,
and
the
diversity
of
positions,
opportunities
and
vulnerabilities
has
to
be
included
in
any
meaningful
analysis
of
substantive
or
political
2
S.
Klinsky
et
al.
/
Global
Environmental
Change
xxx
(2016)
xxx–xxx
G
Model
JGEC
1619
No.
of
Pages
4
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
S.
Klinsky,
et
al.,
Why
equity
is
fundamental
in
climate
change
policy
research,
Global
Environmental
Change
(2016),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.08.002

trade-offs.
Without
including
equity
in
the
analysis
of
policy
decisions,
the
actual
implications
of
trade-offs
for
diverse
individuals
and
groups
cannot
even
be
identified.
For
example,
given
current
technological
conditions
and
existing
inequities
in
access
to
energy
and
infrastructure,
human
wellbeing
requires
additional
access
to
fossil
energy
for
some
but
not
others
(Rao
and
Baer,
2012).
Excluding
equity
from
analyses
of
trade-offs
signals
a
tacit
agreement
to
sacrifice
the
most
vulnerable
groups
and
most
silenced
voices
for
the
benefit
of
“the
greater
good,”
which
in
the
real
political
world
generally
favors
those
more
privileged.
2.
In
summary
At
this
moment
of
need
for
rapid
action
on
the
issue,
Keohane
rightly
points
to
a
crucial
role
for
academics
in
informing
effective
climate
policy
and
the
institutions
to
institute
them.
However,
academics
cannot
leave
equity
and
justice
out
of
their
analysis,
nor
avoid
it
as
an
explicit
topic
of
research.
Justice,
and
its
flipside
injustice,
are
central
to
the
intersection
of
climate
change
and
human
wellbeing,
and
to
political
systems
at
all
levels.
Rather
than
sidelining
rigorous
analytical
work
on
these
trade-
offs
and
the
justice
dimensions
they
spawn,
we
argue
that
more
work
is
needed
to
document
and
understand
what
drives
adequate
climate
action
and
inaction,
and
what
these
choices
mean
for
diverse
communities
and
political
actors.
This
work
is
important
not
only
because
we
ought
to
do
work
that
is
relevant
to
those
who
will
be
most
affected,
but
also
because
equity
analysis
is
essential
to
our
ability
to
understand
the
dynamics
of
political
claims,
actions
and
trade-offs.
Equity
is
not
a
distraction
to
climate
policy
and
analysis.
Rigorous
analysis
that
systematically
considers
the
issue
of
justice
is
essential
for
our
ability
to
understand
and
meaningfully
inform
the
politics
of
climate
action,
especially
in
the
post-Paris
world.
References
Biermann,
F.,
Abbott,
K.,
Andresen,
S.,
Bäckstrand,
K.,
Bernstein,
S.,
Betsill,
M.M.,
Bulkeley,
H.,
Cashore,
B.,
Clapp,
J.,
Folke,
C.,
Gupta,
A.,
Gupta,
J.,
Haas,
P.M.,
Jordan,
A.,
Kanie,
N.,
Kluvánková-Oravská,
T.,
Lebel,
L.,
Liverman,
D.,
Meadowcroft,
J.,
Mitchell,
R.B.,
Newell,
P.,
Oberthür,
S.,
Olsson,
L.,
Pattberg,
P.,
Sánchez-Rodríguez,
R.,
Schroeder,
H.,
Underdal,
A.,
Vieira,
S.C.,
Vogel,
C.,
Young,
O.R.,
Brock,
A.,
Zondervan,
R.,
2012.
Navigating
the
anthropocene:
improving
earth
system
governance.
Science
335
(6074),
1306–1307.
Ciplet,
D.,
Roberts,
T.,
Khan,
M.,
2015.
Power
in
a
Warming
World:
The
New
Global
Politics
of
Climate
Change
and
the
Remaking
of
Environmental
Inequality.
The
MIT
Press.
FNPCELS,
F.
N.
P.
of
C.
E.
L.
S.,
1991.
Principles
of
Environmental
Justice.
http://www.
ejnet.org/ej/principles.html.
Gupta,
J.,
2012.
Negotiating
challenges
and
climate
change.
Clim.
Policy
12
(5),
630–
644.
Gupta,
J.,
2014.
The
History
of
Global
Climate
Governance.
Cambridge
University
Press.
ICJN,
2002.
Bali
Principles
of
Climate
Justice.
http://www.indiaresource.org/issues/
energycc/2003/baliprinciples.html.
Kasperson,
J.X.,
Kasperson,
R.E.,
2001.
Global
