by: Suki Weckert

The effects of climate change can be felt everywhere by now, be it the rising temperatures or the increase in extreme weather phenomena like drought, floods, and thunderstorms. But while politics in industrialised nations often still concern themselves with the decline of the standard of living and the catastrophic effects that are to be expected if the climate isn’t protected, poorer countries and hotspots of the devastating effects of climate change are subjected to devastating conditions already.

If ‘environmental justice’ is the fair treatment of everyone when it comes to environmental issues, ‘environmental discrimination’ refers to discrimination against certain individuals and groups, especially when it comes to the exposure to environmental hazards (Clarkin, 2023).

Environmental discrimination can be found nationally and internationally. On a national scope, there is evidence that hazards like toxic waste dumps or factories are likely to be pushed towards underprivileged areas (Judy, 2018). In addition, many minorities are protected less well, because they have less access to resources and often can’t adapt (Judy, 2018). It makes sense that you can’t move away from a toxic waste dump if you can’t afford the rent in a less hazardous area. It also makes sense that you can’t mobilize legal support if you can’t pay a lawyer. Laws to ensure and intentions toward a more equal treatment of people exist, but in practice claiming one’s due is hard to manage, since to win a case, proof of a discriminatory intent (which is hard to get) is usually required (Ahlers, 2016). While new decisions for example in America also allow to make a case based on disparate impact regardless of intention, the legal system makes it difficult to sue, by limiting the rights of private people to make cases (Ahlers, 2016, Judy, 2018).

On an international level, the situation looks even worse. While people in industrialised nations get to relish the positive economic impacts of an economic system that’s causing climate change in the first place, inhabitants of developing countries experience most of the drawbacks (Simms, 2001). In 2001 96% of all deaths from natural disasters occurred in developing countries (Simms, 2001), a figure that’s tough to swallow, and the situation kept and keeps on worsening with climate change advancing. Not only are these countries less well protected from and more affected by climate change, they also are the least contributors. 

Cynically, while many developing countries are struggling to repay debts to industrialised nations who contribute most to climate change, they have to spend lots of money on mitigating the effects of climate disasters (Simms, 2001). In addition, climate disasters often affect less developed countries where it hurts most, the sustenance sector. Drought, floods, heatwaves, wildfires – all pose a threat to subsistence farming, a sector of the economy on which developing countries tend to rely on, weakening them further (Chambwera and Stage, 2010). 

As always when it comes to mobilizing a political will to protect the climate, a growing awareness of what is at stake is needed, but moreover we need to be aware of what is already being lost. Although everybody has an equal claim on global commons like air, water, health, and a clean environment, these commons are distributed most unevenly, nationally as well as internationally. The fight for environmental justice has long moved past a discussion about possible negative effects. The effects have arrived, and the loss of lives and skills can’t be priced.

As always, we should keep in mind that history shows that a system change is possible and emphasise that equality and a preservation of the environment we all need to survive are non-negotiable. Measures must be taken to mitigate the immediate effects of environmental discrimination and to initiate a long-term revaluation of our economic goals and understanding of entitlement to global commons.

Environmental racism is tough to prove, but making equity a defined part of the planning process for environmental hazards could lead to more environmental justice (Ahlers, 2016, Judy, 2018). In addition, the creation of rights to sue and setting up oversight bodies that check for environmental discrimination could have a positive effect (Judy, 2018).

Further, to appreciate the disparate impact of the effects of climate change, economic assessment and planning must be tailored to a country’s economic situation, which varies greatly between industrialised nations and developing countries. To do so, distortions, like not valuing environmental costs (Simms, 2001) or valuing the products of subsistence farming on a level that doesn’t appreciate their importance to an economy (Chambwera and Stage, 2010), have to be removed to appreciate the actual impact of climate disasters on a country.

A massive change of thinking is taking place when it comes to the question of who owes whom internationally. In a long-term process, developed countries must restructure their economies, not or not only developing countries. Like equity should be made a goal in land-planning, planning within the limits the environment presents us with must be embraced (Simms, 2001). In addition, expectations about economic growth must be lowered to a more realist level to be able to balance our environmental budget (Simms, 2001). After all, a clean environment which makes life possible and enjoyable shouldn’t be a privilege, but a human right.