How are we performing currently?
This chapter is subtly different to the others and the areas we discuss do not lend themselves to the same scoring approach we have applied to earlier sections. Its inclusion however isn’t an attempt to ‘bolt on’ a few associated ideas but goes to the core of why we still haven’t taken sufficient action to address the interlinked crises we face.
In December 2021, a team of 23 academics from the UK, USA, Sweden and Norway published Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven’t We Bent the Global Emissions Curve in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources. After setting out the inequities of emissions (the richest 1% are responsible for more than twice the emissions of the poorest 50%) the report seeks to understand how, despite establishing the bodies to address the known issues of climate change in the early 1990’s, world governments have overseen emission levels over the intervening three decades which exceed levels of the proceeding 240 years (872 GtCO2 1990 – 2019 804 GtCO2 1750 – 1990).
The report looked at nine themes covering aspects such as geopolitics, vested interests, energy supply systems, economics, finance and social imaginaries (“collective images of how we might live”). It acknowledges that behavioral issues among wealthier communities, like ours, can constrain changes where they are perceived to be restrictive to our daily lives. It notes that, even among those who wish to act on good intentions, changes are often implemented at levels of ease (e.g. turning lights off, washing at 300C) while perpetuating damaging, but culturally normal, behaviours (e.g. commuting to work by car). It also notes the scarcity of social imaginaries and how those that do exist are too entangled in current world views (e.g. reliant on fossil fuels / industrial modernity) and too separated from many communities (something we hope to address with this report, at least from a local perspective).
The key findings of the report are that the solutions we need are “highly challenging to the dominant paradigm of “progress.” The almost uncritical pursuit of economic growth, piecemeal politics, and a narrow, techno-economic rationality are fundamental characteristics of this paradigm. Furthermore, worldviews and perspectives that offer alternatives to this highly constricted development pathway have (thus far) tended to be marginalized, undermined, or otherwise ignored.”
Discussing how we have moved from climate denialism to so-called ‘net zero’ visions (including the new low-carbon scenarios of the likes of BP, Shell and Equinor), it highlights how these rely on yet to be proven negative emissions technology and expect unrestrained economic growth to continue; all in contradiction to the actions we should be taking. Beyond the guise of net-zero targets it concludes “Whether concern is over the dominant model of economic growth, the lock-in of existing fossil-fueled technologies, the marginalization of alternative social imaginaries, or the maintenance of prevailing inequalities (both within communities and internationally), the failure to bend the global emissions curve stems from the strength of the existing paradigm of “progress” to resist change.”
This latter reason, the need to challenge the existing paradigm, is one of the key reasons why we have included this chapter, particularly as many are now pointing to evidence that our obsession with economic growth doesn’t translate into greater well-being.
In December 2021, a team of 23 academics from the UK, USA, Sweden and Norway published Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven’t We Bent the Global Emissions Curve in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources. After setting out the inequities of emissions (the richest 1% are responsible for more than twice the emissions of the poorest 50%) the report seeks to understand how, despite establishing the bodies to address the known issues of climate change in the early 1990’s, world governments have overseen emission levels over the intervening three decades which exceed levels of the proceeding 240 years (872 GtCO2 1990 – 2019 804 GtCO2 1750 – 1990).
The report looked at nine themes covering aspects such as geopolitics, vested interests, energy supply systems, economics, finance and social imaginaries (“collective images of how we might live”). It acknowledges that behavioral issues among wealthier communities, like ours, can constrain changes where they are perceived to be restrictive to our daily lives. It notes that, even among those who wish to act on good intentions, changes are often implemented at levels of ease (e.g. turning lights off, washing at 300C) while perpetuating damaging, but culturally normal, behaviours (e.g. commuting to work by car). It also notes the scarcity of social imaginaries and how those that do exist are too entangled in current world views (e.g. reliant on fossil fuels / industrial modernity) and too separated from many communities (something we hope to address with this report, at least from a local perspective).
The key findings of the report are that the solutions we need are “highly challenging to the dominant paradigm of “progress.” The almost uncritical pursuit of economic growth, piecemeal politics, and a narrow, techno-economic rationality are fundamental characteristics of this paradigm. Furthermore, worldviews and perspectives that offer alternatives to this highly constricted development pathway have (thus far) tended to be marginalized, undermined, or otherwise ignored.”
Discussing how we have moved from climate denialism to so-called ‘net zero’ visions (including the new low-carbon scenarios of the likes of BP, Shell and Equinor), it highlights how these rely on yet to be proven negative emissions technology and expect unrestrained economic growth to continue; all in contradiction to the actions we should be taking. Beyond the guise of net-zero targets it concludes “Whether concern is over the dominant model of economic growth, the lock-in of existing fossil-fueled technologies, the marginalization of alternative social imaginaries, or the maintenance of prevailing inequalities (both within communities and internationally), the failure to bend the global emissions curve stems from the strength of the existing paradigm of “progress” to resist change.”
This latter reason, the need to challenge the existing paradigm, is one of the key reasons why we have included this chapter, particularly as many are now pointing to evidence that our obsession with economic growth doesn’t translate into greater well-being.
