The working paper to which this article refers is entitled, “The multiple meanings of justice in the context of the transition to a low carbon economy.”

The students were asked to choose a question based on the area in which they work.

The question I chose to answer which is best suited to the context of this specific report is the question, “How does the concept of a just transition relate to your sector or organisation?”

I work for the U.S. Federal Government.  So, it always interests me to see where those who work outside government believe there is a need for explicit government intervention, or perhaps just how they view the way government works.  This document doesn’t go into that level of detail, so I will comment to the general concepts and framework presented.

The document is a survey of background information, where it meanders through various understandings of justice.  So, it has a particular use as a survey of the topic.  The authors define a framework (which they assert is common to a multitude of viewpoints).  The elements of equitable distribution, recognition, equal participation, and equal capabilities find definition in the paper.  However, I dispute the universality of their meaning, even from a western viewpoint.  Specifically, within the context of the United States, these terms take on political meaning, and do not have an agreed upon definition within the American experience.

In fact, these terms are used both internally and externally, and the concepts reach to the core definitions of how we Americans view what our basic freedoms are, and how we view the rights of man around the globe.

Without making claims to a particular interpretation of these views, I can say that the discussion of justice itself is held often and publically.  It bridges themes from housing, to food, urbanization, education and environment. It uses empowerment and access on the left, and opportunity and choice on the right, as a path to justice.

The direct connection between the state of the physical environment and (social) justice is the particular part which is still in its infancy in U.S. Policy and government oversight.  The concepts of justice in all other aspects have been fundamental questions since before the birth of our nation, and so there is no new ground here: we are very introspective in that regard.  So, these questions and aspects of justice would be natural questions on a transition to anything for the U.S.

However, when environmentalism and justice are linked, the connection has its limitations.  It is these specific limitations that must be addressed in order to transcend the ‘problem’ mindset, and move to a ‘solutions’ mindset.  Next, it must also be realized that regulation is not the sole answer to this transcendence.

The Link:  The link (as it is currently perceived) is not a complex one: Pollution is bad, so let’s eliminate pollution.  Instead, the problem should be framed in its more complete form: pollution exists because we choose to live a life which values certain activities over others, at the expense of the well-being of our fellow Americans, their children and our world-wide neighbors. Then the link becomes richer: our values create a world in which we endanger the lives of others by polluting and pillaging the natural environment around us.  Here, we have a statement and a way of thinking that links WHO we are at our core (i.e. values) to our negative impact on others (polluting and pillaging).  If we want this transformation to occur, we must make the message one that is more complex, personal and direct, and avoid long discussions over the history of the concept of ‘justice.’

The best and highest way the U.S. Government can meet this challenge is when it is so embedded in our collective morality that we don’t need regulation and oversight.  That, of course, is an ideal.  Realistically, education gets us to understanding and accepting the real complexities of the link.  The effort to educate Americans needs to start now, and include children and adults.  It should be a marketing campaign.  It should be everywhere.

Practically and historically speaking, we already regulate business, personal and government operations to address social justice issues.  Linking them to a low-carbon economy transition would most likely take the form of incentives and prohibitions.  This is de rigueur for western governments.  But how do you create the longevity needed to create a robust transition?  After all, this could take more than a four-year election cycle to create, and 100 days to stall (sound at all familiar?).

The most practical answer is embedded in the education of adults, and creating a sense of urgency with them.  Strategic, forward-thinking, planning and enabled middle managers are key.  This does not need to be driven from the top.  It can seep in from the middle.  Some of the most effective transitions in government have happened this way because the base of the pyramid (and middle) already understood the need for the just transition.  For example, the acceptance of the LGBT community in the military was not driven from the top.  It came about because the American people, and the soldiers and sailors of the armed forces, saw the social and employment injustice arising from the ban on LGBT’s serving in the military.  These alternate lifestyles were already openly accepted in America, and in the homes of military members.  When the Pentagon did a study on the issue, it found acceptance and support of LGBT issues already existed, driven by the youngest members of the services.  In a like manner, the governance of a transition to a low-carbon economy can best be achieved.

Regarding the paper itself:  There was awkwardness in some of some of the language: cyclone Katrina v. Hurricane Katrina; ‘functioning environment’ needs clearer definition, and claiming that some arguments were ‘nuanced’ seemed inappropriate for the discussion.