How to tackle Climate Change by applying John Rawls' Theory of Justice as Fairness

Hey there, in this article we will explore How to tackle Climate Change by applying John Rawls' Theory of Justice as Fairness, because climate change is one of the most dangerous enemy of our present and coming future. John Rawls' was a American moral and political philosopher and thinker, known for his work on Theories of Justice. The Theory of Justice as Fairness developed by John Rawls in his influential book A Theory of Justice (1971) offers a philosophical conception, belief or perception of achieving a fairer form of socio-political structures through notions of fairness and equality.  Rawls argues that just institutions are those selected behind a veil of ignorance where rational agents, unaware or don’t know of their individual social positions, consent to principles to govern society. The principles includes equal basic liberties for everyone and the second principle and after that followed by difference principle that allows for social and economic inequality so long as it serves to allow the most disadvantaged to advance. This article inquires into how “Justice as Fairness” can offer contributions and struggle with the framework of environmental law, specifically in dealing with the global problem of climate change. Or we can call it A Jurisprudential Study of John Rawls’ Theory of Justice as Fairness on Global Justice Issues, Such as Climate Change.

Also Read: John Rawls' Theory of Justice as Fairness: Principles of Original Position, Veil of Ignorance and Two Principles of Justice.

Rawls' theory was initially designed for application in a bounded context, namely a nation-state, but it raises the question of whether and how we ought to consider applying the theory to global issues/challenges beyond national boundaries. One of those global challenges of contemporary times is climate change, the arguably most pressing justice challenge of our time, particularly in relations to complex issues of intergenerational justice, international collaboration, and fair distribution of burdens and benefits among different populations and future generations. He published The Law of Peoples in 1999 which extends his theory of just as fairness from the domestic level to the international dominion/realm. It outlines a conception of a just and stable international order composed of "peoples" rather than "states." He distinguishes "peoples" as having a moral character and a commitment to justice, unlike states which are seen as primarily rational actors pursuing self-interest and power.

Also Read: John Rawls' on Global Justice

Environmental law aims and seeks to regulate human activities in order to protect and preserves the natural environment, including areas such as pollution regulation, resource use, and climate change. Climate change is the mainly caused by greenhouse gas emissions, is having a significant impact on ecosystems, economies, and human rights - with a major impact on already at risk vulnerable groups.  The intersection of his theory with environmental law offers a lens to analyse and to evaluate whether current legal frameworks aligns with principles of fairness and justice, especially in distributing the burdens and benefits of climate action.

This study investigates whether one can use Rawls Theory of Justice as Fairness to informs about global justice issues, especially regarding climate change. The central conflict in question is whether a theory established mainly for domestic contexts can address the unique challenges presented by global environmental crises that affect nations differently, impact future generations, and require coordinated international responses and collective global action. The project begins by discussing his main principles of theories including the original position, the veil of ignorance, and the two principles of justice. It then addresses Rawls' global justice solutions formulated in "The Law of Peoples" as well as the major criticisms and shortcomings of it. The project then considers climate change as one unified issue of global justice, and points out both the intergenerational character and redistributive aspect of the issues of climate change. Finally, it considers some approaches to using Rawlsian thought to consider climate change ethics including; considering environmental goods as essential goods, using of the veil of ignorance over future generations, and, reinterpreting the difference principle in relation to climate justice.

 CLIMATE CHANGE: A GLOBAL JUSTICE PERSPECTIVE

Climate change is not just an environmental or scientific problem. At its core, it is a justice problem. The factors of climate change and its impacts are complicatedly linked to inequalities that already exist, and the identified threats of climate change compound vulnerabilities and pose new injustices on a global scale. Here we will looks at who is being unjustly burdened due to climate change and uncountable of ways climate change poses a serious challenge to global justice: specifically regarding unequal burdens, intergenerational justice, and threats to fundamental human rights.

 The Unequal Burdens of Climate Change

A key principle of climate justice is recognition that impacts of climate change have never been, and will never be, fairly distributed. There are huge disparities in both contribution to the problem and vulnerability to its consequences.