Environmental
Risk.
United
Nations
University
Press,
Tokyo,
Japan.
Keohane,
R.O.,
2016.
Climate
change
politics
after
Paris
as
a
two-level
game:
implications
of
pledge
and
review
for
social
science
research.
Keynote
Address
at
the
2016
Berlin
Conference
on
Global
Environmental
Change,
Transformative
Global
Climate
Governance
après
Paris,
Berlin,
Germany,
24
May
2016.
Ostrom,
E.,
Walker,
J.,
2003.
Trust
and
Reciprocity.
Russell
Sage
Foundation
publishing.
Pauw,
P.,
Bauer,
S.,
Richerzhagen,
C.,
Brandi,
C.,
Schmole,
H.,
2014.
Different
Perspectives
on
Differentiated
Responsibilities.
https://www.die-gdi.de/
uploads/media/DP_6.2014.pdf.
Pickering,
J.,
Vanderheiden,
S.,
Miller,
S.,
2012.
“If
Equity’s
In,
We’re
Out”:
Scope
for
fairness
in
the
next
global
climate
agreement.
Ethics
Int.
Affairs
26
(4),
423–443.
Posner,
E.A.,
Weisbach,
D.,
2010.
Climate
Change
Justice.
Princeton
University
Press.
Rajamani,
L.,
2012.
The
changing
fortunes
of
differential
treatment
in
the
evolution
of
international
environmental
law.
Int.
Affairs
88
(3),
605–623.
Rao,
N.D.,
Baer,
P.,
2012.
Decent
living
emissions:
a
conceptual
framework.
Sustainability
4
(4),
656–681.
Roberts,
T.,
Parks,
B.,
2006.
A
Climate
of
Injustice:
Global
Inequality,
North-South
Politics,
and
Climate
Policy.
MIT
Press,
Cambridge,
Mass.
Shue,
H.,
1992.
The
unavoidability
of
justice.
In:
Hurrell,
A.,
Kingsbury,
B.
(Eds.),
The
International
Politics
of
the
Environment:
Actors,
Interests
and
Institutions.
Clarendon
Press,
Oxford,
pp.
373–397.
UNFCCC,
2015.
The
Paris
Agreement.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/
eng/l09r01.pdf.
Sonja
Klinsky
(Dr.)
*
School
of
Sustainability,
Arizona
State
University,
800
South
Cady
Mall,
Tempe,
AZ
85281,
United
States
Timmons
Roberts
Institute
at
Brown
for
Environment
and
Society,
Brown
University,
United
States
Saleemul
Huq
International
Center
for
Climate
Change
and
Development,
Bangladesh
Chukwumerije
Okereke
Department
of
Geography
and
Environmental
Science,
University
of
Reading,
United
Kingdom
Peter
Newell
Department
of
International
Relations,
School
of
Global
Studies,
University
of
Sussex,
United
Kingdom
Peter
Dauvergne
Department
of
Political
Science,
University
of
British
Columbia,
Canada
Karen
O’Brien
Department
of
Sociology
and
Human
Geography,
University
of
Oslo,
Norway
Heike
Schroeder
School
of
International
Development,
University
of
East
Anglia,
United
Kingdom
Petra
Tschakert
School
of
Earth
and
Environment,
The
University
of
Western
Australia,
Australia
Jennifer
Clapp
School
of
Environment,
Resources
and
Sustainability,
University
of
Waterloo,
Canada
Margaret
Keck
Department
of
Political
Science,
Johns
Hopkins
University,
United
States
Frank
Biermann
Copernicus
Institute
of
Sustainable
Development,
Utrecht
University,
Netherlands
Diana
Liverman
Institute
of
the
Environment,
University
of
Arizona,
United
States
Joyeeta
Gupta
Amsterdam
Institute
for
Social
Science
Research,
University
of
Amsterdam,
Netherlands
Atiq
Rahman
Bangladesh
Centre
for
Advanced
Studies,
Bangladesh
Dirk
Messner
German
Development
Institute,
Germany
David
Pellow
Department
of
Environmental
Studies,
University
of
California,
Santa
Barbara,
United
States
Steffen
Bauer
German
Development
Institute,
Germany
S.
Klinsky
et
al.
/
Global
Environmental
Change
xxx
(2016)
xxx–xxx
3
G
Model
JGEC
1619
No.
of
Pages
4
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
S.
Klinsky,
et
al.,
Why
equity
is
fundamental
in
climate
change
policy
research,
Global
Environmental
Change
(2016),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.08.002