2021 Assessment
Where are we now and what else do we need to know?
Chambers Dictionary describes Justice as ‘1. The quality of being just; just treatment; fairness 2. The quality of being reasonable’. While environmental breakdown could ultimately affect every person on the planet, as the UN statement above makes clear, the impacts will not be borne equally by all; there is little just, fair, or reasonable about the challenges many face as a result of climate change.
This is already apparent from droughts and floods in Bangladesh to rising sea levels in Kiribati and many other places, particularly in the global south. Even in the West, it is poorer communities who typically find themselves living in areas worst affected by air pollution, least able to afford to move away from areas susceptible to flooding or wildfires and least able to access the benefits of green technologies. As the first drafts of this report were compiled, Las Vegas experienced near record breaking temperatures of 46.60 C (1160 F) causing many to shelter in their air-conditioned homes and workplaces while for “workers who have to be outside, low-income residents without access to in-home cooling, and the more than 6,000 unhoused residents in Las Vegas, the stifling conditions can exact a considerable toll”. Heat related deaths in the area have increased 6-fold in less than a decade.
This also needs consideration in the UK, where disadvantaged sections of society are already disproportionately exposed to environmental issues. Poorer housing tends to be closer to major traffic routes, exposing residents to air pollution, while poorly insulated properties increase the likelihood of health hazards and fuel poverty. This inequality was thrown into the spotlight by the pandemic with ethnic minorities, often subject to poorer living standards, becoming more susceptible to the virus. Those less able to finance aspects of greener living that could even save money (such as retrofitting or buying an electric vehicle), will also be unable to afford any punitive measures designed to share transition costs. As witnessed in France with the ‘yellow vests’ movement, simply imposing taxes on everyone may not only be unfair but is also counterproductive.
Therefore, coupled with the urgency of action is the need for it to be ‘just, fair and reasonable’. For too long business-as-usual has resulted in an unequal distribution of resources that has left millions subject to hunger, poverty, violence and the consequences of environmental damage. Addressing the environmental crises we face should not exacerbate these issues (e.g. through excessive mining for materials for electric car batteries which could devastate local natural environments), but rather actively seek ways to address both ecological crises and global justice.
One way of thinking about justice is to consider distribution, that is to say who gets what (not just goods and services but also access or exposure to environmental benefits and problems e.g. clean air, outside space, exposure to flooding) and relationships, not family and friends as such but relationships of power (e.g. the ability to influence decision makers) and ownership (e.g. the ability to access green technology or green spaces). Many of these issues are of course policy related (such as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals or a Green New Deal) and these are dealt with in the Policies chapter. In this chapter our aim is to consider the key issues of justice and their global context while attempting to identify their local relevance.
Perhaps more than any other chapter, these issues are likely to be beyond the scope of Dorset residents to solve ourselves. However, by beginning to explore each in turn, by raising awareness of their nature and interconnectivity, we can play a part in their resolution while ensuring that any actions we do take do not exacerbate existing injustices.
Chambers Dictionary describes Justice as ‘1. The quality of being just; just treatment; fairness 2. The quality of being reasonable’. While environmental breakdown could ultimately affect every person on the planet, as the UN statement above makes clear, the impacts will not be borne equally by all; there is little just, fair, or reasonable about the challenges many face as a result of climate change.
This is already apparent from droughts and floods in Bangladesh to rising sea levels in Kiribati and many other places, particularly in the global south. Even in the West, it is poorer communities who typically find themselves living in areas worst affected by air pollution, least able to afford to move away from areas susceptible to flooding or wildfires and least able to access the benefits of green technologies. As the first drafts of this report were compiled, Las Vegas experienced near record breaking temperatures of 46.60 C (1160 F) causing many to shelter in their air-conditioned homes and workplaces while for “workers who have to be outside, low-income residents without access to in-home cooling, and the more than 6,000 unhoused residents in Las Vegas, the stifling conditions can exact a considerable toll”. Heat related deaths in the area have increased 6-fold in less than a decade.
This also needs consideration in the UK, where disadvantaged sections of society are already disproportionately exposed to environmental issues. Poorer housing tends to be closer to major traffic routes, exposing residents to air pollution, while poorly insulated properties increase the likelihood of health hazards and fuel poverty. This inequality was thrown into the spotlight by the pandemic with ethnic minorities, often subject to poorer living standards, becoming more susceptible to the virus. Those less able to finance aspects of greener living that could even save money (such as retrofitting or buying an electric vehicle), will also be unable to afford any punitive measures designed to share transition costs. As witnessed in France with the ‘yellow vests’ movement, simply imposing taxes on everyone may not only be unfair but is also counterproductive.
Therefore, coupled with the urgency of action is the need for it to be ‘just, fair and reasonable’. For too long business-as-usual has resulted in an unequal distribution of resources that has left millions subject to hunger, poverty, violence and the consequences of environmental damage. Addressing the environmental crises we face should not exacerbate these issues (e.g. through excessive mining for materials for electric car batteries which could devastate local natural environments), but rather actively seek ways to address both ecological crises and global justice.