 Developed vs. Developing Nations: Historically, industrialized nations (known as "developed countries or Annex I countries" under the UNFCCC) have been the main emitters of greenhouse gas emissions because of their longer histories of industrialization, greater per capita consumption. On the flip-side, developing countries more precise in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), they have contributed very little to historical emissions, but are often the most vulnerable to the Impact of climate change, including rise in sea level, extreme weather (e.g. drought, flooding, cyclones), seeking access to water, disruption of agricultural production, etc. Developing nations also tend to have fewer resources to adapt to these impacts, resultings in a scenario in which those least responsible for the problem face its worst impacts. This raises questions about issues of historical responsibility, distributive justice (who bears the costs of mitigation and adaptation) and compensatory justice.

 Vulnerable Populations within Nations: Climate change manifests with particular severity among marginalized and vulnerable groups even in countries. For example, low-income communities, ethnic minorities, indigenous communities, women, children, and the elderly are typically more severely impacted. Communities reliant on agriculture or livelihoods dependent on the coastal environment may be directly threatened and negatively impacted by changing weather patterns or rising sea levels. Low-income households may lack the financial means to relocate, rebuild, or adapt to the consequences of climate change. Therefore, the existing social and economic inequalities can become amplified by climate change as gaps widen and systems become entrenched, putting marginalized and vulnerable groups at greater risk of becoming even more vulnerable, if not socially, economically, environmentally unjust. Similarly, Indigenous peoples, whose identities is strongly tied to their lands and natural resources, have been subjected to threats against their cultures and livelihoods.

 Intergenerational Justice and Climate Change

Climate change has a fundamentally intergenerational aspect to it. The gases emitted today (and that have already been emitted) will reside in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, and will affect the climate and the climate's environment for the indefinite future. Decisions (or indecision) made by the current generation about emissions reductions and adaptation (or lack thereof) will have cascading effects that dictate the quality of life, options, and environment inherited by those who come after us. This brings us to key intergenerational justice questions: What duties does the present generation have to ensure a stable and sustainable climate for future generations?, Is it just for the current generation to consume resources and emit pollutants in ways that foreseeably harm future generations or constrain their ability to meet their own needs?, How should the interests of yet-to-be-born generations be reflected in decision making during the time of current generations?The notion of a just savings principle from Rawls, which in its domestic theory addresses the issue of how much each generation must save for the next, which will now require careful thought with respect to the depletion of environmental 'capital.'The difficulty is determining just limits of resource use and impairment of the environment that would respect the equal moral status of future persons.

 Climate Change as a Threat to Basic Rights and Liberties

Climate change is threatening human rights and freedoms on multiple levels, not only affecting the environment, or economy, but the core of humanity.  Climate change undermine the right to life from extreme weather and diseases- it undermines the right to health from poor air and water quality, food security, and mental health degradation; it undermines the right to food, and to potable water in some cases, by disrupting agriculture or access to potable water; it undermines housing rights by displacing populations from rising sea levels and disasters, and violates the growingly-recognized right to a safe, sustainable environment; it undermines cultures, including Indigenous peoples, by compromising the ecosystems and lands that shape the peoples way of life; and ultimately, challenges communities and Individual rights.Responding to climate change is thus not only an environmental policy issue, but also an issue of protecting basic human rights. A global justice lens on climate change asks that, as people respond to the climate crisis, they do so in ways that protect, and support, human rights, especially vulnerable populations.

 APPLYING “RAWLS’ JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS” TO GLOBAL CLIMATE JUSTICE

This section of the article has identified the basics principles of Rawls' view of "justice as fairness," and urgent justice implications of climate change. This section is focused on exploring how Rawlsian principles can be utilized to develops a just international response to this global crisis. This will entail imagining a global original position for climate justice, deriving specific principles from it, and discussing some of the possible difficulties, foibles, and complications with this application.

