Bringing just transitions to bear on decarbonization and adaptation strategies

5 min read

Matters of equity and justice are increasingly central to climate policy and finance. As highlighted last month, environmental justice (EJ) took center stage as one of the official event themes at both Climate Week NYC and the parallel NYC Frontline Climate Week. Across both venues, participants called for greater consideration of environmental justice problems in climate action, and for the inclusion of vulnerable communities who have been hit first and hardest by climate impacts in decision-making for decarbonization. As one group emphasized, “There is No Just Transition without Us.”

The idea of a just transition is subject to different interpretations of a vague principle: we should maximize the benefits arising from climate action, while minimizing the disproportionate impacts for vulnerable groups of people, primarily workers, communities and consumers. The labor movement traditionally advocated for just transition agreements to ensure support for workers impacted by coal plant closures, specifically by negotiating employment restoration and compensation benefits.^[1] However, in recent years, just transition advocacy has widened to feature a diverse array of groups. Consumer advocates and community-based EJ organizations have become leading voices for just transitions involving low-carbon industries and technologies—from extractive industries including natural gas and critical mineral producers, to carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS), to carbon dioxide removal (CDR), to solar, wind, hydrogen and other energy transition technologies. Whereas some of these JT advocates seek to maximize potential local benefits for workers, businesses and residents, (e.g. increased economic opportunities, access to clean energy, benefit- or revenue-sharing), others spotlight the potential for negative impacts (e.g. environmental pollution and any associated adverse health impacts; land use conflicts; declining property values; rising cost of living impacts, and more) and demand consideration of alternative climate action.

There are also several prominent voices advocating for just transitions in climate adaptation. Climate justice has always been a central feature of adaptation discussions in global climate talks and agreements. However, the more recent adoption of just transitions discourse in climate adaptation governance focuses more intently on how adaptive actions can improve human rights, ensure basic infrastructure, and tackle the structural inequalities that undermine resilience to extreme weather and long-term climatic changes.

At SFI, researchers are beginning to investigate a diversity of “just transition” initiatives tied to both decarbonization and adaptation projects. The overarching aim of this research will be to contribute new analytical tools and frameworks to improve capabilities in conceptualizing, negotiating and financing just transition planning and programs.^[2] Our initial focus will be to develop a set of case studies selected in collaboration with strategic partners and other Stanford students and researchers, for which SFI will drill down into the Who-What-How of just transitions for both climate mitigation and adaptation: Who is involved? What is the vision? How will it be funded?

Who is involved and what is envisioned? Despite growing calls for just transitions, there is little consensus on what they should achieve. Just transition plans are emerging at different scales and in diverse geographies, with different stakeholders being asked to implement programs because they are key enablers of climate action—including companies, project developers, governments, investors, regulators, and philanthropic organizations. These actors must invariably partner with vulnerable or marginalized communities, labor and non-governmental organizations, and other groups advocating for just transitions to define the desired scope, goals and outcomes. Moreover, as research on place-based just transitions and various philanthropic initiatives (e.g. Ford and Hewlett) demonstrate, the local voices impacted by transition or adaptation plans often need to be empowered to participate through sound consultation procedures. At the same time, JT programs require authoritative decision-making structures to reconcile divergent views about whether a particular decarbonization/adaptation project will generate a “fair” distribution of positive versus negative impacts.

SFI research will shed new light on these emergent consultation and planning processes; the unique constellations of public/private/local actors involved; and, the forms of political and institutional legitimacy required for JT planning processes to deliver as intended. Key questions include: Who has access to decision-making about the program’s scope, scale, content and desired outcomes? What are the best practices, tools and procedures for structuring partnerships, program design and implementation? What accountability mechanisms are required to ensure a just transition program advances the desired forms of justice?

How will it be funded? Just transition programs cannot succeed without adequate funding for place-based priorities. Prominent national and intergovernmental efforts to transition fossil fuel workers into clean energy communities demonstrate the power of public funds to achieve just transition goals (e.g. Germany’s “Coal Commission” in 2018, Spain’s Just Transition Strategy in 2019, the US 2022 Inflation Reduction Act’s investment incentives for “energy communities,” the EU Just Transition Fund). Less clear is whether and how private finance can be “unlocked” for just transition purposes. As illustrated by the Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) announced at COP26 in Glasgow, efforts to devise new financing paradigms involving concessional and commercial loans for just, low-carbon energy transitions in the Global South have fallen short of their commitments ($8.5 billion to South Africa, $15.5 billion to Vietnam, and $20 billion to Indonesia). In addition, whether funds come from the public, philanthropic, or private sectors, fundamental tensions arise regarding how to ensure resources are used efficiently and accountability. In short, just transition funding must deliver benefits for vulnerable communities without compromising the speed and scale of decarbonization and adaptation actions. SFI researchers aim to contribute to the design and implementation of innovative policy tools and financial instruments to support JT funding strategies.

The first stage of this research will involve case study research to analyze optimal funding strategies for just transition programs using public, private, and philanthropic funding. Here, we aim to generate insights that will guide financial and other critical resources needed to support just transition goals, in a manner that is accountable to those seeking justice, without compromising the need for efficiency and effectiveness in delivering climate action.

To build case studies that address both sets of questions, SFI researchers will draw upon critical social science methods and the practical insights of those working to advance just transitions in order to develop analytical tools and practices that can support the design and implementation of just transition outcomes. Ultimately, we endeavor to help those ensure just transition financing and programming is accountable to vulnerable populations on the frontlines of energy transitions and climatic changes, without compromising the need for effective and efficient climate action. 

Endnotes

[1] Hampton, P. (2015) Workers and Trade Unions for Climate Solidarity: Tackling Climate Change in a Neoliberal World. London, Routledge. Stevis, D. and Felli, R. Global labour unions and just transition to a green economy, International environmental agreements: politics, law and economics, 15 (1): 29-43. Thomas, A. (2021) ‘Framing the just transition: How international trade unions engage with UN climate negotiations’, Global Environmental Change, 70, p. 102347. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102347.

[2] FoE (2017) Just Transition: Is a just transition to a low-carbon economy possible within safe global carbon limits? London: Friends of the Earth. Available at: https://friendsoftheearth.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/just_transition.pdf. Barnes, J. (2022) ‘Divergent desires for the just transition in South Africa: An assemblage analysis’, Political Geography, 97, p. 102655. Murphy, S.P., Cannon, S. and Walsh, L. (2022) ‘Just transition frames: Recognition, representation, and distribution in Irish beef farming’, Journal of Rural Studies, 94, pp. 150–160.