One way of thinking about justice is to consider distribution, that is to say who gets what (not just goods and services but also access or exposure to environmental benefits and problems e.g. clean air, outside space, exposure to flooding) and relationships, not family and friends as such but relationships of power (e.g. the ability to influence decision makers) and ownership (e.g. the ability to access green technology or green spaces). Many of these issues are of course policy related (such as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals or a Green New Deal) and these are dealt with in the Policies chapter. In this chapter our aim is to consider the key issues of justice and their global context while attempting to identify their local relevance.
Perhaps more than any other chapter, these issues are likely to be beyond the scope of Dorset residents to solve ourselves. However, by beginning to explore each in turn, by raising awareness of their nature and interconnectivity, we can play a part in their resolution while ensuring that any actions we do take do not exacerbate existing injustices.
Climate Justice
What is it?
The UN describes climate justice as looking at the climate crisis through a human lens, recognising that the impacts of climate change will not be borne equally or fairly, between rich and poor, women and men, and older and younger generations, and by applying this approach we can build a better future for all if we work together. Many believe this means putting those marginalized and front-line communities at the front and centre of solutions development. This is almost the opposite of what happens at international events such the global COPs, which have historically been dominated by politicians, larger countries and commercial interests, making this a key focus of campaigners at the Glasgow COP26 in November this year.
Many indigenous communities often have a much closer relationship to the environment and can provide knowledge handed down through generations, knowledge that has been ignored for centuries as globalization has taken hold.
In the UK one aspect of climate justice is the need for a just transition for workers currently employed in industries which will no longer be needed in a zero-carbon world. Rather than abandoning these occupations and communities, as has happened in the past with mining or steel towns, a just transition would ensure that everyone is retrained and supported to move to a new, quality job. Globally this approach could assist those communities who currently rely on extractive industries, unsustainable agriculture or tourism.
What can we do about it?
Rather than relying on those who are actively engaged in the political process and business groups, governments and councils should also reach out to engage those groups and communities who are most likely to be (or already are) adversely affected by a changing climate and bring them directly in to the decision-making process. In the UK this could include, for example, those in rented accommodation who cannot retrofit their properties, people threatened by sea-level rise and those in jobs which may not be needed in a zero-carbon world.
Citizens Assemblies bring together a cross section of the population, selected randomly (in the same manner as used for Jury Service) and are typically used to consider difficult or controversial decisions (for example they were used in Ireland to consider legalising abortion). Attendees are presented with different ideas and a range of facts and scientific information and asked to come to a decision on this basis. Locally these could be used to agree the overall approach to climate action or to address controversial aspects, such as should we, and how could we, move to traffic free zones. BCP included plans for a Citizens Assembly in their initial CEE plan, but this was subsequently dropped, whilst Dorset have not included this.
The UK government set up a Climate Assembly to bring together 100+ people from all walks of life and of all shades of opinion to discuss how the UK should meet the net zero by 2050 target. The assembly members met over six weekends in Spring 2020. They heard balanced evidence on the choices the UK faces, discussed them, and made recommendations about what the UK should do to become net zero by 2050. Their final report was published on Thursday 10 September 2020. It’s not clear what will happen with this now.
Communities can also take the lead themselves, setting up local groups to meet, raise awareness of the issues and lobby their representatives, or even take action themselves where resources permit.
With respect to just transition solutions, examples of these can be seen with the Lucas Plan, Scotland’s Just Transition plans and the Gatwick Green New Deal report.
Environmental Justice
What is it?
Distribution is central to environmental justice, as witnessed by the extent to which people have access to the positive aspects of the environment (clean air, public parks, beaches, the countryside), or are adversely affected by its negative manifestations (polluted water, poor air quality, extreme heat, floods). It can also relate to what is right for the environment itself, calling into question how the environment can have a voice in decisions that affect it positively or negatively. It also challenges the dominant thinking of western societies across recent centuries which assumes that nature is here to be conquered, dominated, and exploited for the benefit of humans. An attitude which helps explain how environmental collapse became possible.
What can we do about it?
While Dorset is far from equal, access to the positive aspects of the environment is largely available to all. Where issues exist, they are more likely to be related to social justice than to environmental access itself. However, the right to roam remains subject to numerous restrictions (including 7,000 acres of Dorset land, out of bounds behind one of England’s longest walls) and any future proposals for restrictions should be rigorously challenged. Beaches are often seen as revenue generators with environmental protection primarily provided because of their economic rather than social value. For many of the challenges we face Citizens Assemblies could also play a role here (e.g. “How do we balance the demands of tourism and our use of our beaches while protecting the wider environment for future generations”). We should also ensure that nature has a voice by ensuring those bodies who work with the natural world, both professional and voluntary, have a sufficient say over local decisions.
Global Justice
What is it?
