The Epistemic Injustice of the Climate Emergency
“Four out of five African countries are unlikely to have sustainably managed water resources by 2030.”
World Meteorological Organisation
On Epistemic Injustice
In 2007 Miranda Fricker formulated the term ‘Epistemic Injustice’. A paper written by Byskov (2020) entitled ‘What Makes Epistemic Injustice an Injustice?’ states that Epistemic injustice refers to the concept that we as beings of knowledge can be discriminated against. This is due to the prejudices about the one who is speaking. These prejudices can be based on ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and social background. Much of the literature that has been produced since 2007 has been focused on what is an epistemic injustice epistemic instead of how and what makes an epistemic injustice an injustice. There are two types of Epistemic injustice that Fricker has identified.
The first is testimonial injustice. This occurs when more or less credibility is attributed to a statement that is not based on facts but the prejudices unrelated to whether or not the speaker or knower should be granted credibility. In terms of the climate emergency, those who are less credited would be groups or states that are more affected by the effects of the climate emergency. One such group is the Small Island Developing States.
The Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are a group of 38 UN states as well as 20 non-UN members of the United Nations regional commission that face economical, environmental, and social vulnerabilities. These states are located in the Atlantic, Caribbean, Pacific, Indian, and the South China Sea. An article by ODI entitled ‘Environmental Injustice for Small Island Developing States’ shares that the SIDS face more intense weather, loss of habitat and livelihood as well as sea-level rise. Despite the numerous conferences on climate change in relation to the SIDS, there is no set out agreement on the loss and financial plans for these SIDS.
The second form of injustice is hermeneutical injustice. This is when the collective knowledge of a group of people is being unrepresented or marginalised experiences which can affect their ability to make sense of their experiences. The author states that the lack of a conceptual framework is what makes this type of injustice exactly so. Indigenous groups are increasingly at risk of their way of life being under threat. These threats can be traced to the effects of climate change. An article published by Cultural Survival states that the Yanomami, an indigenous group who inhabit the vast areas of forests between the border of Brazil and Venezuela are one such group under threat. They live through fishing, hunting and fruit gathering of the surrounding land. These lands are under threat due to floods, droughts, wildfires and more. This group holds little to no responsibility for the effects of the climate emergency as their livelihood has never contributed to this emergency.
In an article entitled ‘Epistemic Injustice in Climate Adaptation’, Byskov & Hymans state that due to the irreversible effect of the climate emergency, it is imperative to continue to develop responsible legislation and policies. Because indigenous people are vulnerable to climate change, it is important that these policies are developed to empower these communities to help them adapt to the climate emergency. The authors argue that epistemic injustice against indigenous people in relation to climate change legislation is an epistemic injustice because it correlates with both of Fricker’s (2007) works on Epistemic Injustice and the three additional conditions that Byskov (2020) identifies in his paper entitled ‘What Makes Epistemic Injustice an Injustice?’.
Byskov & Hymans cite that Oviedo & Fincke (2009) state that indigenous people are more vulnerable to climate change for many reasons. One of the reasons is that indigenous communities are dependent on their land for their way of life. Any changes that take place on their land because of the climate emergency impact them heavily. This can lead to impacts in other areas of their communities. One of these is the loss of their ancestral homes. This can have a negative impact on the spirituality of these communities as they are torn away.
What does science tell us?
Alongside these articles, science has been telling us for over 100 years that the effects of climate change are very much happening. In an article by The Guardian in October 2022 entitled ‘The Climate Crisis? We’ve Been Investigating it for More Than 100 Years.’, The Guardian and The Observer state that although the climate emergency is a problem of the 21st century, these two newspapers have been investigating the earlier manifestations of climate change. One of the articles from 1988 spoke of the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming. Another article written in the same year spoke of how much of the planet would be made miserable because of climate change within the next fifty years. Today in places such as the SIDS we can see the impacts more clearly. An article by the World Bank focuses on how these SIDS are facing challenges when it comes to a rise in sea level. The rate of sea level rise has affected their homes and roads. Alongside this are the legal implications: as the sea rises so does the peril of their territorial rights. Places such as the Marshall Islands are being flooded due to the sea-level rise. This has raised questions related to internal and external migration.