*
Corresponding
author.
E-mail
addresses:
sonja.klinsky@asu.edu
(S.
Klinsky),
timmons@brown.edu
(T.
Roberts),
saleemul.huq@iied.org
(S.
Huq),
c.okereke@reading.ac.uk
(C.
Okereke),
P.J.Newell@sussex.ac.uk
(P.
Newell),
peter.dauvergne@ubc.ca
(P.
Dauvergne),
karen.obrien@sosgeo.uio.no
(K.
O’Brien),
H.Schroeder@uea.ac.uk
(H.
Schroeder),
petra.tschakert@uwa.edu.au
(P.
Tschakert),
jclapp@uwaterloo.ca
(J.
Clapp),
mkeck@jhu.edu
(M.
Keck),
f.biermann@uu.nl
(F.
Biermann),
liverman@email.arizona.edu
(D.
Liverman),
J.Gupta@uva.nl
(J.
Gupta),
atiq.rahman@bcas.net
(A.
Rahman),
Dirk.Messner@die-gdi.de
(D.
Messner),
pellow@es.ucsb.edu
(D.
Pellow),
Steffen.Bauer@die-gdi.de
(S.
Bauer).
Received
23
June
2016
Available
online
xxx
4
S.
Klinsky
et
al.
/
Global
Environmental
Change
xxx
(2016)
xxx–xxx
G
Model
JGEC
1619
No.
of
Pages
4
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
S.
Klinsky,
et
al.,
Why
equity
is
fundamental
in
climate
change
policy
research,
Global
Environmental
Change
(2016),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.08.002

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What have the authors contributed in "Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research" ?

This paper argue that while equity is important generally, it is a potential distraction from addressing climate change, and could undermine collective action in the face of public goods crises. 

Q2. What are the main reasons for the 'trade-off' between climate change and equity?

Tensions over inequality in emissions or in experiences of climate impacts could also trigger responses that threaten international stability, such as trade wars or large migration flows. 

Q3. What is the role of equity in climate change?

Scholarship that takes equity concerns seriously can inform efforts to make the global regime more effective and durable, enhancing international security and stability. 

Q4. What is the main point of Keohane's essay?

Perceptions and experiences of injustice lead people to take action, to build coalitions, and to articulate and fight for visions and outcomes that they see as more equitable and desirable. 

Q5. What is the purpose of excluding equity and justice from scholarship?

If the risk to human wellbeing is why scholars should focus on climate change generally, then scholarship must also feature explicit consideration for those whose wellbeing is most threatened in the context of differential impacts and capacities. 

Q6. What is the importance of equity and justice in climate change?

and its flipside injustice, are central to the intersection of climate change and human wellbeing, and to political systems at all levels. 

Q7. What is the key to the importance of equity and justice in climate change scholarship?

Diversity in the contexts and aspirations of countries that are party to the UNFCCC animates political debates within and beyond the Convention (Gupta 2014; Ciplet et al., 2015). 

Q8. What is the importance of equity analysis?

Rigorous analysis that systematically considers the issue of justice is essential for their ability to understand and meaningfully inform the politics of climate action, especially in the post-Paris world. 

Q9. What is the role of equity in climate negotiations?

In an international system of sovereign states, governments’ perceptions of what is “fair enough” are central to their negotiation mandates and affect the likelihood of meeting their commitments and cooperating with others. 

Q10. Why do the authors need to focus on climate change?

The authors agree with Keohane about the urgent need for scholarship on climate change within political science and its cognate disciplines because scholars have an obligation to do intellectually rigorous work on issues affecting human wellbeing. 

Q11. What is the role of equity in climate policy?

Failing to account for the equity implications of policy actions required for rapid decarbonization leaves climate policy efforts vulnerable to attack from such pro-status quo actors as fossil fuel companies, who exploit equity concerns to generate political opposition to action. 

Q12. What is the purpose of the essay?

In order to focus on human wellbeing, scholarship should include work that explores how communities themselves articulate the justice dimensions of climate change (including procedural justice), and how human rights could be differentially impacted by climate change and climate policy. 

Q13. What is the main argument for the argument that equity is a political issue?

Cooperating actors are less inclined to behave in a reciprocal manner if they consider the institution unjust or the outcomes it is expected to provide inequitable (Ostrom and Walker, 2003). 

Q14. What is the main argument against equity?

Contrary to assumptions that concerns for equity necessarily thwart strong climate action, attention to equity can help to identify compromises that take the interests of all players into account, enhancing the political process by and establishing longterm legitimacy for agreements (Biermann et al., 2012).