While climate justice seeks to recognise and redress how the impacts of climate change are disproportionately affecting marginalized communities, global justice seeks to address the underlying issues of inequality, poverty and the concentration of wealth and power around the globe. There is a growing recognition that the issues which have created today’s inequalities and social issues are the same systemic ones driving the climate and ecological crises. A recognition that corporations such as Shell and United Fruit have exploited communities, caused environmental catastrophes, misled the public, interfered in democratic processes and avoided tax while being held up as model companies. There is now a growing awareness of how global financial processes have always favoured a wealthy few; from the reparations paid to France by Haiti for its independence (taking over 120 years and leaving it one of the poorest countries in the world), the £300bn (in today’s terms), paid to British Slave Traders through a loan granted by Rothschild’s Bank which was still being paid off by UK tax payers in 2015, to the punitive measures enacted on Greece after the global crash (largely to the benefit of Goldman Sachs), which has had dire consequences for the Greek people, not just in terms of their pensions and benefits, but also directly contributing to the devastating wildfires experienced across the country. It is for many of the reasons above that demands are growing for reparations; direct payments to be made to those nations and communities whose resources were plundered by colonial powers, whose populations suffered the imposition of slavery and whose economies are still suffering from post-colonial conditions. Where agreed there is an associated issue about who pays for reparations; as noted above UK tax payers were until recently paying off loans used to compensate slave owners and traders. This raises the question as to whether recompense should actually be sought from those who directly benefited rather than ordinary tax payers.
Another aspect of global justice that features in climate debates is that of historical emissions. Some argue our actions in the UK are irrelevant in the face of the levels of emissions from China and India. However, when cumulative emissions are considered (CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for up to 200 years) proportionate to population size the US & UK have benefited from activities that have created 5.5 times their ‘share’ of emissions while China and India have only created 0.6 and 0.06 respectively. This explains why other nations can justifiably ask for longer to make the transition to zero than those of us who have already had our share.
What can we do about it?
As these are global issues, it is tempting to think they have no role in our considerations for Dorset. However, all the decisions we make can have consequences for marginalized communities. For example, in the Travel Better chapter we discussed how switching all cars to electricity would create massive demands on resources, the negative effects of which would be felt in these communities. We’ve also talked about travelling less and about growing more local food, these actions will affect global communities that currently rely on tourism or cash crops. While these issues can be addressed with the correct international policies and financial commitment providing a just transition, we need to be aware of them and the wider consequences of our actions. Working with internationally focused campaign and charity groups, like War on Want, CAFOD and Oxfam, can help maintain the focus on these aspects.
Social Justice
What is it?
Social justice seeks to ensure that wealth and opportunities (including for study, work, legal representation, and democratic rights) are fairly distributed throughout society irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other circumstances of birth. This can range from campaigning to address specific issues where poverty or lack of opportunity are apparent, to seeking fundamental changes to the way society operates to enshrine social justice as a right. As an example, while some argue that we already live in a healthy democracy, social justice campaigners will point to the unfair access large corporations and lobbyists have to decision makers, how the ‘first-past-the-post’ electoral system negates the value of millions of votes, and how workers have little, if any, say over the decisions their employers make.
Within the wider social justice movement awareness is also growing of the issue of generational justice; the recognition that with environmental breakdown, it is the next and future generations who will live with the consequences of the actions taken by current and previous generations. Globally women carry a disproportionate strain from climate related issues while even in the UK, as an example, women travelling face issues of safety and practicality often ignored by transport planners.
Despite promises to ‘level-up’, recent reports confirm inequality is still growing. Dorset is not immune to these issues. Pockets of poverty exist, in 2015 there were 11 areas in Dorset within the top 20% most deprived nationally for multiple deprivation, this in the very same county that boasts one of the world’s most expensive real estate locations. Access to public transport is an issue of social justice, one that leads to Dorset households having to own and run more cars per household than the national average (see Travel Better chapter). Average salaries are nearly 10% below the UK average while average property prices are more than 10% above the UK average meaning the average house costs 13.5 times the average salary.
Figures produced before the recent dramatic increases in fuel prices indicated more than 34,000 households in Dorset were already struggling to pay their bills. According to Public Health Dorset around “351,700 people across the area are estimated to not spend enough money on food and non-alcoholic drinks each week in order to meet government's guidelines for a healthy diet. Looking at household types with children, 165,100 people are not spending enough to have a healthy diet”. In total they have identified 374,900 people at risk of food insecurity. Local data suggests around 1.5% of the population were accessing food banks before the pandemic. All of these factors highlight how addressing climate related issues will not be a priority for many of Dorset’s residents.
In an area of relatively low ethnic diversity it is disappointing that Dorset police had to issue a statement explaining why they had disproportionately stopped and searched people who identified themselves as black.
What can we do about it?
Many local groups are campaigning on social justice issues including the Dorset Equality Group and there are many local hubs for national campaigns. The Green New Deal (Dorset Hub) (see Policies chapter) directly campaigns to address both the climate crisis and issues of social inequality.
As with Global Justice, the relevance of social justice for this report is the need to ensure these factors are included in plans to address the climate and ecological emergency. We need to ensure those in affected communities are explicitly included in developing plans, particularly those that will be directly impacted, those who are currently marginalised and those below 30 who will face the worst of the current social challenges (the first generation in centuries who will not be ‘better-off’ than their parents who will also witness the most dramatic changes to our planet’s climate).