An article by NASA showed the rate of warming from 1880 to 2021 by four different institutions. This shows the human made impact of the burning of fossil fuels as being the main contributor of the burning of the Earth’s oceans and the warming of the planet’s oceans.
Human Rights and the Climate Emergency
The High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) states that climate change impacts a variety of human rights both directly and indirectly. As well as this, state actors have an obligation to prevent and lessen the effects as well as ensure that civilians have the ability to adapt to this crisis. With this in mind, the OHCHR created 10 considerations that should be taken into account during climate action. Climate change has a wide variety of impacts on human rights; from self-determination, basic needs such as food and water, as well as the right to life. The OHCHR states that despite frameworks in place, there has been a failure in preventing climate change and in some cases even being counterproductive in mitigating these effects. This includes people and communities that are the most marginalised. A key point from this document is the ‘Declaration on the Right to Development’. This declaration states that the right to develop is an inalienable human right and that states have a duty to take steps to create policies on international development. Some of the SIDS have changed their focus from attempting to enlist larger emitters to reduce their emissions to instead focus on reducing their vulnerability to climate change. The government of Fiji has been working with the World Bank to better create plans for mitigation the effects of climate change. This includes creating resilient infrastructure to better withstand tropical storms.
On the subject of equity
An article published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) states the devastation in continents such as Africa due to the climate emergency and how it will only get worse if unacted upon. The IMF states that scientists predict long term weather effects and continued disasters that could destroy more lives and societies. This will be made worse if emissions are not controlled by 2030, then climate change could be self-perpetuating. The IMF states that while around 140 countries (accounting for 91% of greenhouse emissions) aim to reduce this, reality does not show what is actually happening. The IMF revealed a bigger gap between policies on the targets of global climate targets. Current climate commitments would only reduce greenhouse gases by 11%.
The IMF continued by stating that simply mitigating climate change is no longer enough. Many countries have been steadily feeling the impact of climate change. Larger state economies contribute the most to this and while must cut back more on emissions, it is smaller states and their economy that is dealing with the brunt of the climate emergency.
The unfair impact
There have been many violations of human rights due to the climate emergency. An article written by The Guardian states that in the Northern Hemisphere, there has been a record number of droughts. These droughts have affected the production of crops, water and power shortages. Alongside this, the energy and food crisis has been made worse due to the Russian war in Ukraine.
Many countries are bearing the brunt of the climate emergency while contributing little to no emissions. The IMF stated that in some countries within Africa such as Ethiopia and Somalia, a drought can impact a country's economic growth potential by one percentage point. This would lead to a government revenue shortfall that the IMF equates to a tenth of the educational budget. Another article by the United Nations revealed that due to rainfall patterns that have been disrupted, many key lakes are vanishing. This in turn leads to water shortages alongside a lack of supplies. This could trigger conflicts and lead to more displacement. Despite the fact that Africa accounts for just 2-3% of all global greenhouse gases, it is one of the first to suffer the brunt of the climate emergency. By the year 2030, the stress due to water shortages will affect more than 250 million and it is estimated to displace more than 700 million.
A report published by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in September 2022 states that Africa’s climate has warmed more than the period of 1850-1900 or pre-industrial times. A rise in sea-level along African coastlines has progressed quicker than the global mean. This has led to a rise in coastal flooding, erosion and has in turn affected agriculture, ecosystems and biodiversity as stated by Professor Taalas the WMO secretary-general. As a result of these impacts, it is harder for Africa to meet their commitments regarding the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the African Union Agenda 2063.
Adding to this, an article published by the Washington Post states that despite ambitions of the international community to take action, the nations of the world have only shaved off 1% of the projected greenhouse emissions towards the 2030 agenda. This means that Earth will warm by 2.4 degrees celsius. This is especially felt in the horn of Africa, where for the fifth year in a row, the rainy season has failed and is already predicted to fail for the sixth time. This has led to a mass crisis of hunger in many of the countries. An independent scientific analysis that is known as the Climate Action Tracker monitors government climate action and how it compares with the globally agreed Paris agreement. The Climate Action Tracker is a collaboration between Climate Analytics and New Climate Institute. You can read more about the countries that it monitors and their performance here.
From the above data, how can small states and their developing economies be expected to support themselves under the harsh reality that the climate emergency presents? What is clear is that developed economies need to carry more of the weight that the climate emergency presents.