We’re going back to basics. In a new series of explainer articles, we’ll return to some of the key ideas and issues underlying our work to reduce the art sector’s environmental impact. This week, we’re exploring a key concept that connects the climate crisis to other environmental, social, ethical, and political issues.

The climate crisis isn’t just about the climate.

The history behind global heating, the impacts of the changing climate across the world, and our plans for transitioning to a fossil-free society touch on a complex web of other environmental, social, ethical, political, and justice issues.

‘Climate justice’ means paying attention to how these issues intersect.

At root, climate justice acknowledges two basic ideas:

·  The world’s wealthiest countries have historically contributed much more to the environmental crisis than the world’s poorest.

·  The impacts of climate change affect some communities much more than others—and those who are worst affected are often the least responsible.

The concept of climate justice isn’t new: grassroots movements, often led by global majority communities, Indigenous communities, women, disabled people, and youth, have been campaigning on climate justice issues for many years. In 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) formally recognised the inequalities that lie behind the causes and impacts of climate change.

Climate justice makes the case that the world’s wealthiest countries have contributed the most to the current environmental crisis, and so have a greater responsibility to take action.

Some countries and regions, mainly in the Global North, are responsible for a disproportionate level of emissions, both historically and in the present day. These so-called ‘developed’ countries have benefited unequally from colonialism, imperialism, extraction, and exploitation.

The Carbon Map gives a clear visualisation of how some parts of the world have emitted vastly more CO2 than others since 1850. Europe and the United States have released around half of all CO2 ever emitted.

Because climate change is driven by the accumulation of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere over time, historical emissions show us who has contributed the most to the current climate crisis.

Research by Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) found that the richest 10% of the world’s population were responsible for 53% of cumulative emissions. Meanwhile, the poorest 50% were responsible for just 7%.

Importantly, the IPCC and Oxfam both argue that this extreme gap is the result of systems of colonialism, patriarchy, and income and wealth inequality.

There’s also a generational element to climate justice: young people, and generations yet to be born, have contributed the least to historic emissions, but will suffer the effects the most.

So how can we address this?

Climate justice holds that, because some countries and communities have contributed so much more to the total cumulative emissions, they also have the greater responsibility to act. This concept can be called ‘common but differentiated responsibility’.

It’s also important to take into account how different countries and communities have different abilities to take action, and to acknowledge that many wealthy countries continue to consume, extract and emit at far higher rates than others.

In practice, climate justice could mean that wealthier countries with more historical responsibility should commit to decarbonising as rapidly as possible, while supporting countries with less responsibility for emissions to make their own reductions. This could be through things like carbon budgets, or compensation and reparations, like the ‘Loss and Damage’ fund proposed at COP27.

The concept of climate justice also acknowledges that different people, communities, countries, and regions are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change and the transition to a fossil-free world.

In its sixth assessment report, the IPCC argued that colonialism, inequity, marginalisation, and patterns of socioeconomic development have driven this gap in vulnerability.

Climate change is also a ‘threat multiplier’: this means that the effects of climate change can multiply existing issues, including sexism, racism, ableism, health inequalities, poverty, and political instability.

What does this mean for the visual arts?

Climate justice is a vast topic, and it can be easy to feel overwhelmed. But, at its simplest, climate justice simply means embedding justice in our climate action.

In the visual arts sector, there are many practical ways to embed climate justice. GCC’s Best Practice Guidelines on Climate Justice provide some ideas on what a justice-centred approach to climate action in the visual arts might look like, and suggest some areas for action. Julie’s Bicycle has also curated a Creative Climate Justice Hub for the arts and culture community.

For those of us in wealthier countries in the Global North with more access to the resources required for decarbonisation, one action could be to set ambitious emissions reductions targets—for example, aiming for 70% rather than 50% reductions by 2030.

Beyond emissions reductions, other actions could include complying with international labour standards and supporting workers’ rights; moving away from financial models that support fossil fuel extraction; developing an ethical finance and fundraising policy; and collaborating and sharing resources.

The arts and culture sector has a unique role to play by using its global platform and reach to connect with audiences. Programming that addresses climate justice issues can also raise awareness of these important topics.

By acknowledging the root inequalities of the climate crisis, and working to address them in everything we do, everyone in the visual arts sector can play their part to ensure a just future.