The future of work
The requirement for a ‘just transition’ was discussed under Climate Justice above. However, beyond the issues of replacement work for those directly affected by the transition away from fossil fuels, there are interconnected issues that could affect many more workers. Reports over the past decade have highlighted the growth of low wage work [2] (particularly in the hospitality and care sectors), and how this is exacerbating, rather than helping the so called ‘levelling-up agenda’. With changes in life style and an aging population the growth in these sectors is likely to continue. While policies, such as the Green New Deal, recognise care work as ‘green jobs’ and calls for them to be recognised and rewarded accordingly, mass low-paid work creates significant implications for society. As a local economy which features both tourist activity and an aging population, Dorset will remain at the forefront of places facing these issues. Meanwhile, at the same time as we try to create a truly sustainable world, we will also need to address the impacts of increasing automation and artificial intelligence.
Given all these factors, many are now asking whether our whole attitude to work needs to be rethought; after all the 9 to 5 hasn’t been the means of producing life’s goods and necessities for ever or everywhere. Equally, aligned to truly living sustainably, we need to ask difficult questions about more than just the transition away from fossil fuels: Do we really need everything we make? Can we make things that last longer so we don’t have to keep replacing them? Do we need to employ people to convince us we need to buy more of what we don’t need? Answers to these lead to more questions about how we share the work that does remain, how we ensure everyone ‘makes a living’ and how we pay for everything. This is not an area we have sought to answer here but, to leave these out of the wider debate would be disingenuous.
Along with most of the other aspects of justice, a fair and proper resolution will only be found if those directly affected are directly engaged in developing the solutions.
Who owns what, who pays what?
If we delay implementing solutions to the climate crises, reports [2] have shown that the costs of attempting to do so later will rise exponentially, potentially leaving an intergenerational legacy that will dwarf the perceived worries over current sovereign debt. Yet, despite this evidence, there has been a reluctance to take the necessary action. When the common narrative for at least 40 years has been that the economy and markets must take precedence and all other issues will ultimately be resolved (‘a rising tide lifts all boats’), we need to ask why haven’t western governments and the markets seized this opportunity. Part of the answer may lie in the power of vested interests.
At COP26 it was noted that there were more delegates associated with the fossil fuel industry than any single country! Fossil fuel companies have consistently spent millions lobbying politicians not least in the US where fossil fuel funds can be seen to directly affect the attitudes and outcomes of elections. Recent events in the UK concerning MPs second jobs and cash for access scandals suggests we aren’t immune to these issues. Along with the influence of a billionaire owned media there are serious questions to be asked about the health of our democracy and whether this is capable of standing up to the vested interests who are delaying action on climate.
One area left unresolved from COP26 is the issue of loss and damage. Despite the predominant news coverage about ‘watering-down’ of proposals made by India (to ‘phase down’ not ‘phase out’ coal) in many commentators minds the most significant watering down came at the behest of the US and other wealthy nations who still haven’t agreed the mechanism by which poorer, more vulnerable countries will receive financial assistance to deal with the loss and damage caused by climate changes not of their own making. On the back of failing to deliver a pledge of $100bn made in 2010[7] to help developing countries address climate change, the agreement to roll discussions forward to COP27 in Egypt was seen by many as another example of richer nations not living up to their promises.
During the pandemic, as in times of war, the usual notion that governments cannot simply spend what they want was proved to be a false one. Organisations such as Positive Money and the New Economics Foundation (NEF) have long argued that our banking and finance systems can be repurposed to work more effectively for society as a whole; addressing the climate crisis and many of society’s issues. NEF in particular have published extensive research on how to finance a Green New Deal and other programmes. The People’s Green New Deal Early Day Motion specifically calls for “raising taxes on the richest 5 per cent of earners and large corporations, while introducing a windfall tax on corporations who have made excessive profits during the covid-19 pandemic and a crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion.”
Leading climate scientist James Hansen has long argued for a carbon tax and dividend scheme. This is different to most taxes in that the funds raised (in this case by putting a fee on all fossil fuel emissions at the point they enter the market e.g. at the refinery) are distributed to all citizens through a dividend. This would be paid equally to every adult (with an allowance for children) enabling poorer families to meet the resulting increases in basic costs while penalizing those who use excessive amounts of fossil fuels. With the fee rising each year it is anticipated that individuals will do everything they can to switch away from fossil fuel use, with alternatives becoming comparatively cheaper. Some 3,623 US economists have declared a carbon tax to be “the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed necessary” while many Republicans have offered support as the ‘dividend’ element negates the usual anti-tax arguments. The approach has supporters in the UK but has not to date been as high profile as it is in the US.
We have discussed the critical role of land in this report, both directly in the Land Use and Eat Well chapters, and indirectly when considering issues such as where renewable energy technology can be installed. How we optimise the land available to us, to meet all these requirements, will of course depend on the attitudes of those who own it. This may be problematic when, according to Who Owns England, ten landowners own one-sixth of the county (likely much more than that in terms of land available to use for some of the solutions we have set out in this report). While it may not surprise many that the National Trust is the largest owner and Richard Drax MP the second, among the remaining owners are an American billionaire, offshore holdings belonging to the Marquess of Salisbury and Daily Mail owner Viscount Rothermere. While the National Trust have made some very positive moves with respect to climate change and issues of historic injustice, it seems unlikely the remainder will act in a similar manner. Issues of the rights of current owners are difficult to address but without some significant changes there may be barriers to just how much we can make happen in Dorset.