 The Global Original Position and Climate Change

For  global level of climate justice, we can think of the “original position as a global original position”. The parties in original position could representatives of individuals around the world, representatives of peoples(though the former aligns more with cosmopolitan interpretations often favored for climate justice). Importantly, the parties would act behind a "veil of ignorance," with respect to climate change in the following terms:In terms of climate change, the members of the “original position” would not know: [Their nationality or identity, The stage of economic development they occupy or will occupy, Their level of vulnerability to climate impacts (whether they live in a coastal zone or a drought-prone area)], They would not know the generation in which they are located: whether they are belong to the present generation, which bears primary responsibility for historical emissions, or whether they belong to a future generation that will face the consequences of climate change. They would not know the particulars of their conception of the good, though they would understand that primary goods include a stable and life-sustaining environment necessary to pursue any rationally acceptable plan of life. They would possess a general scientific understanding of climate change, its factors of causes, and its probable effects.

The purpose of parties in a global original position would be to reach agreement on principles governing international cooperation on climate change, burdens associated with mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation (adjusting to unavoidable impact). The “veil of ignorance” would force parties to choose principles which were fair to everyone, regardless of the party’s specific situation or generational standing as they were forced to imagine a fair outcome for themselves no matter their position.

Principles for Global Climate Justice Derived from Rawlsian Framework

From such a global original position, several Rawlsian-inspired principles for climate justice could plausibly emerge: Ensuring Basic Liberties and a Sustainable Environment (Analogue to the First Principle): It’s conceivable that Parties will first seek to secure the conditions necessary for all people to have and enjoy their basic liberties and live a decent life. What this would mean in practical terms is an overarching principle that would requires the protection of a stable climate system to prevent catastrophic effects that interfere with those basic rights to livelihood, health, and security. Compromise or even a reduction of “greenhouse gases in the atmosphere”(for example, to a level which does not allow for dangerous anthropogenic intervention with climate system would be necessary, could be, it could be argued, a precondition for global enjoyment of basic liberties. This principle would probably require urgent ambitious mitigation efforts. Addressing Inequalities:

 The Difference Principle and Fair Equality of Opportunity in Climate Mitigation and Adaptation (Analogue to the Second Principle):

1. Fair Equality of Opportunity: It suggests that all nations and all people should have an equal opportunity to argue for sustainability or to be sheltered from climate impacts. It may take concerted effort in capacity building, technology transfer, and financial support to allow developing countries to change their pathway to a economy of low carbon and to be able to cope with climate change without compromising their earning potential.
2. The (Global) Difference Principle Applied to Climate Change: While Rawls was against a "global difference principle in The Law of Peoples," but many argue that such principles is appropriate for climate justice. In this case, it would mean that any permissible global inequalities in emissions (e.g., some nations having higher per capita emissions during a transition phase) or in bearing the costs/ burden of climate action must be arranged to greatest benefit of least advantaged. The "least advantaged" in climate context would be those nations and populations most vulnerable to climate impacts and least able to cope (e.g., LDCs, SIDS, impoverished communities). This principle would demand that developed, high-emitting countries take the lead in emissions reductions and provide substantial financial and technological support to vulnerable countries for adaptation and resilience-building. This aligns with the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.
3. The Just Savings Principle for Intergenerational Equity: The Parties unaware or not knowing which generation they belong to, would agree on a "just savings principle" for climate. This would involve limiting current emissions to preserve a safe climate for future generations and investing in sustainable technologies and adaptation measures that benefit those yet to come. It means ensuring that future generations inherit an environment that allows them to enjoy a quality of life and range of opportunities comparable to what is available to the present.

 Challenges and Limitations of Applying Rawls' Theory

Applying justice as fairness to global climate justice is not without its difficulties:

1. Defining the Parties and Least Advantaged: There is debate and disccusion on whether the parties in a global original position should represent individuals or peoples. Also, it is very difficult to determines who the least advantaged is in a global and intergenerational context; Is it the poorest countries, the most climate-vulnerable individuals, or future generations? Different definitions can lead to different policy implications.
2. Ideal vs. Non-Ideal Theory: Rawls' theory is mainly an ideal theory, stating what a perfectly just arrangement will look like under with full compliance. The real world of international climate politics is characterised by non-compliance, competing national interests, and power imbalances. Moving from ideal principles to practical, "non-ideal" solutions that can guide action in an imperfect world is a significant hurdle .
3. The Problem of Historical Emissions: While the original position focuses on structuring future cooperation, climate justice also involves addressing responsibility for past emissions. The question is how to incorporate this historical dimension fairly within a forward-looking Rawlsian framework can be complex. How to incorporate this historical dimension fairly within a forward-looking Rawlsian framework can be complex.
4. Risk and Uncertainty: Rawls' parties original position have been treated frequently as risk-averse, and some intellectuals claim this could sometimes lead to not acting on climate change that is overly cautious or insufficient if either the probabilities of catastrophic outcomes are not fully understood or if short-term costs are overly weighted against long-term benefits. On the other hand, a sufficient understanding of catastrophic risks can lead to strong precautionary action. 
5. Absence of Global Sovereign: Applying and enforcing worldwide principles of justice without a coercive global authority is a persistent challenge in international relations, and climate justice is no exception.

Despite these difficulties and challenges, the Rawlsian framework, with its emphasis on fairness, impartiality,  basic rights protection, and concern for the least advantaged, provides powerful conceptual tools for organizing moral reasoning about climate change and for critiquing existing international structures.

CONCLUSION

This jurisprudential study has explored Rawls theory of justice as fairness and uses it to address the pressing global justice issue of climate change. By focusing on the central principles of his theory and broadening them to the international and intergenerational contexts of climate change, this project has been an opportunity to explore how a Rawlsian perspective can guide our understanding of climate change and our responses to it.

The study argues that John Rawls’ just as fairness, originally developed-for domestic societies, provides a robust framework for addressing global justice issues like climate change when extended cosmopolitically, using the original position and veil of ignorance to derive principles prioritizing a stable climate, basic liberties, and benefits for the most vulnerable nations and future generations. It shows the role that his just savings principle and fairness of equality in opportunity can play in regards to obligations for intergenerational equity and sustainable development. In spite of the vastly evident challenges associated with identifying global actors and pursuing these principles in an imperfect world or in a non-ideal world, the Rawlsian approach offers or provides fruitful direction for international climate policy—specifically demanding increased ambition of wealthy countries via: fair burden-sharing; enhanced global governance arrangements; and more equitable decision making. Overall, the study emphasises the need to operationalise principles of justice in the topic of climate negotiations, prioritising the least advantaged (particularly in terms of resource to foster capacity), institutionalising obligations to intergenerational equity, and supporting both education and research in this space.

Disclaimer: The research done here is based on the knowledge of the of the Author, The viewers are advice to crosscheck it. And any loss or damages occurs to viewers the author or website is not liable.

REFERENCES

•  Henry S. Richardson, John Rawls, STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/
•  John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Harv. Univ. Press 1971).
•  John Rawls, The Law of Peoples (Harv. Univ. Press 1999).
•  Ben Davies, John Rawls and the Veil of Ignorance, OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY OPEN LIBRARY, https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/john-rawls-and-the-veil-of-ignorance/ (
•  John Rawls: Justice as Fairness, DEUTSCHES REFERENZZENTRUM FÜR ETHIK IN DER BIOMEDIZIN, https://www.drze.de/en/research-publications/in-focus/animal-experiments-in-research/modules/john-rawls-justice-as-fairness
•  UNDP, Climate Change is a Matter of Justice – Here’s Why, UNDP CLIMATE PROMISE, https://climatepromise.undp.org/news-and-stories/climate-change-matter-justice-heres-why
•  Jolin Li, Why Is Climate Change a Matter of Justice?, EARTH.ORG, https://earth.org/why-is-climate-change-a-matter-of-justice/
•  Jan Kunnas, The Theory of Justice in a Warming Climate – John Rawls' Theory Applied to Finland, UNIV. OF STIRLING, https://escholarship.org/content/qt38m9n5kn/qt38m9n5kn_noSplash_d17e9e3f5999383d4b8bb88410dbad40.pdf?t=q9ns7c
•  Emma Sommer, Justice for All: John Rawls Theory of Justice and the Green New Deal, 1 El Rio: A Student Research J. 58 (2018), https://ojs.csupueblo.edu/article/download/20289/13699/88719