A Fair Race to Paris?
Sanna Markkanen, Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership
In the past four years, Paris has made the headlines in two very contradictory contexts. In 2015, the city hosted the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21), which culminated in the adoption of the Paris Agreement — a global commitment to keep global temperature rise well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels (and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C). Three years later, in November 2018, riots erupted across Paris as the ‘gilets jaunes’ (yellow vests) took to the streets to protest against the ‘unfairness’ of a proposed climate change mitigation policy measure.
The story of Paris highlights some of the complexities around climate change mitigation policies. The push for more ambitious emission reduction targets sits alongside growing concerns over how to protect vulnerable populations and reduce rather than exacerbate social inequalities. During the 2018 COP24 in Katowice, the need for a just transition emerged as one of the main challenges for climate policy.
Following the publication of the IPCC Special Report (2018), we now have a reasonably clear idea about how much global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions need to be cut to keep global warming to well below 2°C. We also have a mechanism, through the UNFCCC, to monitor progress towards the Paris Agreement goals. What we do not have is a solid understanding of how to deliver on the Paris Agreement in a way that is fair, just and efficient, and does not hinder the efforts to achieve social and economic development objectives, particularly for developing countries. To address this knowledge gap, one thing that is needed is better awareness of how we could use climate change mitigation policies to alleviate existing inequalities for a just transition and development.
Policies are needed to meet the Paris targets, but no policy exists in isolation, and the impact of any given policy may not be restricted to its intended outcome. Policies can have positive or negative unintended consequences (co-benefits or adverse side effects). These side effects can be highly complex in nature and difficult to estimate and assess. A better understanding of the processes involved will be essential to avoiding vocal opposition from those who stand to lose out. As countries ratchet up their ambition on climate, the question of how to reduce emissions equitably has become more important than ever.
”Social impacts of climate change mitigation policies and their implications for inequalities” addresses this knowledge gap by providing an easily accessible synthesis of the various types of social impacts from climate change mitigation policies. The paper draws on over 200 studies from various disciplines and geographical regions to show how climate change mitigation policies can impact on individuals, households, communities and societies, and how policy design and coordinated policy implementation can be used to maximize the various co-benefits while minimizing undesirable adverse side-effects. The study also looks at how climate change mitigation policies can (often inadvertently) exacerbate or improve existing inequalities. Many inequality outcomes emerge through chain reactions. Policies with climate objectives, such as electrification of transport and building energy efficiency improvements, can positively impact on the health, well-being and economic circumstances of disadvantaged households who are most likely to live in poor-quality housing, in inner cities and close to motorways. Similarly, well-designed extensions to existing public transport networks can provide better opportunities for low-income households who are less likely to own private cars. In rural regions of developing countries, improved energy access through renewable energy technologies can have far-reaching consequences, including improved productivity, better health, and reduced workload, especially among women. These are only some examples of how climate change mitigation policies can reduce wealth, health and gender inequalities by improving the situation of the most disadvantaged households and improving women’s access to education and income-generating activities.
On the other hand, policies that raise the cost of basic consumer goods, such as food and energy, can increase inequalities as poorer households spend a greater proportion of their disposable income on such essentials. Forest protection initiatives that reduce locals’ access to natural resources but fail to provide them with paid employment opportunities can negatively affect communities who inhabit the forested regions and depend on access to the forests for their livelihood. Policies that result in large-scale job losses, such as the closure of coal mines, can destroy entire communities and economies.
The analysis shows that most policies can have both co-benefits and adverse side-effects that can compound or lessen inequalities. Although certain contextual factors that increase social risks can be identified, it is impossible to prevent all adverse side effects. However, conscious effort, careful planning, and multi-stakeholder engagement may reduce the risk considerably. For example, mapping out career transition pathways to workers who stand to lose their jobs before any job losses occur can drastically reduce both public opposition to a proposed policy and negative impact on the local economy.
Each mitigation policy must be considered within its own national and sectoral context, yet the analysis found general trends that could guide “just transition” mitigation policies. Inclusive, pro-poor approaches and strategic thinking in policy design can help to reduce existing inequalities. This involves extensive stakeholder consultation and carefully considering how the most vulnerable groups may be affected at all stages of policy making, including policy planning, development and implementation — and mitigating any negative impacts before they emerge.
In summary, as the process to enhance countries’ commitments to further decarbonize kicks off in 2019, the need to find equitable ways to reduce emissions is growing. The distributional impacts of climate policies as well as engagement with vulnerable populations are key to public acceptance and then successful implementation. By following the few simple rules outlined in the previous paragraph, policy makers can help to ensure that climate policy does not unduly impact on vulnerable populations. Most of all, climate policy must be considered in the context of wider sustainable development, in both the social and environmental sense.
Sanna Markkanen is a Research Associate at the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL), Cambridge University. Sanna has over a decade of post-doctoral research experience in policy research. Her most recent work focuses on climate change mitigation policy and the financing of sustainable energy infrastructure.
This think piece is part of the Just Transition(s) Online Forum and draws on a paper by Sanna Markkanen and Annela Anger-Kraavi (2019) ‘Social impacts of climate change mitigation policies and their implications for inequality’. Views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of her organization, the JTRC or its partner organizations.