What is it?
The UN describes climate justice as looking at the climate crisis through a human lens, recognising that the impacts of climate change will not be borne equally or fairly, between rich and poor, women and men, and older and younger generations, and by applying this approach we can build a better future for all if we work together. Many believe this means putting those marginalized and front-line communities at the front and centre of solutions development. This is almost the opposite of what happens at international events such the global COPs, which have historically been dominated by politicians, larger countries and commercial interests, making this a key focus of campaigners at the Glasgow COP26 in November this year.
Many indigenous communities often have a much closer relationship to the environment and can provide knowledge handed down through generations, knowledge that has been ignored for centuries as globalization has taken hold.
In the UK one aspect of climate justice is the need for a just transition for workers currently employed in industries which will no longer be needed in a zero-carbon world. Rather than abandoning these occupations and communities, as has happened in the past with mining or steel towns, a just transition would ensure that everyone is retrained and supported to move to a new, quality job. Globally this approach could assist those communities who currently rely on extractive industries, unsustainable agriculture or tourism.
What can we do about it?
Rather than relying on those who are actively engaged in the political process and business groups, governments and councils should also reach out to engage those groups and communities who are most likely to be (or already are) adversely affected by a changing climate and bring them directly in to the decision-making process. In the UK this could include, for example, those in rented accommodation who cannot retrofit their properties, people threatened by sea-level rise and those in jobs which may not be needed in a zero-carbon world.
Citizens Assemblies bring together a cross section of the population, selected randomly (in the same manner as used for Jury Service) and are typically used to consider difficult or controversial decisions (for example they were used in Ireland to consider legalising abortion). Attendees are presented with different ideas and a range of facts and scientific information and asked to come to a decision on this basis. Locally these could be used to agree the overall approach to climate action or to address controversial aspects, such as should we, and how could we, move to traffic free zones. BCP included plans for a Citizens Assembly in their initial CEE plan, but this was subsequently dropped, whilst Dorset have not included this.
The UK government set up a Climate Assembly to bring together 100+ people from all walks of life and of all shades of opinion to discuss how the UK should meet the net zero by 2050 target. The assembly members met over six weekends in Spring 2020. They heard balanced evidence on the choices the UK faces, discussed them, and made recommendations about what the UK should do to become net zero by 2050. Their final report was published on Thursday 10 September 2020. It’s not clear what will happen with this now.
Communities can also take the lead themselves, setting up local groups to meet, raise awareness of the issues and lobby their representatives, or even take action themselves where resources permit.
With respect to just transition solutions, examples of these can be seen with the Lucas Plan, Scotland’s Just Transition plans and the Gatwick Green New Deal report.
Environmental Justice
What is it?
Distribution is central to environmental justice, as witnessed by the extent to which people have access to the positive aspects of the environment (clean air, public parks, beaches, the countryside), or are adversely affected by its negative manifestations (polluted water, poor air quality, extreme heat, floods). It can also relate to what is right for the environment itself, calling into question how the environment can have a voice in decisions that affect it positively or negatively. It also challenges the dominant thinking of western societies across recent centuries which assumes that nature is here to be conquered, dominated, and exploited for the benefit of humans. An attitude which helps explain how environmental collapse became possible.
What can we do about it?
While Dorset is far from equal, access to the positive aspects of the environment is largely available to all. Where issues exist, they are more likely to be related to social justice than to environmental access itself. However, the right to roam remains subject to numerous restrictions (including 7,000 acres of Dorset land, out of bounds behind one of England’s longest walls) and any future proposals for restrictions should be rigorously challenged. Beaches are often seen as revenue generators with environmental protection primarily provided because of their economic rather than social value. For many of the challenges we face Citizens Assemblies could also play a role here (e.g. “How do we balance the demands of tourism and our use of our beaches while protecting the wider environment for future generations”). We should also ensure that nature has a voice by ensuring those bodies who work with the natural world, both professional and voluntary, have a sufficient say over local decisions.
Global Justice
What is it?
While climate justice seeks to recognise and redress how the impacts of climate change are disproportionately affecting marginalized communities, global justice seeks to address the underlying issues of inequality, poverty and the concentration of wealth and power around the globe. There is a growing recognition that the issues which have created today’s inequalities and social issues are the same systemic ones driving the climate and ecological crises. A recognition that corporations such as Shell and United Fruit have exploited communities, caused environmental catastrophes, misled the public, interfered in democratic processes and avoided tax while being held up as model companies. There is now a growing awareness of how global financial processes have always favoured a wealthy few; from the reparations paid to France by Haiti for its independence (taking over 120 years and leaving it one of the poorest countries in the world), the £300bn (in today’s terms), paid to British Slave Traders through a loan granted by Rothschild’s Bank which was still being paid off by UK tax payers in 2015, to the punitive measures enacted on Greece after the global crash (largely to the benefit of Goldman Sachs), which has had dire consequences for the Greek people, not just in terms of their pensions and benefits, but also directly contributing to the devastating wildfires experienced across the country. It is for many of the reasons above that demands are growing for reparations; direct payments to be made to those nations and communities whose resources were plundered by colonial powers, whose populations suffered the imposition of slavery and whose economies are still suffering from post-colonial conditions. Where agreed there is an associated issue about who pays for reparations; as noted above UK tax payers were until recently paying off loans used to compensate slave owners and traders. This raises the question as to whether recompense should actually be sought from those who directly benefited rather than ordinary tax payers.
Another aspect of global justice that features in climate debates is that of historical emissions. Some argue our actions in the UK are irrelevant in the face of the levels of emissions from China and India. However, when cumulative emissions are considered (CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for up to 200 years) proportionate to population size the US & UK have benefited from activities that have created 5.5 times their ‘share’ of emissions while China and India have only created 0.6 and 0.06 respectively. This explains why other nations can justifiably ask for longer to make the transition to zero than those of us who have already had our share.
What can we do about it?
As these are global issues, it is tempting to think they have no role in our considerations for Dorset. However, all the decisions we make can have consequences for marginalized communities. For example, in the Travel Better chapter we discussed how switching all cars to electricity would create massive demands on resources, the negative effects of which would be felt in these communities. We’ve also talked about travelling less and about growing more local food, these actions will affect global communities that currently rely on tourism or cash crops. While these issues can be addressed with the correct international policies and financial commitment providing a just transition, we need to be aware of them and the wider consequences of our actions. Working with internationally focused campaign and charity groups, like War on Want, CAFOD and Oxfam, can help maintain the focus on these aspects.
Social Justice
What is it?
Social justice seeks to ensure that wealth and opportunities (including for study, work, legal representation, and democratic rights) are fairly distributed throughout society irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other circumstances of birth. This can range from campaigning to address specific issues where poverty or lack of opportunity are apparent, to seeking fundamental changes to the way society operates to enshrine social justice as a right. As an example, while some argue that we already live in a healthy democracy, social justice campaigners will point to the unfair access large corporations and lobbyists have to decision makers, how the ‘first-past-the-post’ electoral system negates the value of millions of votes, and how workers have little, if any, say over the decisions their employers make.
Within the wider social justice movement awareness is also growing of the issue of generational justice; the recognition that with environmental breakdown, it is the next and future generations who will live with the consequences of the actions taken by current and previous generations. Globally women carry a disproportionate strain from climate related issues while even in the UK, as an example, women travelling face issues of safety and practicality often ignored by transport planners.
Despite promises to ‘level-up’, recent reports confirm inequality is still growing. Dorset is not immune to these issues. Pockets of poverty exist, in 2015 there were 11 areas in Dorset within the top 20% most deprived nationally for multiple deprivation, this in the very same county that boasts one of the world’s most expensive real estate locations. Access to public transport is an issue of social justice, one that leads to Dorset households having to own and run more cars per household than the national average (see Travel Better chapter). Average salaries are nearly 10% below the UK average while average property prices are more than 10% above the UK average meaning the average house costs 13.5 times the average salary.
Figures produced before the recent dramatic increases in fuel prices indicated more than 34,000 households in Dorset were already struggling to pay their bills. According to Public Health Dorset around “351,700 people across the area are estimated to not spend enough money on food and non-alcoholic drinks each week in order to meet government's guidelines for a healthy diet. Looking at household types with children, 165,100 people are not spending enough to have a healthy diet”. In total they have identified 374,900 people at risk of food insecurity. Local data suggests around 1.5% of the population were accessing food banks before the pandemic. All of these factors highlight how addressing climate related issues will not be a priority for many of Dorset’s residents.
In an area of relatively low ethnic diversity it is disappointing that Dorset police had to issue a statement explaining why they had disproportionately stopped and searched people who identified themselves as black.
What can we do about it?
Many local groups are campaigning on social justice issues including the Dorset Equality Group and there are many local hubs for national campaigns. The Green New Deal (Dorset Hub) (see Policies chapter) directly campaigns to address both the climate crisis and issues of social inequality.
As with Global Justice, the relevance of social justice for this report is the need to ensure these factors are included in plans to address the climate and ecological emergency. We need to ensure those in affected communities are explicitly included in developing plans, particularly those that will be directly impacted, those who are currently marginalised and those below 30 who will face the worst of the current social challenges (the first generation in centuries who will not be ‘better-off’ than their parents who will also witness the most dramatic changes to our planet’s climate).
The future of work
The requirement for a ‘just transition’ was discussed under Climate Justice above. However, beyond the issues of replacement work for those directly affected by the transition away from fossil fuels, there are interconnected issues that could affect many more workers. Reports over the past decade have highlighted the growth of low wage work [2] (particularly in the hospitality and care sectors), and how this is exacerbating, rather than helping the so called ‘levelling-up agenda’. With changes in life style and an aging population the growth in these sectors is likely to continue. While policies, such as the Green New Deal, recognise care work as ‘green jobs’ and calls for them to be recognised and rewarded accordingly, mass low-paid work creates significant implications for society. As a local economy which features both tourist activity and an aging population, Dorset will remain at the forefront of places facing these issues. Meanwhile, at the same time as we try to create a truly sustainable world, we will also need to address the impacts of increasing automation and artificial intelligence.
Given all these factors, many are now asking whether our whole attitude to work needs to be rethought; after all the 9 to 5 hasn’t been the means of producing life’s goods and necessities for ever or everywhere. Equally, aligned to truly living sustainably, we need to ask difficult questions about more than just the transition away from fossil fuels: Do we really need everything we make? Can we make things that last longer so we don’t have to keep replacing them? Do we need to employ people to convince us we need to buy more of what we don’t need? Answers to these lead to more questions about how we share the work that does remain, how we ensure everyone ‘makes a living’ and how we pay for everything. This is not an area we have sought to answer here but, to leave these out of the wider debate would be disingenuous.
Along with most of the other aspects of justice, a fair and proper resolution will only be found if those directly affected are directly engaged in developing the solutions.
Who owns what, who pays what?
If we delay implementing solutions to the climate crises, reports [2] have shown that the costs of attempting to do so later will rise exponentially, potentially leaving an intergenerational legacy that will dwarf the perceived worries over current sovereign debt. Yet, despite this evidence, there has been a reluctance to take the necessary action. When the common narrative for at least 40 years has been that the economy and markets must take precedence and all other issues will ultimately be resolved (‘a rising tide lifts all boats’), we need to ask why haven’t western governments and the markets seized this opportunity. Part of the answer may lie in the power of vested interests.
At COP26 it was noted that there were more delegates associated with the fossil fuel industry than any single country! Fossil fuel companies have consistently spent millions lobbying politicians not least in the US where fossil fuel funds can be seen to directly affect the attitudes and outcomes of elections. Recent events in the UK concerning MPs second jobs and cash for access scandals suggests we aren’t immune to these issues. Along with the influence of a billionaire owned media there are serious questions to be asked about the health of our democracy and whether this is capable of standing up to the vested interests who are delaying action on climate.
One area left unresolved from COP26 is the issue of loss and damage. Despite the predominant news coverage about ‘watering-down’ of proposals made by India (to ‘phase down’ not ‘phase out’ coal) in many commentators minds the most significant watering down came at the behest of the US and other wealthy nations who still haven’t agreed the mechanism by which poorer, more vulnerable countries will receive financial assistance to deal with the loss and damage caused by climate changes not of their own making. On the back of failing to deliver a pledge of $100bn made in 2010[7] to help developing countries address climate change, the agreement to roll discussions forward to COP27 in Egypt was seen by many as another example of richer nations not living up to their promises.
During the pandemic, as in times of war, the usual notion that governments cannot simply spend what they want was proved to be a false one. Organisations such as Positive Money and the New Economics Foundation (NEF) have long argued that our banking and finance systems can be repurposed to work more effectively for society as a whole; addressing the climate crisis and many of society’s issues. NEF in particular have published extensive research on how to finance a Green New Deal and other programmes. The People’s Green New Deal Early Day Motion specifically calls for “raising taxes on the richest 5 per cent of earners and large corporations, while introducing a windfall tax on corporations who have made excessive profits during the covid-19 pandemic and a crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion.”
Leading climate scientist James Hansen has long argued for a carbon tax and dividend scheme. This is different to most taxes in that the funds raised (in this case by putting a fee on all fossil fuel emissions at the point they enter the market e.g. at the refinery) are distributed to all citizens through a dividend. This would be paid equally to every adult (with an allowance for children) enabling poorer families to meet the resulting increases in basic costs while penalizing those who use excessive amounts of fossil fuels. With the fee rising each year it is anticipated that individuals will do everything they can to switch away from fossil fuel use, with alternatives becoming comparatively cheaper. Some 3,623 US economists have declared a carbon tax to be “the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed necessary” while many Republicans have offered support as the ‘dividend’ element negates the usual anti-tax arguments. The approach has supporters in the UK but has not to date been as high profile as it is in the US.
We have discussed the critical role of land in this report, both directly in the Land Use and Eat Well chapters, and indirectly when considering issues such as where renewable energy technology can be installed. How we optimise the land available to us, to meet all these requirements, will of course depend on the attitudes of those who own it. This may be problematic when, according to Who Owns England, ten landowners own one-sixth of the county (likely much more than that in terms of land available to use for some of the solutions we have set out in this report). While it may not surprise many that the National Trust is the largest owner and Richard Drax MP the second, among the remaining owners are an American billionaire, offshore holdings belonging to the Marquess of Salisbury and Daily Mail owner Viscount Rothermere. While the National Trust have made some very positive moves with respect to climate change and issues of historic injustice, it seems unlikely the remainder will act in a similar manner. Issues of the rights of current owners are difficult to address but without some significant changes there may be barriers to just how much we can make happen in Dorset.